Anthropogenic Global Warming is Bunk Science

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#1
Here we are at the end of 2008. Take a look at the data from 4 temperature sources over the last 8 years, including a linear regression of those last 8 years:



The last 8 years of data show NO WARMING.

There is no global warming! Repeat it to yourself over and over, because it is true!

THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!

Data proves this!


RMT
 

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#4
looks like 2007 was hotter than 2002. and it looks like it was hotter, earlier.
2007 represents a single data point in the time series of a closed-loop, thermodynamic cycle.

Do you understand linear regression, how it works, and why it is so important in time-based analysis?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_regression#Applications_of_linear_regression

"Linear regression is widely used in biological, behavioral and social sciences to describe possible relationships between variables. It ranks as one of the most important tools used in these disciplines."

and

<font color="black"> "A trend line represents a trend, the long-term movement in time series data after other components have been accounted for. It tells whether a particular data set (say GDP, oil prices or stock prices) have increased or decreased over the period of time." [/COLOR]

This, coupled with the dataset shown in the graph, shows that the trend in temperatures has been down since 2000.

RMT
 

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#5
I have an even more in depth webbie--that I am pretty sure you know about Ray.

But i will post it anyway..

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

In fact, he actually has a historical representation on a graph from 1810..enjoy.
Thanks Kanigo. I know Anthony's blog quite well, you are right. He has more than catalogued all the reasons why AGW is da bunkum...Gore's new religion.

RMT
 

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#7
lol, interesting indeed...

//dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/11/07/climate-change-warming.html
So some questions for you:

1) Do you believe this?
2) Would you cease to believe it if you were shown additional data that contradicted it?
3) Do you believe what Al Gore is telling the world?

RMT
 

ruthless

Well-known member
Jan 18, 2007
2,648
49
48
#8
"Do you believe this?"

well, i hope its true. im all for warm weather.

"Would you cease to believe it if you were shown additional data that contradicted it?"

ummm... does it really matter that much?

"Do you believe what Al Gore is telling the world?"

last time i heard anything about gore, he was running for president.

i just think its funny how scientists dont agree on facts. :)
 

My_Time

New member
Sep 11, 2008
265
0
0
The West (your East)
#9
Firstly I will state that I am no more than an interested layman on this.

I suspect though that the issue of global warming/cooling is a bit more complex than a single graph showing 8 years worth of data. While that graph shows a downward trend it is also a fact that the polar regions are melting.

I think I'll do a bit more reading and join this thread again later. :)
 

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#10
I suspect though that the issue of global warming/cooling is a bit more complex than a single graph showing 8 years worth of data.
Precisely why the IPCC's climate models should undergo rigorous Verification, Validation, and Accreditation (which they have not). I have plenty of data that shows their climate models are just plain wrong... especially since they used their models in the late 90s to predict the "hockey stick" temperature trend... and it never manifested. That right there would indicate we should be suspicious of their predictions of unchecked "Anthropocentric Global Warming".

For me, I am all about debating what the data says... the conclusions that some people come to vs. others. IPCC (back by the UN and a bunch of bureaucrats) claims the warming trend (which is no more) is caused by people and us liberating more and more CO2. There are other scientists who point to the clear correlation between solar cycles and warming/cooling trends. The IPCC not only disagrees that the sun is the largest impactor of our global weather, they even refuse to address the solar-temp data I am talking about.

While that graph shows a downward trend it is also a fact that the polar regions are melting.
Interesting point. Check out this article on that topic from Anthony Watt's pages:

Sunlight has more powerful influence on ocean circulation and climate than North American ice sheets

It speaks directly to what I am saying that it is the Sun not mankind that is "behind global warming." When you look at ALL the data, not just the data the IPCC uses to make its (weak) case, you will see that we cannot really control global warming cycles. The sun is in charge!

RMT
 

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#11
"Would you cease to believe it if you were shown additional data that contradicted it?"

ummm... does it really matter that much?
What "the masses" believe could very well affect everyone's lives. If you buy into a lie, it is usually because someone in power somewhere wants you to believe it. Did you know that Al Gore owns a part of a company that would become much more wealthy if his idea of "carbon caps and trading" was adopted? So... doesn't he really have a big conflict of interest?

i just think its funny how scientists dont agree on facts.
It is not the "facts" (data) they are disagreeing about. It is the inferred conclusions they come to based on the facts. One side (the IPCC and Al Gore) claim "the time for debate is over" or "the science is settled....mankind is the cause behind global warming." The other side says "but the data (facts) show a strong correlation between warming (and cooling) to solar cycles."

One group appears to only want to look at part of the data. The other groups wants to look at ALL OF THE DATA. Here are some troubling words that come from the report from which the graphic in my original post came from:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/monckton-global_warming_has_stopped.pdf

"Chameides' graph overleaf appears to have been tampered with to exclude the very rapid
cooling that occurred between 2007 (the curve stops in January 2007, when a strong el
Nino artificially but temporarily boosted temperatures) and 2008. The fall in temperatures
between January 2007 and January 2008, carefully not shown on Chameides' graph, was
the greatest January-January fall since records began in 1880.

Furthermore, Chameides's graph – instead of presenting a proper five-year running mean
– merely cherry-picks certain points on the running-mean graph (which is not itself
shown) so as to suggest, falsely, that global temperatures are still rising."


When you only include data that supports your belief, and carefully omit data that counters your belief, then you are guilty of a very unscientific offense called "confirmation bias". For a scientist to "cook the data" to tell a story that represents his personal belief is dangerous. It is what leads to people believing ridiculous (and unsupported) things, such as "9-11 was an inside job".

RMT
 

ruthless

Well-known member
Jan 18, 2007
2,648
49
48
#12
"There are other scientists who point to the clear correlation between solar cycles and warming/cooling trends. The IPCC not only disagrees that the sun is the largest impactor of our global weather, they even refuse to address the solar-temp data I am talking about."

i agree. i think that solar cycles make up for a big part of it. i think you should put some kind of solar intensity graph next to the other graph. i think there are also other factors involved, but in my opinion, the sun is the biggest culprit. a billion cars running every second of everyday doesent neccesarily help things out though.

let me ask you this: does your data account for pressure systems, cold fronts, wind chill/heat index, and stuff like that? the reason i ask is that because this time last year, it was a comfy 80 degrees. last night it was 40 degrees. i could say that the world must be cooling, but i'd be wrong. its just that a cold front came through and this time last year, it took until well after christmas to get here.

btw, even though i agree, i still think your a gigantic A-hole. :p
 

s19n

New member
Apr 6, 2008
38
0
0
#13
What "the masses" believe could very well affect everyone's lives.
True but can you honestly say that being in a downtown core breathing that air all day is preferable to being out in a middle of nowhere in the country? Combustion engine has to go. I hate Al Gore's lies, his technique, and the fact that they both work. But I'll look the other way while he does his thing unless I'm invested in one of the companies that is going to loose money because burning oil goes out of style ;-)
 

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#14
let me ask you this: does your data account for pressure systems, cold fronts, wind chill/heat index, and stuff like that?
Nope. And that is because it is "just data". What you are describing would be termed a "model". But your point is well taken, which is why a great many scientists and engineers are calling for the IPCC climate models to be properly vetted and validated against reality for a whole host of factors (not the least of which are climactic feedback effects...a big point of argument about the validity of their models).

btw, even though i agree, i still think your a gigantic A-hole.
Don't worry, it won't keep me awake at night! ;) And you know, you could always "put me in my place" by getting that degree.... that would "show me", now wouldn't it? :D

RMT
 

ruthless

Well-known member
Jan 18, 2007
2,648
49
48
#15
"Don't worry, it won't keep me awake at night! And you know, you could always "put me in my place" by getting that degree.... that would "show me", now wouldn't it?"

nah, thats a big waste of time. theres far easier ways to "show you." fortunately for me, i dont have time to waste on insignifigant things. now, back to the topic at hand.


"Nope. And that is because it is "just data".

you put the period outside of the quotation marks... :D OK, now i dont have time to waste on insignifigant things. :)

i agree that they should take into account all variables. but how can you be sure that you have made the correct assesment without all of the variables?

i would also suggest that you compare day/night temperatures of 1960-70 with 1998-08. i think it will tell an interesting story. i think it will say that nowadays there are hotter days and colder nights. i think it is from a partial loss of atmosphere. call it a hunch.
 

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#16
nah, thats a big waste of time.
That's too bad you say that. Folks who can't, or are too lazy, to get their degree often use this as a means of cover. Oh well.

i agree that they should take into account all variables. but how can you be sure that you have made the correct assesment without all of the variables?
Several answers here:

1) The major argument is about whether the globe, as a whole, is warming. Hence, we are more concerned about macroscopic and long-term effects, and temperature is the primary parameter that will either confirm, or deny, the speculations. As such, microcopic and short-term events such as weather patterns passing thru an area end up being averaged-out. (In fact, these short-term, variable events are what are responsible for a lot of the up-and-down, high frequency content you see in the data).
2) As you progress from a "single input/single output" model (again, make the distinction between just taking data and trying to model something) to multi-valued problems, the uncertainty goes way up. This means making conclusions WITHOUT a model that has been verified and validated is dangerous.
3) Summary: I am again stating that your concern is correct. But the answer to your concern is the domain of modeling. And you can't just build a model and issue your conclusions (which is what the IPCC and Al Gore are doing). You have to formally verify and validate that your model predicts reality by comparing your model predictions to what really happens. And so far, the IPCC climate models that predicted a linear temperature rise for the 2000-2020 time frame have been proven to be invalid. So the data clearly shows they are not properly taking everything into account, as you point out. Many climate experts have written papers explaining exactly where they believe the errors are, and it has to do with modeling feedback effects.

i would also suggest that you compare day/night temperatures of 1960-70 with 1998-08. i think it will tell an interesting story. i think it will say that nowadays there are hotter days and colder nights. i think it is from a partial loss of atmosphere. call it a hunch.
Hunches can be wrong. If we were experiencing "loss of atmosphere" (partial or not), we would see this in long term atmospheric pressure readings across the globe. It would be easy to detect. The atmosphere is essentially a closed pressure vessel. (This is why we teach atmospheric modeling in the very first, ARO 101 course). If pressure were "leaking" from the atmosphere, even by a relatively small amount, it would be very obvious.

But hey, I don't expect you to just trust me (seeing as how you think I am a giant A-hole). Take a read of what a Professor Emeritus in atmospheric science says about the whole AGW nonsense:

Over-Hyping of Green
By William M. Gray
The author is a Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University where he has worked since 1961. He holds a Ph.D. degree from the University of Chicago in Geophysical Science.

The US green movement is moving forward with its agenda to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) gas emissions. Colorado Governor Ritter has proposed various CO2 reduction measures. Many US state legislatures are beginning to mandate that various percentages of future electrical energy generated come from renewable energy sources. Renewable energy is currently much more expensive than traditional fossil fuel energy. Many cities and states across the US are starting to implement costly programs to reduce CO2 emissions. I doubt that the public is aware of the heavy economic penalties to be paid by efforts to substantially reduce CO2 gases. These CO2 reduction efforts are beginning to be made just at the time we must start to adjust to the serious economic problems associated with the recent severe stock market downturn.

There is little the US can do about reducing global CO2 amounts. China, India and other third world countries will not agree to limit their CO2 emissions. It is important for our country to maintain its vibrant and growing economy to have sufficient resources to invest in research on new energy sources and in further development of our, as yet untapped, domestic energy supplies. It is more important to make progress on reducing our dependence on foreign energy than reducing CO2. We should not let an organized cabal of environmentalists, government bureaucrats, and liberal media groups brainwash us into going in a direction not in our country's best interest.

I have been studying and teaching weather and climate for over 50 years and have been making real-time seasonal hurricane forecasts for a quarter-century. I and many of my colleagues with comparable experience do not believe that CO2 gas emissions are anywhere near the threat to global climate as the environmental and liberal media groups have led us to believe. Most people are not aware of how flimsy are the physical arguments behind the human-induced warming scenarios. There has yet to be a really open and honest scientific dialogue on this topic among our country's most experienced weather and climate experts. Most knowledgeable global warming skeptics have been ignored and/or their motives questioned. Many have been falsely tagged as tools of the fossil fuel industry – reminding me a bit of the McCarthy period. By contrast, those harping the loudest on the dangers of CO2, such as Al Gore, typically have little real understanding or experience in how the atmosphere and ocean really function.

The Global Climate Model (GCM) simulations by large US and foreign government laboratories and universities on which so much of the warming science scenarios are based have basic flaws. These global models are not able to correctly model the globe's small-scale precipitation processes. They have incorrectly parameterized the rain processes in their models to give an unrealistically warming influence from CO2 increases. These GCMs also do not properly model the globe's deep ocean circulation which appears to be the primary driving mechanism for most of the global temperature increases that have been observed. Most GCMs indicate that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 towards the end of the 21st century will lead to global warming of 2-5oC. My best estimate of global warming for a doubling of CO2 is about 0.3-0.5oC, 5-10 times less than the models estimate. These GCMs have yet to demonstrate predictive skill at forecasting the next few years of global temperature. Why should we believe their predictions 50 to 100 years in the future?

Many thousands of scientists from the US and around the globe do not accept the human-induced global warming hypothesis as it has been presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. The summary statements of the IPCC reports are strongly biased to upholding the human influence on climate. The IPCC summaries often do not conform to the material in the reports. Most known warming skeptics, such as myself and a number of my very experienced colleagues were never invited to participate in the IPCC process or even contacted by the IPCC for our views.

It is impossible to objectively separate the small amount of CO2 induced global warming that may have occurred from the large natural induced global temperature changes which are always occurring. There has been little global warming the last 10 years. Due to recent changes in the global ocean circulation that I and others foresee as the basin for a modest cooling of global temperature in the next 10-15 years. This would be similar to the global cooling that was experienced between the mid-1940s to mid-1970s.

Reducing atmospheric CO2 will not by itself solve any of the globe's many environmental problems. A slightly warmer globe due to CO2 increases would, in the net, likely be more beneficial to humankind than a slightly cooler globe. Crop and vegetation growth would be stimulated by higher amounts of atmospheric CO2. We should not allow ourselves to be stampeded into costly CO2 reduction programs of little or no real benefit but much economic detriment.


RMT
 

KerrTexas

Moderator
Staff member
May 13, 2004
2,730
123
63
Texas
#17
nah, thats a big waste of time ( getting a degree )
Trust me it not a waste of time. I'm approaching 50 and regret not getting one. Don't make the same mistake I did, Ruthless. It is far easier to obtain one when younger, than older. You never know what you might decide to do later on in your life, would be good to keep as many options open as possible.

Whats a couple of years of your time, as opposed to many years of regret ?

And, even if I got one now...most places I would "love" to work, would not hire me because I'm too old.

Another aspect to having a degree...I worked in the Home Improvement Industry for years as a sub-level manager...my bosses were pretty dumb...why they were my bosses ? Because they had a degree in "something", and were hired directly into the upper manager positions, and in the corporate positions, as well.

I also know for a fact, that the road of life is a bit more difficult without any "structured" higher education. There are those who make do without, but those numbers are rather small.
 

ruthless

Well-known member
Jan 18, 2007
2,648
49
48
#18
i appreciate your concern, but i doubt that i will ever get the chance to go to school. now ray may tell you that i can make all the excuses in the world, but its still my fault, but i will tell you that i have a choice to make.

i can decide to be a father to my two children and i can choose to try to help my mentally deranged wife through her "living dead girl" routine (she hasnt been home today and is surely out doing deconstructive things). OR i can say screw them and go get my education.

but the fact is, someone has to be there for the kids and my wife is not well off. she has attempted suicide before and at this time, she is very mentally unstable.

so where one man sees excuses, i see a choice.

i made a choice once that i was most important in my life. i finally told my mother that i was going to live my life and i was not going to help her with her problems anymore because it was an endless cycle of stupidity. i told her, "F you." and walked away with a box of clothes and nothing else.

now, i could do the same thing with my wife. i could go and get my box of clothes and leave again. i could go and live the life i dream of living. i could say to her, "im alive too woman. i have a life i want to live too." but i remember what happened with my mother. i never got to speak to her again. she was murdered/commited suicide... hell i dont know what happened, but now she is dead and i will always blame myself for that.

i couldve just ignored what you said to me, and i couldve wrote you this in a pm. but i made the decision to write it publicly and there is a reason. i appreciate the fact that people encourage me to go to school, but the problem is, it hurts more than it helps. i already want to go to school and if i had no morals, i would be in school. if i felt no overwhelming guilt everytime i told my wife, "screw you you cheating whore. its time for me to live my life." i would be in school.

i know that i cant keep on doing this forever, but i have to. it would be nice if i had help, but i know that everyone else in this world puts themselves first. so, from now until the day i die, i will do what i have been doing for the past ten years: pray that god makes it go all away and i can finally, for the first time in my life, live a normal life.

so, until i figure out a way to make it all ok, i will continue to try to reach out to people and i will continue to tell my story, hoping it makes a difference in someones life. maybe a wife or a husband will read this and realize how their spouse feels and they can finally have meaning in their marriage.

i will coninue to hope for the best and learn all i can in my spare time. that is all i can do.
 

KerrTexas

Moderator
Staff member
May 13, 2004
2,730
123
63
Texas
#19
I understand. I made an assumption that was incorrect, and for that assumption, I apologize.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with your choice, and my respect for you has grown exponentially.

There are lessons to be learned in all circumstances, and the lessons you are learning are of things that no school could ever teach.

In a way, I believe what you have expressed here and the way you have expressed it, demonstrates a type of man that is rare and the world could use more men like you.

I wish I could offer you more, however, all I have to give is my hand in friendship, and my prayers for you and your family.
 

ruthless

Well-known member
Jan 18, 2007
2,648
49
48
#20
thank you. not many people have said that to me and i appreciate it. its moments like these that keep me going, that fuels my fire.

thank you.
 
Apr 1, 2008
944
0
0
#21
All I know is from what I have been reading we are still suppose to have another ice age in the next 10,000 to 100,000 years and it is suppose to more more sever than past ice ages. So, by that point in time global warming may of just helped. And, we are going through another mass extinction
including plants as well as animals. Too bad I won,t live long enough to see how it all works out.
 
Jul 14, 2006
807
2
0
#22
I read something recently about a river of water beneath certain glaciers helping the large chunks move.Of course, just the weight of the ice will melt it underneath, but...

A possibility that occurs to me is that perhaps the crust of the Earth has been warming. This would accelerate the melting of the ice on rock, and probably raise ocean temperatures, but might not affect air temperatures.




"Don't know nothin' about the Middle Ages. I look at the pictures and turn the pages."
 
Dec 1, 2008
82
0
0
#23
The last 8 years of data show NO WARMING.

There is no global warming! Repeat it to yourself over and over, because it is true!

THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!

Data proves this!

RMT
The data proves nothing of the sort.

Given the large yearly fluctuations in the graph, it is clear that the observed short-term "trend" doesn't prove anything. It might be the result of short-term noise and nothing else.

You might want to try and do a rigorous statistical analysis on this one. Make a null hypothesis, such as "global warming is less than +0.02C/year" and calculate the confidence level. Your exact results will depend on your exact assumptions, but there is no way you'll reach anything over 95%. And this is simply not enough to cause us to disregard a full century of data, which clearly demonstrates that global warming was real in the past 100 years.

The only debatable point here, is whether this warming was caused by human greenhouse emissions or by something else. But does it really matter? For curiosity's sake, I suppose it does. But from the practical standpoint, it doesn't change anything. Even if the global warming of the 20th century was natural, this doesn't mean that we can sit back and do nothing. And it certainly doesn't mean that we should go on emmitting greenhouse gases, and make the naturally sticky situation even worse.
 

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#24
The data proves nothing of the sort.
It uses the same linear regression that IPCC used on data to proclaim warming was occurring (note also that their "hockey stick" never occurred). So by using the same analysis technique they used to proclaim warming, we have a definite cooling trend. Any argument you make as for "short-term noise" would also have to apply to the apparant warming of the 90s.

The only debatable point here, is whether this warming was caused by human greenhouse emissions or by something else.
If you know anything about closed-loop system dynamics, then that is a huge point.

But does it really matter? For curiosity's sake, I suppose it does.
It most certainly does, especially if no matter how much much we spend (or can no longer make as a result of restrictions) we cannot do anything to affect the outcome! I mentioned closed-loop system dynamics, and this can show us how it is more than just curiosity. A phenomenon previously known as Pilot-Induced Oscillations is a result of the human pilot's dynamics coupling with the natural airplane dynamics. In essence, the pilot is the forcing function that drives the system to higher levels of dynamic instability. The first lesson the test pilot learns with regard to PIO is "just let go...stop giving the system inputs because you can and will only make it worse."

This applies to bad AGW science because, if we are NOT the cause of the warming (and there is plenty of data that does show statistical correspondence with sunspot activity) then anything we DO to take action on a bad hypothesis can make things worse! Happens all the time in dynamical systems that are not well understood. It is called "being out of phase with the system." Since no one can show an accurate picture of the dynamic response of the climate system, NO ONE (not even the self-proclaimed zealots of AGW, the IPCC) can predict whether anything we do would be "in phase" or "out of phase" with nature.

But from the practical standpoint, it doesn't change anything.
Wrong. It is a highly practical point because: If data shows CO2 is not the mechanism, and we are not (largely) responsible then NOTHING we could possibly do will change it...and we could even make it worse. Compare all of humankind's power spectral density to that of the sun's. We are not even showing up as a minor blip!

Even if the global warming of the 20th century was natural, this doesn't mean that we can sit back and do nothing.
Not do nothing, but you should certainly not take actions based on an INCORRECT climate model which does not even measure the impacts of oceanic currents, and has disputable feedback gains for CO2! What you should do is continue to take data, and continue to improve models until you CAN reliably predict something...anything about the state of the climate. But right now I am afraid the IPCC climate predictions made at the end of the 90s simply have NOT COME TO PASS. That means they failed, and so why should we believe their models?

And it certainly doesn't mean that we should go on emmitting greenhouse gases, and make the naturally sticky situation even worse.
Actually, those climate scientists who actually consider the impact of the sun (as opposed to the AGW zealots who like to ignore the sun's impact) are suggesting (based on sunspot activity that matches early in the 20th century) that we may be on the verge of a massive cooling event. If that is the case then we will need all the hydrocarbons we can get our hands on (AND "alternate energy" technology) just to keep ourselves warm.

RMT
 
Dec 1, 2008
82
0
0
#25
It uses the same linear regression that IPCC used on data to proclaim warming was occurring (note also that their "hockey stick" never occurred). So by using the same analysis technique they used to proclaim warming, we have a definite cooling trend. Any argument you make as for "short-term noise" would also have to apply to the apparant warming of the 90s.
That would be true... Had global warming started in the 1990's.

It did not. The world has been warming since the late 19th century. The graph has its ups and downs, but the overall trend cannot be denied.


It most certainly does, especially if no matter how much much we spend (or can no longer make as a result of restrictions) we cannot do anything to affect the outcome!
Of-course we can.

Forget the graphs for a moment. You don't need them to realize that emitting CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will cause a greenhouse effect. And you don't need computer simulations to understand that (say) doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will have a non-negligable effect on climate.

Not to mention the fact, that these greenhouse emissions have side effects which have nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. Most industrial proccesses which emit CO2, also emit toxic gases such as carbon monoxide. Deforestation, which is another contributer to the increased level of CO2, also has ecological implications far beyond the greenhouse crisis.

In other words, even if the greenhouse problem was a non-issue, we would still have to do more-or-less the same things in order to preserve the ecosystem.



This applies to bad AGW science because, if we are NOT the cause of the warming (and there is plenty of data that does show statistical correspondence with sunspot activity) then anything we DO to take action on a bad hypothesis can make things worse!
You just gave the best possible argument in favour of reducing our greenhouse emissions: Tinkering with complex dynamical systems is dangerous and unpredictable. And we have been tinkering quite a bit with the "knobs" of our planet's ecosystem in the past century or so. We've changed the composition of the atmosphere in 100 years, at a rate thousands of times faster then our planet had ever experienced before.



Actually, those climate scientists who actually consider the impact of the sun (as opposed to the AGW zealots who like to ignore the sun's impact) are suggesting (based on sunspot activity that matches early in the 20th century) that we may be on the verge of a massive cooling event. If that is the case then we will need all the hydrocarbons we can get our hands on (AND "alternate energy" technology) just to keep ourselves warm.
Oh... So suddenly it becomes OK to tinker with closed dynamic systems? :)



What you should do is continue to take data, and continue to improve models until you CAN reliably predict something...anything about the state of the climate.
Very true.

But in the meanwhile, we should act responsibly and stop fooling around with things we do not understand. If we have no idea how the climate "machine" works, we shouldn't be testing its limits. We should make every possible efford to minimize our impact on the ecosystem, until we have some idea as to what we are doing.
 
Jul 14, 2006
807
2
0
#26
We should make every possible effort to minimize our impact on the ecosystem, until we have some idea as to what we are doing.
The first injunction of the Hippocratic Oath taken by physicians is, "First, do no harm."
 

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#27
Einstein,

That would be true... Had global warming started in the 1990's.

It did not. The world has been warming since the late 19th century. The graph has its ups and downs, but the overall trend cannot be denied.
You have not been paying attention. I have not claimed that "Global Warming" is bogus. The title of this thread is "Anthropogenic Global Warming is Bunk Science". While it certainly is necessary evidence for there to be temperature increases documented to claim humans are the primary reason, it is not sufficient. I assume from your knowledge of science that you are perfectly well aware of "necessary and sufficient".

In other words, even if the greenhouse problem was a non-issue, we would still have to do more-or-less the same things in order to preserve the ecosystem.
And we (the USA) have. What is not often told in the media is that we have done more than any other country to combat ALL FORMS of air pollution. Thankfully, my home state of California lead the way as early as the 1970s. The evidence is seen in our skies in SoCal which are much clearer than back then, and also in the fact that where Stage III smog alerts used to be normal in SoCal summers, it is now rare for a summer to pass where even 1 Stage III smog alert day comes to pass.

The upshot here is that the rest of the world should start towing the line and imposing and enforcing the regulations we already have in the USA. To be explicit: The biggest polluter in the world, bar none with no arguments, is China. India is not far behind. Get those two onboard and we can talk. But passing laws in the USA which are based on flawed science is not going to impact the biggest polluters. It will only transfer wealth into the hands of the politicians pushing this bas science....namely, Al Gore. He has a vested interest in carbon credit trading schemes.

You just gave the best possible argument in favour of reducing our greenhouse emissions: Tinkering with complex dynamical systems is dangerous and unpredictable. And we have been tinkering quite a bit with the "knobs" of our planet's ecosystem in the past century or so. We've changed the composition of the atmosphere in 100 years, at a rate thousands of times faster then our planet had ever experienced before.
Then why, pray tell, are you still using a computer? Why are you not doing your part by moving into a cave and giving up all electrical appliances? Actions speak louder than words. Of course, I am being fascetious. The point is: It is wonderful to talk this line, but until you being to talk about balancing things like our quality of life and our economy right alongside this, then you are only speaking meaningless platitudes.... unless you have some plan that is workable to shut down all energy (read: pollution) producing activities. Your statement, while true, is trite and meaningless without solutions that address the entire issue of society doing what it does. Because the simplest solution would be to exterminate the entire human race.

But in the meanwhile, we should act responsibly and stop fooling around with things we do not understand. If we have no idea how the climate "machine" works, we shouldn't be testing its limits. We should make every possible efford to minimize our impact on the ecosystem, until we have some idea as to what we are doing.
Let me reveal something that I always put out there when this issue comes up for discussion: Way back in 2003 (before it was "chic" to be concerned about global warming, and before AlGore got his Oscar) I installed a 3.3 kW solar PV system on the roof of my Huntington Beach home. On an annualized basis I give more power to the grid than I consume. Furthermore, the property I am building (from bare ground) in SW Colorado will not only have solar PV but also a wind turbine...the current plan is to remain off-grid completely. So, I am walking the talk. What about you?

The point of me sharing this is to agree with you only so far as we need to be responsible actors with our environment. This is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the science which claims that the warming is "primarily" due to human actions, while NOWHERE does this politically-charged science EVER EVER EVER even estimate the sun's impact... nowhere do they try to explain the relative magnitudes of impacts. (In dyanmical system analysis, we call this identifying the gains of each input path). They simply leave it as "the globe is warming and it is all mankind's fault." Somehow, I know that is not true (because there is correlating data that shows the sun's impact over solar cycles), and therefore this is nothing but misapplied science intended to "scare" people into allowing government to force them to "do the right thing".

I did not need anyone scaring me to make the decision to install my solar PV system. All I needed was a simple engineering analysis with resulted in a Return On Investment. It clearly showed me that not only was it an environmentally proper action to take, but it made financial sense too.

I am opposed to using "partial science" (not telling the whole story) to affect social engineering. It can only lead to more abuses of science by politicians. And that eventually leads to fascism.

RMT
 

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#28
Einstein,

Here is a perfect example of what I am talking about. All of the so-called "scientists" who are trying to convince people that global warming is "primarily due to human activity" never seem to talk about any sort of natural effects that cause warming (i.e. the sun). That is dishonest and bad science. You would never see the "priests and proselytizers" of AGW report any science like the following:

Watts Up With That

Correlation demonstrated between cosmic rays and temperature of the stratosphere

"Published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters and led by scientists from the UK's National Centre for Atmospheric Science (NCAS) and the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), this remarkable study shows how the number of high-energy cosmic-rays reaching a detector deep underground, closely matches temperature measurements in the upper atmosphere (known as the stratosphere). For the first time, scientists have shown how this relationship can be used to identify weather events that occur very suddenly in the stratosphere during the Northern Hemisphere winter. These events can have a significant effect on the severity of winters we experience, and also on the amount of ozone over the poles - being able to identify them and understand their frequency is crucial for informing our current climate and weather-forecasting models to improve predictions."


This is but one reason why claiming "the science is settled" is a purposefully misleading statement which does not reflect how science really works. Why is it that the people who are trying to convince us of Anthropogenic Global Warming never talk about the sun's impact (which is clearly larger and the primary source of energy input to our closed system)?

RMT
 

Darby

New member
Mar 8, 2001
5,929
179
0
#29
All of the so-called "scientists" who are trying to convince people that global warming is "primarily due to human activity" never seem to talk about any sort of natural effects that cause warming (i.e. the sun).
...nor do the "man made global warming" fruitbats even dare to add the little tidbit that Mars is also undergoing a global warming event concurrent with ours. Explain that one with Earth "carbon foorprints".

Or maybe its related to solar activity cycles;

Or maybe its related to cyclic cosmic ray activity relative to the solar system's orbit about the galactic center as it passes through regions of varying mean density in the outer spiral arm.

We do know that not so very long ago (50-60 million years ago) the Arctic climate was tropical and the region was ice free...

and we also know that the vast majority of scientific theories on the subject of global warming are being driven not by science but by political correctness.
 
Dec 1, 2008
82
0
0
#32
I am opposed to using "partial science" (not telling the whole story) to affect social engineering. It can only lead to more abuses of science by politicians. And that eventually leads to fascism.
If you are so opposed to "partial science", why are you doing the same thing yourself?

You fail to mention that:

1. The idea of Anthropogehenic Global Warming has been around since the 1970s, and it was devoid of any political implications. Only in the past few years did the issue become a political "hotspot".

2. The simple fact that the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has almost doubled since 1800, and that this increase is of roughly the same magnitude as our own industrial emission of CO2. These are two pieces of raw data which cannot be disputed.

3. Greenhouse gases are bound to create a greenhouse effect. You don't need complicated computer models to know this. It follows from the basic light absorption properties of these materials. And if you are still skeptical about it, take a look at the planet Venus.

4. Global Warming - regardless of its cause - is a real trend. Data from the past 150 years prove that the earth IS becoming warmer. This warming began with the industrial revolution, and accelerated as our CO2 emissions increased. This correlation would be a pretty odd coincidence, if we assume that our CO2 isn't responsible for the warming.

5. Computer models of the effects of AGW predict a rise in temperature which is of the same order-of-magnitude as the observed trends. Different computer models give different figures, but they are all in the right ballpark when compared to the actual data. Is this another coincidence?

Now, I agree that the situation is not 100% resolved. Perhaps our computer model are off, and what we really have here is a couple of extraordinary coincidences. But this isn't very likely. The evidence is certainly on AGW's side, even if it isn't completely conclusive. There's no doubt it's good science.

You're right in one thing, though:

Science and politics do not mix well. The other side of this very same coin, however, is that you shouldn't judge a scientific theory by the way politicians use it.
 
Dec 1, 2008
82
0
0
#33
...nor do the "man made global warming" fruitbats even dare to add the little tidbit that Mars is also undergoing a global warming event concurrent with ours. Explain that one with Earth "carbon foorprints".
Reference, please.


We do know that not so very long ago (50-60 million years ago) the Arctic climate was tropical and the region was ice free...
What does this has to do with anything? How can you compare 50 million years to rapid changes that occur over a few decades?

I'm suprised to hear such a statement from you, Darby. Very surprised.
 

KerrTexas

Moderator
Staff member
May 13, 2004
2,730
123
63
Texas
#34
Mars is also undergoing a global warming event concurrent with ours...Explain that one...
Everybody knows that China is responsible for that. Not only do their pollutants cross the Pacific Ocean, affecting the North American Continent, but on days where there is minimal or no wind, the pollution from China goes straight up and heads out across space to warm-up Mars, too.
 

Darby

New member
Mar 8, 2001
5,929
179
0
#35
Everybody knows that China is responsible for that. Not only do their pollutants cross the Pacific Ocean, affecting the North American Continent, but on days where there is minimal or no wind, the pollution from China goes straight up and heads out across space to warm-up Mars, too.
Dang! I forgot about that. The ChiComs are terraforming Mars and reducing their carbon footprint through exportation of carbon credits to Mars. A win-win! :)
 

Darby

New member
Mar 8, 2001
5,929
179
0
#36
What does this has to do with anything? How can you compare 50 million years to rapid changes that occur over a few decades?
The point is "Save the Polar Bears - The Polar Ice Caps Are Melting". Earth's response is, "Been there - done that. Several times. Stop screwing with my bears you twits."

The fruitbats have localized the situation of global temperature change to today and only today and crying, with a lot of hand waving - some stomping, a bit of general tantrumizing, lots of threats and occassional violence - that we have to do something about it without considering or even caring that the history of the planet is one of constant temperature change - some slow and others very rapid but always cyclic. We will have another ice age. We will have another hot age. Will have another mini-Ice Age and another mini-Hot Age. Many of them, in fact. We are currently at the mid-point between the last major Ice Age and the next major Ice Age. It's supposed to be getting hotter right now. The hot ages are the initiators of global bio-diversity and evolution. Without them the planet dies.

That we saw, a few years ago, a short term rise in temperatures is not at all unprecidented. In the 1940's it was global cooling, in the 1950's it was global warming, in the 1960's it was global cooling, in the 1970's it was global warming, in the 1980's it was global cooling, in the 1990's it was global warming and now in the 2000's we're back to global cooling. There might be a short-term pattern or two there - one a physical fact, the other a psychological tendency for the Drama Queens to come out and play the "gimme a trillion tax dollars more for global warming/cooling prevention - or gimme the money jus cuz" power trip game.

And the fruitbats demand excruciatingly long and expensive EIR's from everyone and anyone who is doing something that might in their view alter the temperature...but they'd cry bloody hell if someone filed a law suit and demanded that they file and get approved an EIR before their pet project to alter temperatures is approved...wouldn't they? Sure, their Sister Moonbeam-Starship Earth argument would be that they are doing it for the benefit of mankind (sing kum-bye-yah at this point) and we're supposed to shut up, sit still and buy the neo-flowerchild hokum hook, line and sinker without questioning their motives, knowledge or even their sanity. Right.

No one, and I mean no one, on the fruitbat team has given a single thought as to what the effect - assuming that we can affect temperature change - of their weather tinkering would be. They just mindlessly assume that it would work out as they want it to work out. It would never occur to them they they might be wrong, that the changes are natural and they they would bring about the very thing that they claim to want to prevent by tinkering with the weather.
 

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#37
If you are so opposed to "partial science", why are you doing the same thing yourself?

You fail to mention that:
Just because I do not mention them does not mean they are not addressable with objective evidence that refutes (or at least causes one to question) the proclaimed AGW "conclusions". I will answer each of those points over the weekend when I have more time. But let me address this one first, because clearly you have not been seeing everything that has been going on, nor reviewing the science put forward by people refuting AGW:

The evidence is certainly on AGW's side, even if it isn't completely conclusive. There's no doubt it's good science.
Actually, the evidence is very much sketchy, when you look at all of it. As for it being "good science" that can also be refuted 12 ways to Sunday. Here is just some eye-opening information from the guy who was the former supervisor of the "AGW Chief Priest" NASA's James Hansen:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/

"Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA's vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen 'embarrassed NASA' with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was 'was never muzzled.' Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears."

And with respect to "good science" here is what Theon is alleging about how some people performed their science:

'Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,' he added.

That's "good science"? Hardly. And now let me present some "from the horse's mouth" admissions to the kinds of things alleged in the above statement. Ones that, as an engineer, clearly cause me to question whether these people are doing real science, or only trying to confirm their own beliefs:

From:
Scientific Colloquium
January 23, 2009
RON GELARO
GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER
"Atmospheric Data Assimilation and Observing System Science"


Data assimilation is the process by which observations are combined with a prognostic model to provide the best estimate (analysis) of the current state of a physical system. Observational information, which tends to be irregular in space and time, can thus be made available in a regular or gridded form required for many applications. The process is far more complex than a simple interpolation of information from one point to another, as it depends on aspects such as the errors of the various observation types, imperfections in the prognostic model and the physical relationships between different atmospheric variables; e.g., pressure and wind speed.

Mixing raw data with a "prognostic model"? Least squares fitting is one thing (and acceptable science), kalman filtering is also acceptable science to get normalized data. But running raw measurements through a "prognostic model"? That hardly appears to be good science, especially if the assumptions used in the "prognostic model" have not been expressley stated, along with their realm of validity, with validation methods and data to back them up.

I am really hopeful that some of this data will open your eyes, and you do not simply reject it because it does not fit your current belief. You seem to me to be very scientific in your thinking, and I am hopeful you have simply not seen some of this data or these admissions before.

Coming up: More data that will show how the IPCC climate models predictions are at least questionable, if not incorrect, related to "stabilizing vs. destabilizing" systemic effects. In other words, feedback loops. Something I know a lot about, and am fully capable of backing what Dr. Roy Spencer (climatologist) explains about them.

RMT
 

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#39
Here is another story that just came out today...written by none other than John Coleman, the gentleman who started the Weather Channel.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html

The whole thing is a very good read, but here are some highlights:

"The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax we citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way, the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have lead to a rise in public awareness that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not a significant greenhouse gas that is triggering runaway global warming. "

This is not simply alternate alarmism. There have been stories quoting Gore saying he was recommending that CO2 be labeled a pollutant. Gases that plants need to survive, a pollutant? ONLY politicians could come up with that.... show me ONE scientist who would recommend that (other than the obvious political animal Hansen) and we can talk.

"These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures. "

snip

"But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. So the research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment. And, with them came the birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants began to flow and alarming hypothesis began to show up everywhere. "


This is where the politics really started to mix with the science, although it was not overt. The thing that overtly disconnected the two was the "research funding". That has become much clearer in the past 10 years.

"Several hypothesis emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. Years have passed and the scientists kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up. "

I can (and will if requested by any readers) post an analysis from Dr. Roy Spencer who shows just how TEENY TINY total CO2 is, in addition to how miniscule the CO2 buildup has been.

"Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation's bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meeting."

The UN gets involved. Let us remember that the UN is not a scientific organization! First and foremost it is a political organization, committed to achieve political goals...quite often NOT in accord with the best interests of the USA or their people. But that is politics on an international scale. No surprise there. But when the UN gets into the business of proclaiming scientific conclusions....BEWARE!

"And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge negative impact on the economy and jobs and our standard of living. "

Here we have the "grandfather of global warming" (Revelle) pointing this (bold) out!!!

"Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle's Mea culpa as the actions of senile old man. And, the next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate, From 1992 until today, he and his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when ask about we skeptics they simply insult us and call us names. "

You see, the politics have been entangled with "science" (bad science) for so long, that people are generally not aware of just how long Gore has been using such platitudes as "science being settled" (that is unscientific, in and of itself) and "the time for debate is over". Moreover, Gore does not even listen to the Harvard professor who got him all starry-eyed and on his tree-hugger quest!

"Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a highjacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history. "

RMT
 

Darby

New member
Mar 8, 2001
5,929
179
0
#40
Ray,

Thanks for posting the Coleman information.

Another concern that Coleman has expressed is how politicized university departments of enviornmental studies have become around the nation. He's quite alarmed over the fact that skeptical positions regarding global warming are not tollerated at all.

Students had better be on board with the politically correct position, pro manmade global warming, or their grades will suffer and getting into grad school just might not be an option if they can't get a professor to sponsor them. It's no surprise that there's only one point of view coming out of university research when students face that one-sided fact.

Research funding, of course, comes mostly from the federal government. Congress allocates funding through spending bills. As I looked at the line item funds in the bail-out bill today I didn't seem much in the way of funds being allocated for research projects that don't support the manmade global warming position. In fact the total line item funding for such projects was zero dollars. Professors are expected to engage in ongoing research for publication. With the available funds allocated for one predetermined outcome, professors who want to keep their jobs have but one choice as to what their findings will be. Thereafter the professors write the textbooks for the undergraduate division. The science expressed in the textbooks is based on their published research. Undergrads aren't expected to disagree with the textbooks, especially when their professor is the author their textbooks. [Loop to top of paragraph - Execute endless Loop]

It gives a whole new meaning to the term "political science".
 

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#41
Hi Darby,

Thanks for posting the Coleman information.
As I am sure you suspect...it gets better. The AGW house is truly crumbling right now. Too bad the new administration is ignoring the writing on the wall and pressing forward with its bad-science-based agenda. And they bashed Bush for ignoring reality? It is to laugh.

So here is the latest person to step forward and call BS on AGW:

Forecasting Guru Announces: "No scientific basis for forecasting climate"

Today yet another scientist has come forward with a press release saying that not only did their audit of IPCC forecasting procedures and found that they "violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting", but that "The models were not intended as forecasting models and they have not been validated for that purpose." This organization should know, they certify forecasters for many disciplines and in conjunction with John Hopkins University if Washington, DC, offer a Certificate of Forecasting Practice.

No doubt the AGW zealots will put this on heavy "ignore and do not address"...

What these two authorities, Drs Theon and Armstrong, are independently and explicitly stating is that the computer models underpinning the work of many scientific institutions concerned with global warming, including Australia's CSIRO, are fundamentally flawed.

In today's statement, made with economist Kesten Green, Dr Armstrong provides the following eight reasons as to why the current IPCC computer models lack a scientific basis:

1. No scientific forecasts of the changes in the Earth's climate.
2. Improper peer review process.
3. Complexity and uncertainty of climate render expert opinions invalid for forecasting.
4. Forecasts are needed for the effects of climate change.
5. Forecasts are needed of the costs and benefits of alternative actions that might be taken to combat climate change.
7. The climate system is stable.
8. Be conservative and avoid the precautionary principle.


Number 7 is my favorite from a technical standpoint, since it deals with feedback loops. Something I work with day in and day out...and something that many "climatologists" can only barely do the LaPlace math for...

To assess stability, we examined the errors from naïve forecasts for up to 100 years into the future. Using the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre's data, we started with 1850 and used that year's average temperature as our forecast for the next 100 years. We then calculated the errors for each forecast horizon from 1 to 100. We repeated the process using the average temperature in 1851 as our naïve forecast for the next 100 years, and so on. This "successive updating" continued until year 2006, when we forecasted a single year ahead. This provided 157 one-year-ahead forecasts, 156 two-year-ahead and so on to 58 100-year-ahead forecasts.

We then examined how many forecasts were further than 0.5°C from the observed value. Fewer than 13% of forecasts of up to 65-years-ahead had absolute errors larger than 0.5°C. For longer horizons, fewer than 33% had absolute errors larger than 0.5°C. Given the remarkable stability of global mean temperature, it is unlikely that there would be any practical benefits from a forecasting method that provided more accurate forecasts.


The process they describe here provides hard-to-refute evidence that there are stabilizing (negative feedback) loops built-in to the climate system. Dr. Roy Spencer has written about this at length, and points out that the IPCC climate models (all of them) consistently model cloud effects as a positive (destabilizing) feedback gain. If this were true, the world would have gone divergent long before man showed up because of all the CO2 dumped into the atmosphere by volcanos.

RMT
 

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#42
And speaking of volcanos...

I just mentioned the effect of volcanos. With Mount Redoubt in Alaska ready to blow its top, it is time to review some correlating data that shows what happens when two sets of events align: (1) When solar radiance plummets and (2) Volcanoes around the world begin to become active again. This chart says it all:



Hard to ignore these trends, which stretch back in TIME quite a bit. So we just came out of a year with VERY LOW solar radiance (as evidenced by the low number of days with sunspots). And all one needs to do are a few googles on volcanic activity, or the threats thereof, around the globe... and using this past data we can understand why some scientists (not the AGW crowd) are saying we are entering a new, drastic cooling trend.

RMT
 

Doghead

New member
Aug 14, 2008
183
0
0
realstarwalker.blogspot.com
#44
Re: And speaking of volcanos...

Before I begin- I am a triple graduate- Law, Arts, Science.

AGW should be called what it is:

Nazi science.

It is EXACTLY the same blend of politics, corporatism (don't think carbon trading is for the little guy- it's not), anti-humanism and ecology movement twaddle that gave birth to Nazism.

Back then there was the ecology movement, which sprang from the pan-germanism and pagan revival of the turn of the twentieth century which was manured by World War 1 and blossomed afterwards. AGW masquerades as science, but it has all the cult overtones of classic Nazi (ie bad) science. At the heart of AGW is a hatred of humanity, hatred of technical achievement, and a desire to tear them down. It is also extremely telling to me that the AGW proponents always rely on simplistic sloganeering and dumbed down argument -another Nazi hallmark- and that the voice of reason, which in such a complex area must be technical and detailed, is therefore greatly disadvantaged.

There could be no worse collection of people to entrust anything to, let alone the future of civilisation, than the parasitic ne'er-do-wells of the tenured academic scientist, the politician, the journalist and the tycoon.

This same matrix of manipulation has given us

political correctness
- a movement more intolerant than any prejudice it claims to correct, more racist than the old deep South with its ruthless hatred of white males

the new paganism
- a scientistic rather than scientific attempt to pasteurise and homogenise faith, and with it destroy all cultures not spawned in savage tribes, street gangs or wrong-headed fundamentalist dogma

outsourcing our critical thinking to the mainstream media
- the least thoughtful and accurate group of public identities on the planet now convey our "facts" to us, and no scientist wishing to prosper can fail to learn how to market themselves- to the guaranteed detriment of science

the death of the nation state
- it was too health to die a natural death as desired so they flat out killed it

the death of individuality
- no longer is pluralism and Jeffersonian free thought even tolerated, let alone encouraged

conspiratorial government
- when the architects of fear are allowed to use negative reinforcement based control mechanisms on humanity, we have government by the pedophiles (eg unconvicted co-conspirator in the Franklin case BARNEY FRANK), for the pedophiles


THEY LIVE, WE SLEEP has unfortunately proven to be a prophetic film. As has THE ARRIVAL. It's just that the "aliens" are a segment of our own species wallowing in sociopathic behaviour, most of which deviously wears a mask of concern for the "cattle" they see us as.
 

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#45
Re: And speaking of volcanos...

Nice post Doghead. I, for one, am glad you returned to the site. Your candor and straightforward demeanor are refreshing.

AGW should be called what it is:

Nazi science.
I am not as willing to be so blunt as you in calling it what it is. But that is my own shortcoming. I still have further to travel down my personal road. ;) But yes, I do know that the covert intentions behind AGW (just one tool in their bag) are as you say. It is clear that evil intentions will always use and promote what seem like virtuous goals to achieve their less than virtuous intentions. Their achilles heal is their hypocrisy. Pay attention not to what Al Gore says and how he tells others they should live their lives. Rather, pay attention to what he does and how he lives his life. That is truth, and it shall enlighten those who think AGW is real to his underlying intentions. "By their actions shall ye know them."

I am a man of science. While I can usually ignore the playing of politics to control people, where I cannot accept it is in using lies and co-opting science to achieve these ends. That is why I shout about the BS that is AGW. On another website, I have a single thread where I have collected and will continue to post the evidence that falsifies the bad science behind AGW (and let me again restate, the lie is that mankind is the primary force behind warming...not that warming was not occurring).

May your path remain lighted by your conscience, your search for truth, and the unveiling of lies.

RMT
 
Dec 1, 2008
82
0
0
#47
Re: And speaking of volcanos...

I guess there is a lesson to be learned here:

When dealing with a politically touchy subject, even the most scientific minded people tend to lose it.

Not being an American, I had no idea global warming was such a problematic issue in the USA. Those last posts of RMT and Darby simply leave me speechless. Talk about bunk science... sheesh.

It's a real shame that this thread has come to this. And on the "real science" board - no less. Pity.
 

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#48
Re: And speaking of volcanos...

When dealing with a politically touchy subject, even the most scientific minded people tend to lose it.
If you would, please, could you define "lose it"?

Not being an American, I had no idea global warming was such a problematic issue in the USA.
Have you paid attention to the whole "carbon credits" scheme in Europe? The reason AGW is a problem is because many see it as a co-opting of science (which is what it is, sorry you refuse to see the evidence that falsifies it) as a means of socialist control over people.

Those last posts of RMT and Darby simply leave me speechless. Talk about bunk science... sheesh.
Perhaps if you were to educate yourself about financial issues, and contrast them to how we do things in science, you may begin to see the problem we are headed for.... and the financial incentive for the people pushing AGW (Al Gore). I suggest you read this paper:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/corrupt_currency.pdf

And allow me to quote from part of it that addresses the "science" of AGW (which is what they are using to push the carbon credits scheme as a fiat currency)...

But the question remains unanswered: 'What's the evidence that man-made CO2
makes much difference to our climate?' So far no one can answer it without using
the words 'IPCC', 'consensus', 'mainstream', 'expert', or 'computer model'.

Dr. David Evans pointed out the lack of evidence in The Australian on July 18,
2008 (see Appendix II). Despite the widespread coverage of this article, to date no
one has refuted it by providing empirical evidence. Replies fall into four categories.

1. 'The IPCC says so, and there is mainstream consensus.' — There is no
consensus, it wouldn't prove anything if there was, and the IPCC is a UN
committee that was set up to find evidence of anthropogenic greenhouse
warming.
2. Computer Models — Models are made of assumptions built on estimations,
amplified by conjecture. They are a series of calculations and thus theory, not
evidence.
3. Laboratory Theory — Test tube experiments don't match real world
measurements. The 'greenhouse effect' has almost no effect in a real
greenhouse (the warming is almost entirely due to convection), which
undermines the idea that greenhouse gases have much effect in the real
atmosphere.
4. Irrelevant Evidence — Proof of global warming is not proof that CO2 is the
cause. Icebergs would melt even if a team of UFOs were heating the planet
with ray guns.


RMT
 

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#49
Re: And speaking of volcanos...

And let me also quote the salient points put forth by Dr. David Evans in his article included as Appendix II. First, his lead-in:

I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian
Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting
model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in
the land use change and forestry sector


The reason this is significant is because he was a scientist who was convinced of the evidence of man-made CO2 causing global warming... but now, as a good scientist should do, he changes his opinions based on the facts in hand at the time. Now let us see how he points out the facts and the data that support them:

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of
the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for
years, and cannot find it.

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant
global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has
occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures
(though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone
that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global
warming.

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming
trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the
past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are
corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on
thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to
vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature
data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based
data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three
global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or
satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a
million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the
accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important
about which was cause and which was effect.


None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them,
though they would dispute their relevance.


And with what contrarial data doe the "alarmist scientists" dispute the relevance? None that I can see. Please pay particular note of #4. I can show you other graphs of the same ice core data that shows CO2 is the lagging effect, and that the temp changes preceded the CO2 rise. That is what we call falsifying evidence. If you still choose to ignore this, then I am not sure there is much hope for your adherence to science.

What is most important is that this is not you or me debating whose science is "better". Rather, this is a scientist who was orignally convinced of the trace data...but now after more data has come in has rightfully stepped forward to tell others of how this new data falsifies the old theories. This is someone who should be paid attention to, for it is clear he responds to data, not political trends and taskmasters.

RMT
 
Jan 25, 2009
627
1
0
#50
Re: And speaking of volcanos...

RMT,

Here's one in your area of expertise...

Since we've been sending rockets/shuttles (anything to escape earth's gravity pull) to space...
is there an effect on the spin of the axis's from the thrust push over time?