Human Caused Global Warming Will Not Happen

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

chrismb wrote: All we can say for sure is that we are in an ice age. It looks like we are heading into a warmer period (that graph on p1 of this thread is convincing on this).
Yes, it has warmed since the little ice age. But, we should put the little ice age in perspective as well. This does that pretty well. It is Greenland GISP data, an ice core.

Image

The 10,000 year old interglacial we are in is unusually long and a few degrees colder than previous ones.

The following might provide some perspective on whether the prospects are good for the glacial period/interglacial pattern ending soon.

Image

Mikemcc01
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 10:23 am

Post by Mikemcc01 »

The effect of a possible grand solar minimum has already been analysed, leading to the view that it will defer 0.3 deg C of heating for it's duration. Hardly entering a new ice age. Meanwhile global emissions last year were the http://www.iea.org/index_info.asp?id=1959]highest ever.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

Mikemcc01 wrote:The effect of a possible grand solar minimum has already been analysed, leading to the view that it will defer 0.3 deg C of heating for it's duration. Hardly entering a new ice age. Meanwhile global emissions last year were the highest ever
I have no idea how your text comes to be invisible Mike! An amazing first post!! :wink:

Actually, there is no 'a new ice age'. We are IN an ice age.

Giorgio
Posts: 3061
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

chrismb wrote:
Mikemcc01 wrote:The effect of a possible grand solar minimum has already been analysed, leading to the view that it will defer 0.3 deg C of heating for it's duration. Hardly entering a new ice age. Meanwhile global emissions last year were the highest ever
I have no idea how your text comes to be invisible Mike! An amazing first post!! :wink:

Actually, there is no 'a new ice age'. We are IN an ice age.
He used [ url ] [ /url ] command with a string containing a space inside.
The forum engine is not able to interpret it and gives a blank post.

Or it could be that the global Internet warming is melting the ice and washing away the electronic ink. ;)

palladin9479
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 5:22 am

Post by palladin9479 »

What got me cautious of the whole AGW thing was this near fanatical demand that we must adhere to whatever they say. Anyone who questioned the pro-AGW crown was ostracized and silenced. Questions should always been encouraged, any argument should stand on the evidence presented.

Anytime questions are discouraged and hand waiving happens, I get very nervous. That is exactly how connmen, cars salesmen and politicians work.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

Quite so.

Hearing Lord May, President of the Royal Society, saying on Radio a few years back that 'the debate [on AGW] is over' just has to stop a sane man in his tracks and ask 'Does no-one have any idea what science is about any more?!'.

TDPerk
Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Post by TDPerk »

"Meanwhile global emissions last year were the highest ever."

So if the ten year average isn't higher by some amount X in ten years, you will admit the gains and associated CO2 forcing, which the concept of AGW require to exist for AGW to have validity, you will admit the concept of AGW is wrong. What is X?

If you don't like ten years, what number of years do you like better? Why that number of years?

If the data for and models of AGW were valid, you could re-run the data for the past, stopping at an arbitrarily picked known point in time, and falling within error bars say 95 % of the time, and having a consistent standard deviation of error from the proxy temperatures which has to be small, say .1 degC--a correlation near 1--and then AGW would be an actually scientific theory which had survived a strong test.

No such data or models exist.

The politics of the science may be settled, the science is borderline nonexistent, much of what exists is known to be fraudulent.

Contrary to AGW propagandists, no Human Caused Global Warming will happen in the next several years, or even--per AGW theories existing to date--in the next several hundred.[/i]
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

zapkitty
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:13 pm

Post by zapkitty »

What you're not mentioning is the other side of the coin: the decades of junk science and manufactured doubt paid for by a plutocratic oligarchy that got its extreme money and almost total power from control of access to energy... and who see nothing wrong with quietly spending billions over the decades to preserve that power.

Those who tried to warn the world were well aware that they were trying to outshout an artificially generated and very well-funded noise machine. So they yelled louder, as the simple facts weren't enough, and they were called "shrill" by front organizations funded from plutocratic spare change... but nonetheless were very well funded indeed.

And it is an unfortunate but easily verifiable fact that most critics of the science of climate change are far more apt to quote some piece of drivel subsidized by the Koch brothers and their ilk than they are to quote original research.

And then you have the sad display of honestly concerned scientists trying to do serious work based on actual data... unaware that the oligarchs paid to shape the data they were trying to work with.

As has been proven again and again on all sides honest scientists are ready prey for those who lie for a living, and they were exceptionally easy prey for a dishonest scientist who doesn't bother to mention the fat check from a Big Carbon front group that's burning a hole in their bank account.

And now the oceans are dying.

As with other aspects of climate change it's happening much faster and is ramping up much more quickly than even the pessimists had expected. The first precursors of mass extinctions may even already have begun.

And the storms will only get worse.

I do not speak from a sense of self-righteousness, only sadness, but there is going to be a lot of guilt-based anger to deal with as climate skeptics realize how badly they were used by the plutocrats.

bcglorf
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:58 pm

Post by bcglorf »

zapkitty wrote:What you're not mentioning is the other side of the coin: the decades of junk science and manufactured doubt paid for by a plutocratic oligarchy that got its extreme money and almost total power from control of access to energy... and who see nothing wrong with quietly spending billions over the decades to preserve that power.

Those who tried to warn the world were well aware that they were trying to outshout an artificially generated and very well-funded noise machine. So they yelled louder, as the simple facts weren't enough, and they were called "shrill" by front organizations funded from plutocratic spare change... but nonetheless were very well funded indeed.

And it is an unfortunate but easily verifiable fact that most critics of the science of climate change are far more apt to quote some piece of drivel subsidized by the Koch brothers and their ilk than they are to quote original research.

And then you have the sad display of honestly concerned scientists trying to do serious work based on actual data... unaware that the oligarchs paid to shape the data they were trying to work with.

As has been proven again and again on all sides honest scientists are ready prey for those who lie for a living, and they were exceptionally easy prey for a dishonest scientist who doesn't bother to mention the fat check from a Big Carbon front group that's burning a hole in their bank account.

And now the oceans are dying.

As with other aspects of climate change it's happening much faster and is ramping up much more quickly than even the pessimists had expected. The first precursors of mass extinctions may even already have begun.

And the storms will only get worse.

I do not speak from a sense of self-righteousness, only sadness, but there is going to be a lot of guilt-based anger to deal with as climate skeptics realize how badly they were used by the plutocrats.
Well, that was a purely political statement.

Go look at the raw data supporting the positions of each side and look where it leads. Look at the graph above that Seedload provided, it''s accurate and based on the same data being used by the AGW proponents.

The truth doesn't care about consensus, public opinion or levels of funding. What matters is the evidence. The evidence that is agreed upon, from both sides as accurate shows overall warming, that CO2 contributes to warming, and that mankind is producing measurable levels of CO2. The evidence does NOT show any catastrophic future implications, it doesn't even give us an order of magnitude confidence in the relationship between human CO2 and overall climate changes.

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

zapkitty wrote:What you're not mentioning is the other side of the coin: the decades of junk science and manufactured doubt paid for by a plutocratic oligarchy that got its extreme money and almost total power from control of access to energy... and who see nothing wrong with quietly spending billions over the decades to preserve that power.

Those who tried to warn the world were well aware that they were trying to outshout an artificially generated and very well-funded noise machine. So they yelled louder, as the simple facts weren't enough, and they were called "shrill" by front organizations funded from plutocratic spare change... but nonetheless were very well funded indeed.

And it is an unfortunate but easily verifiable fact that most critics of the science of climate change are far more apt to quote some piece of drivel subsidized by the Koch brothers and their ilk than they are to quote original research.

And then you have the sad display of honestly concerned scientists trying to do serious work based on actual data... unaware that the oligarchs paid to shape the data they were trying to work with.

As has been proven again and again on all sides honest scientists are ready prey for those who lie for a living, and they were exceptionally easy prey for a dishonest scientist who doesn't bother to mention the fat check from a Big Carbon front group that's burning a hole in their bank account.
Wow. Well written. But I don't think it is entirely fair minded. Yes, there is a big oil influence but I don't think that a skeptical argument hinges as entirely on the data from this influence as you imply. Nor do I think that as many skeptical scientific opinions are directed by these influences as you say.

Just because there exist influences with motive and money does not necessarily implicate all skeptics. It most definitely does not make their arguments incorrect. You ignore the possibility that the interests with money and motive may also be correct that AGW is an insignificant issue.
zapkitty wrote: And now the oceans are dying.
Amazing overstatement.
zapkitty wrote: As with other aspects of climate change it's happening much faster and is ramping up much more quickly than even the pessimists had expected.
False
zapkitty wrote: The first precursors of mass extinctions may even already have begun.
Source?
zapkitty wrote: And the storms will only get worse.
Highly contested. No evidence.
zapkitty wrote: I do not speak from a sense of self-righteousness, only sadness, but there is going to be a lot of guilt-based anger to deal with as climate skeptics realize how badly they were used by the plutocrats.
I was formerly an AGW believer. I took the time to look at the arguments and data, both for an against AGW being significant, weed out the junk science from both sides, and I changed my mind.

Have you actually looked at the skeptical arguments at all or do you simply dismiss them because of the perceived influence of the plutocratic oligarchy?

JLawson
Posts: 424
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:31 pm
Location: Georgia
Contact:

Post by JLawson »

seedload wrote: <Snippety>
I was formerly an AGW believer. I took the time to look at the arguments and data, both for an against AGW being significant, weed out the junk science from both sides, and I changed my mind.

Have you actually looked at the skeptical arguments at all or do you simply dismiss them because of the perceived influence of the plutocratic oligarchy?
I'd venture that zapkitty hasn't. It's pretty easy to let buzzwords take over your life, and stifle independent thought. And for some strange reason, polysyllabic buzzwords (oh, there's 8 in 'plutocratic oligarchy'! wow!) crowd into the synapses and block any attempt at critical thinking about the issue. Add in an emotional appeal "The polar bears are (sniff) not going to (sob) have any ice to float on! Their cubs (weep) are gonna DIE! (wail...) if the temperatures raise a half-degree!"

That they're apex predators, just as happy to browse around on land and snack on igloos (cool, crunchy outside with a warm, tasty, gooey/cruncy/salty center...) or elk as seal doesn't matter - what hits them and cements the issue is a cute, fuzzy, cuddly baby polar bear with great big appealing eyes possibly dying from not enough ice.

But nature is never kind. We exist with it, but nature doesn't care, at all, about us It doesn't care about polar bears, or kittens, or humans. It doesn't care if we nuke the planet bald, or find some way to eliminate the mosquito that carries malaria. There is no 'Gaia', no overwhelming global consciousness - it's an anthropomorphic fantasy that somehow the planet 'cares'.

We're the ones who care.
When opinion and reality conflict - guess which one is going to win in the long run.

Mikemcc01
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 10:23 am

Post by Mikemcc01 »

chrismb wrote:
Mikemcc01 wrote:The effect of a possible grand solar minimum has already been analysed, leading to the view that it will defer 0.3 deg C of heating for it's duration. Hardly entering a new ice age. Meanwhile global emissions last year were the highest ever
I have no idea how your text comes to be invisible Mike! An amazing first post!! :wink:

Actually, there is no 'a new ice age'. We are IN an ice age.
Ok, I accept that, we're in an interglacial within an iceage. I was referring to the inference that some sources have suggested that it might overturn AGW.

I've no idea why it's invisible, all of the text is there when I edit. I've tried changing the text to black as well.

Oh well, c'est la vie...

ETA: Yea, this one has appeared!

Mikemcc01
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 10:23 am

Post by Mikemcc01 »

Giorgio wrote:
chrismb wrote:
Mikemcc01 wrote:The effect of a possible grand solar minimum has already been analysed, leading to the view that it will defer 0.3 deg C of heating for it's duration. Hardly entering a new ice age. Meanwhile global emissions last year were the highest ever
I have no idea how your text comes to be invisible Mike! An amazing first post!! :wink:

Actually, there is no 'a new ice age'. We are IN an ice age.
He used [ url ] [ /url ] command with a string containing a space inside.
The forum engine is not able to interpret it and gives a blank post.

Or it could be that the global Internet warming is melting the ice and washing away the electronic ink. ;)
Cheers for that. I'll keep an eye out for it in future. I was trying to enter text that would apppear with the underlying hyperlink.

bcglorf
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:58 pm

Post by bcglorf »

Mikemcc01 wrote:
chrismb wrote:
Mikemcc01 wrote:The effect of a possible grand solar minimum has already been analysed, leading to the view that it will defer 0.3 deg C of heating for it's duration. Hardly entering a new ice age. Meanwhile global emissions last year were the highest ever
I have no idea how your text comes to be invisible Mike! An amazing first post!! :wink:

Actually, there is no 'a new ice age'. We are IN an ice age.
Ok, I accept that, we're in an interglacial within an iceage. I was referring to the inference that some sources have suggested that it might overturn AGW.

I've no idea why it's invisible, all of the text is there when I edit. I've tried changing the text to black as well.

Oh well, c'est la vie...

ETA: Yea, this one has appeared!
I think the implication is more the lack of evidence that AGW is enough to overturn it.

As far as climate change goes, the evidence for Milankovitch cycles dominates. Nobody denies that they heavily influence global climate cycles because the evidence is undeniable. Yet, the understanding of how and why they do so isn't there. We don't even understand it's role qualitatively let alone quantitatively. Seems a little suspect to claim CO2 cycles trump them, let alone the minor contribution human activity makes to the CO2 cycle.

Mikemcc01
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 10:23 am

Post by Mikemcc01 »

TDPerk wrote:"Meanwhile global emissions last year were the highest ever."

So if the ten year average isn't higher by some amount X in ten years, you will admit the gains and associated CO2 forcing, which the concept of AGW require to exist for AGW to have validity, you will admit the concept of AGW is wrong. What is X?

If you don't like ten years, what number of years do you like better? Why that number of years?
The generally accepted range for interpretations of climate effects is 30+ years to smooth out cyclical processes (such as the 11-ish year solar cycle). Statistical analyses can be done over any range of years, it entirely depends how strong the variation (aka signal) is against the noise. Climate observations are inherently noisy so require longer observational periods.
TDPerk wrote:"
If the data for and models of AGW were valid, you could re-run the data for the past, stopping at an arbitrarily picked known point in time, and falling within error bars say 95 % of the time, and having a consistent standard deviation of error from the proxy temperatures which has to be small, say .1 degC--a correlation near 1--and then AGW would be an actually scientific theory which had survived a strong test.

No such data or models exist.
Do you have a citation for that (WUWT doesn't count...)

Post Reply