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

Post by Mikemcc01 »

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.
It seems that AGW is likely to be the least of our concerns, it's just the most public. Peak oil is by far and away a bigger problem. Fuel costs in the UK have recently risen by greater than 20%... That's on top of the massive increases in 2009-2010! (probably about 30-35% in the last two years (though I don't have a source for that)).

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

Post by bcglorf »

Mikemcc01 wrote:
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.
It seems that AGW is likely to be the least of our concerns, it's just the most public. Peak oil is by far and away a bigger problem. Fuel costs in the UK have recently risen by greater than 20%... That's on top of the massive increases in 2009-2010! (probably about 30-35% in the last two years (though I don't have a source for that)).
But the upside to peak oil would be a sharp and rapid cut in human CO2 emissions. Even the IPCC's projections to 2100 presuppose continuing human CO2 emissions, but that won't happen if we run out of oil in 50 years.

Personally, I predict improved batteries or similar electrical energy storage will move us off oil even sooner than 50 years anyways...

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

Post by Mikemcc01 »

bcglorf wrote:
Mikemcc01 wrote:
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.
It seems that AGW is likely to be the least of our concerns, it's just the most public. Peak oil is by far and away a bigger problem. Fuel costs in the UK have recently risen by greater than 20%... That's on top of the massive increases in 2009-2010! (probably about 30-35% in the last two years (though I don't have a source for that)).
But the upside to peak oil would be a sharp and rapid cut in human CO2 emissions. Even the IPCC's projections to 2100 presuppose continuing human CO2 emissions, but that won't happen if we run out of oil in 50 years.

Personally, I predict improved batteries or similar electrical energy storage will move us off oil even sooner than 50 years anyways...
Technically yes, socially no. At the moment we can provide for the population (in terms of energy, not feedstock).

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

Post by TDPerk »

"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)."

I suppose it's accepted by people who don't imagine there are longer cycles of significance. That's a proposition that's not merely undemonstrated, it doesn't pass the laugh test. It has that in common with AGW.

"Do you have a citation for that (WUWT doesn't count...)"

Sorry Charlie, Mann and Hansen don't count. I doubt you can show one lie or exaggeration Watt has ever said or typed in relation to AGW. Your heroes, however, their feet of clay go up between their ears. And that's a best case scenario.

The odds favor deliberate fraud on the part of one or both of them.
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

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

Post by bcglorf »

Mikemcc01 wrote:
bcglorf wrote:
Mikemcc01 wrote:It seems that AGW is likely to be the least of our concerns, it's just the most public. Peak oil is by far and away a bigger problem. Fuel costs in the UK have recently risen by greater than 20%... That's on top of the massive increases in 2009-2010! (probably about 30-35% in the last two years (though I don't have a source for that)).
But the upside to peak oil would be a sharp and rapid cut in human CO2 emissions. Even the IPCC's projections to 2100 presuppose continuing human CO2 emissions, but that won't happen if we run out of oil in 50 years.

Personally, I predict improved batteries or similar electrical energy storage will move us off oil even sooner than 50 years anyways...
Technically yes, socially no. At the moment we can provide for the population (in terms of energy, not feedstock).
There's two ways to take your statement and I'm not sure which you intend. I presume you are meaning oil's dual use for both energy and a feedstock to other processes? The other meaning is the more general we can provide our population with enough energy but not enough food, which is false and I don't think your intention.

I haven't looked at good sources, but isn't the global consumption of oil dominated by "burn it for energy" purposes. Feedstock into other industrial processes was by comparison almost negligible in my understanding. Admittedly, I take that on a projection from personal observation, so if the hard numbers show significantly better than 10% of oil consumption is for things other than fuel, it might make some difference. Still I don't see our non-energy demand for oil being as big a deal...

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

Post by Mikemcc01 »

TDPerk wrote:"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)."

I suppose it's accepted by people who don't imagine there are longer cycles of significance. That's a proposition that's not merely undemonstrated, it doesn't pass the laugh test. It has that in common with AGW.

"Do you have a citation for that (WUWT doesn't count...)"

Sorry Charlie, Mann and Hansen don't count. I doubt you can show one lie or exaggeration Watt has ever said or typed in relation to AGW. Your heroes, however, their feet of clay go up between their ears. And that's a best case scenario.

The odds favor deliberate fraud on the part of one or both of them.
Then please provide a reference that shows that there are longer cyclical processes that explain the temperature rises over the last 100 years. I've yet to find one.

As to lies and distortions from Antony Watt and WUWT, please don't get me started I could fill many posts with the rubbish that Watts and his merry band have posted. Remarkably they could find litttle about the preliminary findings that supported the main-stream view...

You seem to have insinuated fraud from "Charlie, Mann and Hansen ", would you like to expand on that potentially libelous statement? Or can you prove it?

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

Post by bcglorf »

Mikemcc01 wrote:
TDPerk wrote:"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)."

I suppose it's accepted by people who don't imagine there are longer cycles of significance. That's a proposition that's not merely undemonstrated, it doesn't pass the laugh test. It has that in common with AGW.

"Do you have a citation for that (WUWT doesn't count...)"

Sorry Charlie, Mann and Hansen don't count. I doubt you can show one lie or exaggeration Watt has ever said or typed in relation to AGW. Your heroes, however, their feet of clay go up between their ears. And that's a best case scenario.

The odds favor deliberate fraud on the part of one or both of them.
Then please provide a reference that shows that there are longer cyclical processes that explain the temperature rises over the last 100 years. I've yet to find one.

As to lies and distortions from Antony Watt and WUWT, please don't get me started I could fill many posts with the rubbish that Watts and his merry band have posted. Remarkably they could find litttle about the preliminary findings that supported the main-stream view...

You seem to have insinuated fraud from "Charlie, Mann and Hansen ", would you like to expand on that potentially libelous statement? Or can you prove it?
We don't know anything about how the last 100 years fit against the historical record because the method of recording changed. We have 100 years of direct measurement, and are comparing it to proxies. The difficulty in mapping them to each other is rather plainly related to the change of method rather than a significant signal in the data over the last 100 years. A small rise over 100 years might well be lost in the noise after another 300k years worth of ice are piled atop it, no?

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

Post by seedload »

Mikemcc01 wrote:Then please provide a reference that shows that there are longer cyclical processes that explain the temperature rises over the last 100 years. I've yet to find one.
I think the use of the term 'cyclical' is unnecessary. All you need to show is that the temperature rise of the last 100 years is not unprecedented. If it is not unprecedented then you can not automatically attribute it to CO2. To tell you the thruth, until it becomes unprecedented, it isn't even worth looking at.

This is why Mann's hockey stick is so necessary to AGW arguments and is still so often sighted despite it's obvious flaws.

Yes, I find Watts too opinionated and too willing to post drivel but there are gems there too. Climateaudit is a really good site for a skeptical look at historical temperature reconstructions.

Anyway, here is my take on historical hockey sticks.

Image

Data if from the GISP2 ice core in Greenland. You can do a similar thing with Vostok in Antarctica.

Note - the GISP data ends in 1900. I added another century of 0.6 degrees C of warming to get to 2000. This is about right.

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

Post by Mikemcc01 »

It's not unprecedented in that spot. You cannot relate central Greenland (or Vostok for that matter) into a global proxy

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

Post by bcglorf »

Mikemcc01 wrote:It's not unprecedented in that spot. You cannot relate central Greenland (or Vostok for that matter) into a global proxy
Care to provide examples of global proxies that disagree with the Vostok and Greenland patterns? Even Mann's chosen proxies don't much diverge save for the specific noted Tiljander set that was ruined in the mid 1800's by local human activity.

AcesHigh
Posts: 655
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:59 am

Post by AcesHigh »

Brazil, tonight
Image

dont get much more than that in the 21st century. In the 19th century, we had accumulations of 80cm in Vacaria (1870) and over 2 meters deep snow in 1500m high plateau between Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina (in 1879).


last year, a puny 10cm accumulation that lasted 1 day only, what the biggest such accumuation in 15 years and was greeted like something out of the ordinary.


well, of course, the 19th century WAS colder, so I guess its not much of a comparassion.

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

Post by seedload »

Mikemcc01 wrote:It's not unprecedented in that spot. You cannot relate central Greenland (or Vostok for that matter) into a global proxy
You should restate that as you cannot relate central Greenland or Vostok to a global proxy UNLESS you are trying to show the correlation between CO2 and global temperature. Only then is it okay.

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

Post by bcglorf »

seedload wrote:
Mikemcc01 wrote:It's not unprecedented in that spot. You cannot relate central Greenland (or Vostok for that matter) into a global proxy
You should restate that as you cannot relate central Greenland or Vostok to a global proxy UNLESS you are trying to show the correlation between CO2 and global temperature. Only then is it okay.
And furthermore, most global temperature recreations all emphasis that the warming is MOST pronounced at the poles. Presumably that means the unprecedented spike should show up most strongly in Greenland and Vostok.

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

Post by Mikemcc01 »

AcesHigh wrote:Brazil, tonight
Image

dont get much more than that in the 21st century. In the 19th century, we had accumulations of 80cm in Vacaria (1870) and over 2 meters deep snow in 1500m high plateau between Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina (in 1879).


last year, a puny 10cm accumulation that lasted 1 day only, what the biggest such accumuation in 15 years and was greeted like something out of the ordinary.


well, of course, the 19th century WAS colder, so I guess its not much of a comparassion.
Good for you. Meanwhile south island NZ are looking at redunancies because there is little to no snow.

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

Post by Mikemcc01 »

bcglorf wrote:
seedload wrote:
Mikemcc01 wrote:It's not unprecedented in that spot. You cannot relate central Greenland (or Vostok for that matter) into a global proxy
You should restate that as you cannot relate central Greenland or Vostok to a global proxy UNLESS you are trying to show the correlation between CO2 and global temperature. Only then is it okay.
And furthermore, most global temperature recreations all emphasis that the warming is MOST pronounced at the poles. Presumably that means the unprecedented spike should show up most strongly in Greenland and Vostok.
They also say that most variation happens at the poles.

Post Reply