Climate Change Denial, Anyone?

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: intergalactic fire

There is nothing that says this rise will affect humans or the planet in a bad way.

Drought, floods, fire, storms, habitat loss and destruction of entire ecosystems - not the least of which are in our oceans...increase of diseases, poverty, famine, economic collapse, war, refugees...totalitarianism

Time to wake up from our cocooning dreams and start planning for our new future - before it gets planned for us

What does that has to do with rise in co2 levels if I may ask?

Apart from that. There is no such evidence all you say is happening or will happen or there has been an increase.
Do you really believe you can plan against mother nature? Nature has and always will plan for us, the best thing we can do is plan with her, understand and listen.

a reply to: jrod

what about Ivar Giaever or Fred Goldberg or William Happer or Joseph Bast or Lennart Bengtsson or Richard Lindzen or Don Easterbrook or Timothy Ball, i can go on for a while here.
I guess they all talk crap and are backed by the oil industry and such.

You want to educate yourself start reading

a reply to: intergalactic fire

...the best thing we can do is plan with her, understand and listen.

You're kidding - right?

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
Actually, there are large number of credible people who disagree with anthropogenically sourced climate change.

Judith Curry, a climatologist is one of them.

Really?

Judith Curry is not credible on climate change. Just read the language she uses. It's all weasel-worded.

e: I should also note that she does not dispute that human emission of carbon dioxide warms the planet.

Excuse the ignorance, but what sorts of evidence show the causal link between man and climate change? Surely the climate is deviating from the norm, and surely we are destroying vast amounts of flora and fauna (which is evil enough in its own right), but I cannot think of anything indisputable regarding the causal link.

originally posted by: Aphorism
Excuse the ignorance, but what sorts of evidence show the causal link between man and climate change? Surely the climate is deviating from the norm, and surely we are destroying vast amounts of flora and fauna (which is evil enough in its own right), but I cannot think of anything indisputable regarding the causal link.

if you truly are interested, please check out the berkely earth project

what makes this source so credible is that Dr. Mueller was hired by the Koch brothers as a self described "global warming skeptic" to review the data and look for the proof that there was bias, faulty sensors and that the sun was really responsible for it and to testify in front of congress to that effect.

a funny thing happened

as a true scientist, he let the data inform his conclusion. He ran enormous random data crunches to eliminate bias, and only used data from the most reliable sources and they examined solar impact going back much further than anyone else has. He concluded that the best match for the temps record is the CO2 record, and that most of that is man made.

“but as a scientist , I feel it is my duty to let the evidence change my mi nd .”

summary of findings

Richard Muller, Founder and Scientific Director of Berkeley Earth, notes “Much to my surprise, b y far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice . ” He emphasizes that the match between the data and the theory do esn’t prove that carbon dioxide is responsible for the warming, but the good fit makes it the strongest contender. “ T o be considered seriously, an y alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as does carbon dioxide.” In its 2007 report the IPCC concluded only that “ most ” of the warming of the past 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the IPCC, that increased solar activity could have contributed to warming prior to 1956 . Berkeley Earth analyzed about 5 times more station records than were used in previous analyses, and this expanded data base along with its new statistical approach allowed Berkeley Earth to go about 100 years farther back in time than previous studies. By doing so, the Berkeley Earth team was able to conclude that over 25 0 years, the contribution of solar activity to global warming is negligible.

originally posted by: Aphorism
Excuse the ignorance, but what sorts of evidence show the causal link between man and climate change? Surely the climate is deviating from the norm, and surely we are destroying vast amounts of flora and fauna (which is evil enough in its own right), but I cannot think of anything indisputable regarding the causal link.

Carbon dioxide is indisputably a greenhouse gas: just look at Mars.

Mars should be about 210K, based on the Stefan-Boltzmann black-body radiation law. However, it has an atmosphere almost entirely composed of carbon dioxide (96%), albeit very thin. This results in a surface temperature slightly warmer, at about 215K. Ergo, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

If Mars were to acquire more atmospheric carbon dioxide, it would be warmer. The same applies to Earth.

Earth should be about 255K, based on the same law. However, it has a much thicker atmosphere and is quite a bit warmer, with a surface temperature at about 288K. Earth's main greenhouse gas is not carbon dioxide, but water vapor. A great concern among scientists is that warmer temperatures will increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.

Man is burning fossil fuels, which are composed of carbon and when burned create significant quantities of carbon dioxide as a byproduct. This increases atmospheric carbon dioxide, and subsequently warms the planet at the surface.

a reply to: CoBaZ

The term Climate Change came about because it used to be global cooling then it changed to global warming but when the figures didn't support that it had to change to climate change. Now the term climate change is used because they cannot prove the globe is warming it is now anything that's changing.
Climate changes its not man made except maybe for HAARP chem trails and that tsunami in Japan

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Uh-huh, sure.

Meanwhile, in reality:
WH Memo 9/17/1969: "It is now pretty clearly agreed that the C02 content will rise 25% by 2000.”

Note the date on that White House memo.

a reply to: Phage

Who has made these claims?

James Lovelock, among others.

Weather and climate are chaotic systems whose behaviour is governed by interdependent variables. It is impossible to predict the future state of such a system at any given time unless all the values of this function are known or calculable.

Thus we can say nothing with certainty. We can, however, make projections based on what we observe, what we know, and on past experience.

It will never be enough for the pampered and selfish. They will squeeze every ounce of uncertainty for all the political juice it contains. The husk they throw away will be Earth.

a reply to: Astyanax

Keep on deprin...

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said. “The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.

James Lovelock

a reply to: Greven
I could give a flying squirrels tail what date is on a government memo.
Both Republicans and democrats have signed onto the global warming hype. It is all part of the UN and Agenda 21 and supported and promoted by elites
Ever heard of Roger Ravelle? www.climatechangedispatch.com...

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: mc_squared
I am calling bull#. If its just weather when its cool, then its just weather when its hot. Neither condition is proof of AGW theory.

And I'm calling bull# on your bull#.

For years we had to listen to deniers spew endlessly about how global warming apparently “stopped” in 1998. It didn't at all, but they of course picked that year because it was the last time we had a massive El Nino, thus choosing a deliberate starting point that diminished the underlying trend.

Now we have another large El Nino to compare 1998 to in an apples-to-apples manner, and it’s not even close. 2016 has been much, much hotter than 1998 ever was, even though the two ENSO cycles themselves are very similar in magnitude.





The long term man-made trend is still there, just as it's always been.

Meanwhile nobody in the AGW camp has ignored the influence of El Nino itself. I did a thread last November where I talked about it extensively in the OP. This drew all sorts of confused responses from people who couldn't understand how someone can consider both signals at the same time, as if you have to be on one team or the other.

AGW proponents seem to be the only ones honest enough to put these things on a level playing field. Deniers meanwhile ignore El Nino completely when it gives them the results they want (1998), and then blame everything on it when it doesn't (2016).

Your accusations are full of so much projection bias it's absurd.

a reply to: Astyanax

James Lovelock, among others.

Oh. Well then. I don't hold, in particular, with that train of thought. While interconnectivity cannot be denied the notion that it implies some all encompassing synergy is a reach into speculation.

Thus we can say nothing with certainty. We can, however, make projections based on what we observe, what we know, and on past experience.

Indeed.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Aphorism
Excuse the ignorance, but what sorts of evidence show the causal link between man and climate change? Surely the climate is deviating from the norm, and surely we are destroying vast amounts of flora and fauna (which is evil enough in its own right), but I cannot think of anything indisputable regarding the causal link.

Carbon dioxide is indisputably a greenhouse gas: just look at Mars.

Mars should be about 210K, based on the Stefan-Boltzmann black-body radiation law. However, it has an atmosphere almost entirely composed of carbon dioxide (96%), albeit very thin. This results in a surface temperature slightly warmer, at about 215K. Ergo, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

If Mars were to acquire more atmospheric carbon dioxide, it would be warmer. The same applies to Earth.

Earth should be about 255K, based on the same law. However, it has a much thicker atmosphere and is quite a bit warmer, with a surface temperature at about 288K. Earth's main greenhouse gas is not carbon dioxide, but water vapor. A great concern among scientists is that warmer temperatures will increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.

Man is burning fossil fuels, which are composed of carbon and when burned create significant quantities of carbon dioxide as a byproduct. This increases atmospheric carbon dioxide, and subsequently warms the planet at the surface.

So why did this experiment didn't work?


What is happening that we are not aware off?

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: intergalactic fire

...the best thing we can do is plan with her, understand and listen.

You're kidding - right?

Excuse me?

a reply to: pl3bscheese

That's reassuring, but I think we've gone a bit beyond predictions now. That is the point being made here.

It's happening. What you or I believe about it just doesn't matter any more.

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
So why did this experiment didn't work?

What is happening that we are not aware off?

There are lots of flaws with this experiment, but one you can easily see yourself is simply comparing the thermometers at the beginning (A&B@1m 12s) to the thermometers at the end (A@18m 35s, B@18m 52s).

Why have the thermometers not moved?

a reply to: intergalactic fire

I apologize intergalactic. I thought I was being obvious

But then, that seems to be par for the course with this whole climate change discussion :-)

People have different ideas about what's obvious - and I have to figure (now) that the power of denial is at least as strong as the power that comes with honest investigation and discovery

We should always listen to what Mother Nature is trying to tell us

On this we are agreed

:-)

.... this discussion seems to have gone where they all go - into arguing whether climate change is man made or not!

Why??

It might be, it might not, it might be a mix of natural cycles exacerbated by human civilisation (the most common opinion where I am ).

But again - what does it matter???

Is someone worried about determining fault because there is going to be a prison sentence for humanity if it can be determined we had a hand in it???