Climate Change Denial: Why?

a reply to: TheRedneck

IPCC doesn't have 'a model', it reviews the works of hundreds of modelers.

And the internal and external validity of the climate models are continuously being tested---what else are the scientists doing?

And they're doing pretty well.

www.theguardian.com...

Both qualitative and quantitative predictions are on track. And there is no alternative explanation for the observations: an ignorant "uh we don't know but it could be something we haven't discovered yet" doesn't cut it.

a reply to: TheRedneck

There is nobody in the government with political authority who actually WANTS global warming, because

a) there is no political gain to be made
b) there is no money to be made which counteracts the great amount of money to be lost

It just happens that there are people who work for agencies who are scientists and believe in looking at the truth of physics whatever it says.

I have heard first hand from scientists participating in the IPCC process about minor political interference from governments: it was always on the side of attempting to soften or obscure the results and projections showing warming.

a reply to: mbkennel

IPCC doesn't have 'a model', it reviews the works of hundreds of modelers.

Then the IPCC has been making predictions based on what? The color of the moon? Tea leaves? Is James Hansen sitting in a back room of East Anglican University mumbling strange syllables while he peers into a black mirror?

Of course they use models.

Of course scientists are improving their models (the last two pages have been me explaining that).

Of course they're getting better.

But according to your link, they're still blowing up some toward the end. Just not as bad.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

When you refer to AGW theory, which has plethora of evidence to support it, as a religion it tells us the reader that you are not here to have a meaningful discussion, you are just here to interject your uneducated opinion and fling insults.

Historically CO2 has been shown as a driving force in this planet's climate, hence the concern from the vast majority of scientists over the rising CO2 levels.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

When you refer to AGW theory, which has plethora of evidence to support it, as a religion it tells us the reader that you are not here to have a meaningful discussion, you are just here to interject your uneducated opinion and fling insults.

Historically CO2 has been shown as a driving force in this planet's climate, hence the concern from the vast majority of scientists over the rising CO2 levels.

That's a really good point. If you say anything supporting any part of anything having to do with AGW or Man made Global warming or mans considerable effects on the earth or even to a smaller degree--even if you are of the opinion that the earth is getting warmer for any reason, you are lumped into a religion or denigrated to some degree or called "The AGW/Climate Alarmist/Global Warming Crowd"

What people fail to understand is that there are thousands upon thousands of studies, research papers, scientific articles, charts, graphs, journal entries, statements from scientists and scientific organizations, raw data, etc.

You would be an idiot not to take what they are saying into or under consideration. Or, the horror, actually believe what scientists are telling us. How can you insult or belittle someone that actually reads, listens, watches and consumes scientific data, articles and summaries. Isn't that a hall mark of denying ignorance.

a reply to: jrod

Historically CO2 has been shown as a driving force in this planet's climate, hence the concern from the vast majority of scientists over the rising CO2 levels.

May I ask where you get that information? Last time I looked, it had been shown as correlated, not causal.

And I believe there were some reports that temperature preceded carbon dioxide levels by a short time... not sure if I can find that report from here...

TheRedneck

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
I have lived in the Kansas City area for most of my life.....the weather has changed. The storms are far more severe - we never had "microbursts" before. We didn't have early October ice storms that shut the city down. Rain didn't used to blow uphill. It is different.

And whether or not it is a blip or a permanent reality, our energy bills are astronomical whenever there's a protracted heat wave or an unprecendented deep freeze or a flood of 1993 that wipes out entire villages.

The Earth changes.

Why can't you deal with that reality?

You did know there was a massive lake in the middle of the western USA many thousands of years ago right?

Did humans mess that up?

What about Doggerland? Remains of civilizations have been found all over the North Sea floor. Who's fault was the flooding of that?

Glaciers created much of the American landscape and retreated THOUSANDS of years before industrialization. So how was that OUR FAULT???

Do yourself a favor and follow the path of a random river in the middle of nowhere where humans haven't made efforts to control everything.

I had an epiphany several years ago when looking at some satellite imagery from India when I noticed how much you can see the former paths of the river and how frequently it appears to change. The reality of nature really struck me then: NATURE CHANGES. IT'S HUMANS THAT WANT EVERYTHING TO ALWAYS BE THE SAME.

It's all in perception. There are ancient cities sitting on seafloord all over the world, and they are not proof of mankind destroying the planet, they are proof the planet CHANGES and basically she doesn't give a damn where we put out cities, or what we think in "NORMAL" for weather or anything else. So maybe the storms in your area are different than when you were younger, also maybe there are new terms like microburst that you didn't hear when you were younger and meteorology wasn't as advanced.

But yes, the planet changes, deserts become fertile land, and fertile land wastes into sand or falls into the ocean. Islands form in the middle of Oceans and Lakes and sometimes volcanoes destroy entire States or Countries.

We are the ones who lay metal mesh on the bottom of the Mississippi because we can't stand the idea of a River changing course. We are the ones who can't deal with beaches moving and shorelines evolving, because we are so arrogant and proud of our little insignificant Condominiums, so we build seawalls to try and maintain everything like we remember when we were 10years old.

Let the planet do its thing

www.google.co.uk...=isch&q=ox bow+lake

writingfornature.files.wordpress.com...

www.iii.lv...

pubs.usgs.gov...

upload.wikimedia.org...

Here is a scientist who has a different idea of climate change.

Physicist who foresees global cooling says other scientists tried to ‘silence’ her

A physicist who foresees a 30-year period of global cooling says other climatologists have tried to “silence” her latest research on solar cycles.

Valentina Zharkova, a professor at Northumbria University at Newcastle in the United Kingdom, said the Royal Astronomical Society received requests to withdraw a press release on her team’s latest research pointing to a significant drop in solar activity by mid-century.

She presented her results July 9 at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno, Wales. “Some of them [scientists] were welcoming and discussing. But some of them were quite, I would say, pushy,” saidMs. Zharkova in a video interview posted Tuesday by the Global Warming Policy Forum. “They were trying to actually silence us. Some of them contacted the Royal Astronomical Society demanding behind our back that they withdraw our press release.”

Is because she is a woman and Russian?



www.washingtontimes.com...

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: mbkennel

IPCC doesn't have 'a model', it reviews the works of hundreds of modelers.

Then the IPCC has been making predictions based on what?

Published peer-reviewed work. You can download the reports and read the bibliography. Every single section relates back to published work.

a reply to: 8675309jenny

Since there are natural forces at work, it's best that we don't shove our dirty fingers into the workings and make things much worse by driving forcing gases to levels never seen since humans had ever existed.

Smaller climate shifts have wiped out major civilizations.

If the 'planet doing its thing' in response to our pollution (massive coral die-off, shift in critical rain patterns affecting major agricultural regions) is to give us Mother Nature's Middle Finger Up The Arse, maybe we should stop polluting as much first.

The Earth will be fine. It's us humans who are going to be buggered, and because of idiocy and mind-numbing platitudes like "the Earth always changes".

The causality of CO2 (and other properties of the atmosphere) on climate comes from physics and current observations in place, not historical indirect inferences.

a reply to: mbkennel

Published peer-reviewed work based on what?

And to keep things nice and neat, in response to your last post:

Care to explain to me that theoretical causal relationship and how it is dependent on the absorption spectra? Links not required, just put it in your own words.

TheRedneck

a reply to: mbkennel

It's us humans who are going to be buggered,

Humans are not the end-result to the ongoing evolutionary process. Pushing for an impossible goal, like a climate in stasis, is laughable.

Humans are a product of nature, everything we create is derived from natural, and therefore natural. Our evolutionary path has given us the ability to overcome limitations and obstacles through technology.

Our focus should be on colonizing space, it is more feasible than relying on a single planet.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Some people are still guided by Al Gore's lies (and realclimate.com/skepticalscience's lies) that CO2 caused temperatures to increase, when CO2 has had an average lag of 800 years behind temperature increases.

Of course, when the lag of CO2 behind temperature increases is shown, the AGW crowd try to twist it into claiming climate change is still caused by CO2, or that the lag is not important at all, that even with the lag CO2 is more important or some other excuse. (the excuses to keep the lie going keep changing)

The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature

Ole Humluma, b, , , Kjell Stordahlc, Jan-Erik Solheimd

a Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1047 Blindern, N-0316 Oslo, Norway
b Department of Geology, University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS), P.O. Box 156, N-9171 Longyearbyen, Svalbard, Norway
c Telenor Norway, Finance, N-1331 Fornebu, Norway
d Department of Physics and Technology, University of Tromsø, N-9037 Tromsø, Norway

Received 25 April 2012, Accepted 25 August 2012, Available online 30 August 2012

Abstract

Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets: 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5–10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.

www.sciencedirect.com...

Remember that the 800 average lag is an average. As to why the lag is less in the current climate change all you have to do is take a look at the wild changes our Sun, and even our Earth's magnetic fields have been undergoing.

CO2 changes have not been either the main factor, nor a mayor factor behind the ongoing climate change.

originally posted by: jrod

Historically CO2 has been shown as a driving force in this planet's climate, hence the concern from the vast majority of scientists over the rising CO2 levels.

Calling AGW a false religion is not an insult, because that's what AGW is. It is based on false assumptions, and lies. If the "concern" by the AGW scientists was well founded, why have they been lying, and publishing false information such as the claim the Himalayas would melt by 2035? Why the deletion of raw temperature data? Why the rigging of temperatures all over the globe? Why have many of the AGW scientists been pushing to silence the tens of thousands of scientists who have called AGW as a hoax?...

If AGW was truly real, then there would be no need for lies, no need for the temperature data rigging, not need to delete raw temperature data, etc...

And let's not forget, the same AGW scientists who have participated on temperature data deletion, the lies, etc, are the one claiming there has been no data rigging, no lies, etc when the evidence to the contrary has been shown plenty of times.


The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

BOM finally explains! Cooling changed to warming trends because stations “might” have moved!

Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled

Climategate: “these e-mails explicitly refer to falsification and rigging of data”

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You are just making stuff up and providing links to questionable sources.

The pause you mention is non existent......


It is the same stuff with you every thread....i am done here, you have proven to me you are a fool when you insist climate science is a religion, bring up Al Gore, ect..I am done trying to argue with you.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You are correct in three generalized statements:

• Historically, we see a correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and mean temperature.
  
• Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in those observations show temperature lags behind atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
  
• The lag is not consistent.

If two variables A and B in a system indicate correlation, there are four possibilities:

• Variable A is directly causal to variable B. In this case, variable A is expected to lag variable B by a relatively constant amount.
  
  
• Variable B is directly causal to variable A. In this case, variable B is expected to lag variable A by a relatively constant amount.
  
  
• Variables A and B are causal to a third, unknown variable C (which may, in itself, be a function of A, B, or both). In this case, there may be a lag in either direction and the lag may vary depending on the complexity of the system.
  
  
• The correlation is coincidental. Rare, and typically only considered after exhaustive attempts to determine causality have failed to produce positive results.

If we assign atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to variable A and mean temperature to variable B, and if we assume observational accuracy on our estimated times (a large assumption in itself, but needed for this argument), then we have substantial empirical data showing variable B cannot be directly causal to variable A. If we further observe the wide range range of variability in the lag times indicated by empiracle data, we can further conclude that there is no direct causal relationship.

The logical conclusion is that either variable A is causal to variable B, or that both are causal to a third unknown variable C, and that causality is not direct. In English, the historical empiracle data suggests something is driving carbon dioxide levels as well as mean temperature, and that something appears to be a complex relationship.

It's not pretty. It is easier to just make a blanket statement: "Carbon dioxide causes warming." or "Carbon dioxide doesn't cause warming." But it's not accurate, any more than saying: "Lightning causes rain."

TheRedneck

a reply to: 8675309jenny

The Earth changes.

Why can't you deal with that reality?

You did know there was a massive lake in the middle of the western USA many thousands of years ago right?

Why can't you deal with the reality that I've said that all along?
Why are you unable to enter a thread regarding science without treating me like I'm four years old?

Yes, I live in what was the edge of that massive lake. Do you know what the Loess Hills are? How they got here?

If you do, I expect you to type it out immediately. In your own words. An explanation. Quick. Chop Chop...
What are the Loess Hills? Where are they? How do you pronounce "Loess"? Are there any except the ones here in the middle of the united states (which hills border the high prairies and high plains and flint hills of the American Midwest)?


Ready?!! And.........GO. You have one minute. Type.

The correlation is coincidental. Rare, and typically only considered after exhaustive attempts to determine causality have failed to produce positive results.

Yes, correlation does not and can not prove a cause. But we do have more than just a correlation to suggest that CO2 can affect temperature. The CO2 down-welling radiation has been measured with an ‘atmospheric emitted radiance interferometer’ which is used to determine the absorption characteristics of certain gases in the atmosphere. It shows an increase in back-radiation on CO2 absorption wavelengths at the surface of about 0.2 W/m2 per 22ppmv. This increased radiation can then be converted to a temperature-increase with the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

a reply to: Nathan-D

I do not state that the correlation between mean temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels is coincidental. If you re-read my post carefully, you will see that I actually discount that possibility in this case, precisely for the reason you mention.

The effect of carbon dioxide absorption and re-emission is well established.

That is not, however, the same as general correlation relationships in a complex system. There are additional forcings occurring, both linear and non-linear. We do not yet understand the forcings well enough to make a generalized statement with any reasonable degree of accuracy. The tolerance level of the observations are 33%... far too high for comfort. Theoretically, we would expect the effect to fall off at a reverse-exponential rate. Photosynyhesis, which appears to accelerate with rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, has an integral evaporational component, which is a negative forcing. And there are probably additional forcings we are not yet aware of.

Only until the models are proven accurate can we begin to make and verify predictions with any accuracy. Until then, any studies are just more information for the models, not cause for sweeping legislation.

TheRedneck