The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

Liar.

I didn't say anything was wrong other than the OP's repeated use of "C02" - heck of a 'typo' there when it's done multiple times. That's demonstrative of a fundamental lack of understanding.

Excuse me, but yes you did. Your posts are proof. I just gave evidence that everything you called the OP out on was untrue. When you make untrue accusations, expect to be called out on it. When it concerns the Global Warming scam, expect me to be the one to call you out. I have a personal stake in this argument: I care about the planet.

Why invest time I do not have in rebutting any further?

It is obvious you have no intention of doing so. You took four separate areas of the OP which are true, and called them untrue. I refuted all four with facts. Your response: calling me a liar.

Is it a lie that the atmospheric carbon dioxide level is less than 1%? If so, try proving it with something other than "liar." A link, an experiment, a photocopy of the page of a book, something more substantial than calling me a name.

You and others will refuse to believe anyway. You don't enter these discussions in good faith to begin with. Willful disregard for the perils facing us and the future of humankind, motivated by greed, is quite frankly evil.

If you define "good faith" as "willing to accept any amount of pure BS in place of scientific reasoning, experimentation, and factual analysis," then you are correct. You want a good faith discussion? Try debating in good faith yourself.

On my keyboard, the 'O' and '0' keys are within a centimeter of each other. I am not a typist, therefore it is easy to make the erroneous keystroke, and hard to catch since the two look so much alike. Proof of that is in my earlier post. I purposely used the zero instead of the 'O' to see if you would catch it; you did not even mention it.

Add to that the fact that muscle memory can and does cause some typos to be repeated over and over. I have a tendency to type the word "from" as "form"... I certainly know better, but I have made that same typo so many times I have to proof each post for that specific mistake, and still tend to miss one every once in a while.

And even if the OP is not aware of the technical grammar used, even if the 'typo' was a technical mistake, does that invalidate anything else he posted? Talk about bad faith discussions!

TheRedneck

You continue to lie. When you're in a hole, stop digging.

Quote where I called everything the OP said untrue (you can't because you imagined it prior to this post). I did see you wrote '0h' and ignored the mockery.

What I will say to you is this...

Physicists figured out over a hundred years ago that burning fossil fuels would cause global warming, and then they moved on to other things. There are four simple reasons behind that:

1) The Earth should be about 255K based on the Stefan-Boltzmann law; at the surface, it is considerably warmer, but the whole of the atmosphere averages to about 255K.
2) This variation in temperature is due to the greenhouse effect, which redistributes energy within the atmosphere by gases intercepting radiation leaving the surface and redirecting some of it back to the surface - cooling higher parts of the atmosphere.
3) CO2, second only to water vapor in overall effect, is a gas that intercepts and re-emits infrared radiation at certain wavelengths - long proven by spectroscopy.
4) CO2 levels are going up because we are burning fossil fuels, which combines atmospheric O2 with C; consequently, O2 levels are decreasing and CO2 levels are rising somewhat less than what humans are emitting to the atmosphere.

That's all the steps it takes to say that humans are causing warming.

The idea that the Sun is cooling considerably is nonsense. There is some variation in output energy from minimum to maximum - a few Watts per square meter. One older paper reconstructed up to ±5.8 W/m^2 swing, while our observations have seen only 2 W/m^2 variation.

However, due to the geometry involved (radiation against one half of a sphere), that would mean 1/4th of that change on Earth. Instead of ~342 W/m^2, it would be ~338 W/m^2. This is further reduced due to albedo by about 30%, resulting in the average energy reaching the Earth's surface being ~240 W/m^2; the higher swing would be ~237 W/m^2 assuming we're currently on the peak.

The equation for Stefan-Boltzmann is E = σT^4
E = energy flux (W/m^2)
σ = 5.67×10^-8 W/m^2
T = temperature (in Kelvin)

Peak:
~240 W/m^2 = 5.67×10^-8 W/m^2 * T^4
~4232804232.80 = T^4
Tpeak = 255.07 K

Valley:
~237 W/m^2 = 5.67×10^-8 W/m^2 * T^4
~4179894179.89 = T^4
Tvalley = 254.27 K

Tpeak - Tvalley = 0.8 K

That is the highest estimate - there are significantly lower estimates. Such a difference is not insignificant, but here's a plot twist - we've already added much more than 1 K to the temperature at the surface since 1850; it's closer to 2 K since preindustrial times.

Oh, and there's one other teeny thing to consider... the solar constant isn't exactly constant. It differs due to distance between the Earth and the Sun. Something that might confuse you is when we get more energy versus when we get less:
1412 W/m² in early January
1321 W/m² in early July

So, running our equations again, you'll see...
January:
~247 W/m^2 = 5.67×10^-8 W/m^2 * T^4
~4358024691.36 = T^4
Tjanuary = 256.93 K

July:
~231 W/m^2 = 5.67×10^-8 W/m^2 * T^4
~4077160493.83 = T^4
Tjuly = 252.69 K

Tjanuary - Tjuly = 4.24 K

Annual is of course different than seasonal, but it's something to think about.

a reply to: Xenogears

Energy resource scarcity will make geoengineering solutions impossible to implement either.

That is the danger of this Global Warming nonsense. While we argue about whether or not there is an invisible boogeyman floating around, forests are disappearing, oceans are being polluted, and science is not advancing in trying to understand the planet. Science is required by financial imperative to advance results in one direction only and experience is showing that Global Warming is the wrong direction.

With continued progress we can live like gods, we can be gods, free from mortality, free from work, free from necessity.

Those who would be gods are usually those who are least deserving to be gods.

Immortality = an eternity of dealing with stoopid. No, thanks.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: UKTruth
It's getting colder and will continue to do so as the sun enters a natural cycle.
Apart from the known science relating to the above, I KNOW it's getting colder because I have observed it in my life. No manipulated data set is going to change my own personal experience.

AGW was and is a giant con to take more money from people.
Here's just one of the scams... in the UK, back in 2001, the govt at the height of the scam decided to tax cars on CO2 output... car companies invested in new development of efficient engines and we all paid more for them... we got super tiny engines with low CO2 outputs and utterly uninspiring driving capability...and the tax rolled in.. not just from those who were stung having to drive old cars getting taxed to the hilt for it, but also from all the new tax rolling in from car companies flogging their new super efficient cars. (which weren't really - another story).

So now we're all driving these super efficient boring cars we're all paying less tax, right... I mean we can take advantage of the low car tax rates, right? Wrong, the UK govt decided that now the CO2 scam has changed people's buying habits, they will raise the taxes again, meaning even higher tax than before the damn CO2 tax initiative came in during 2001 - in some cases a 700% increase.

It's a giant scam.

But you're wrong on one point. You said it's getting colder and your personal observations prove it. I say it's getting hotter . I live in Las Vegas. It's definitely getting hotter and my personal observations prove it. 20 years of observations and temperature records to back me up. That's the problem with personal observations. We're both right, but only for our small geographic locations. We need to actually look at the entire earth to see whta's really happening.

Yet records from the 1930's we know are hotter years and the Dust Bowl affected the whole western part of the US. They tried to tweak the hotter temps out so they could say it was hotter more recently and that means "MAN!" They tried to make us forget Historic Dust Bowl data to prove they were right and the logical ones were the losers.

Pfffftt

Maybe or did they take that data into consideration? Even with the Dust bowl data other parts of the earth were cooler? Or these last few years have been way hotter. Real Scientists do take all of that data into consideration.

It's like the meme thats going around says..."Plot of new movie..97% of worlds scientists in on huge conspiracy and only a plucky band of Billionaires and oil companies can save the day."

What is more plausible? That Thousands of Scientists and researchers are inept and crooked or that the right wing blogs and oil companies are crooked?

a reply to: Greven

1) The Earth should be about 255K based on the Stefan-Boltzmann law; at the surface, it is considerably warmer, but the whole of the atmosphere averages to about 255K.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to a perfect black body. We know of no such object that actually exists; instead we use Stefan-Boltzmann as a close approximation to most objects which do act close to a perfect black body.

2) This variation in temperature is due to the greenhouse effect, which redistributes energy within the atmosphere by gases intercepting radiation leaving the surface and redirecting some of it back to the surface - cooling higher parts of the atmosphere.

That is the prevailing theory, although the term "greenhouse effect" is a loose term scientifically speaking. The actual effect is the absorption and re-radiation in a random direction of photons with energy matching the spectroscopic absorption bands of the molecules in the atmosphere.

3) CO2, second only to water vapor in overall effect, is a gas that intercepts and re-emits infrared radiation at certain wavelengths - long proven by spectroscopy.

As is every other gas known to mankind. Liquids and solids, too. Spectroscopy is the study of inherent bands of absorption and re-emission of materials, which exist due to possible quantum state variations in the atomic structure of the materials studied. ALL materials, not just those we decide to study, have spectroscopic absorption bands.

As to the extent of those bands between water vapor and carbon dioxide... you are attempting to consolidate atmospheric density and spectral bandwidth. Fine, in that case, carbon dioxide is second to water vapor. But it is a far distant second place; the spectroscopic bandwidth of carbon dioxide is a tiny, minute fraction of the spectral bandwidth of water vapor, and carbon dioxide also exists in minute quantities compared to water vapor.

4) CO2 levels are going up because we are burning fossil fuels, which combines atmospheric O2 with C; consequently, O2 levels are decreasing and CO2 levels are rising somewhat less than what humans are emitting to the atmosphere.

True enough, however it is also apparent from the data we have that the planet can reabsorb carbon dioxide through natural processes. The extent of those processes is as of yet unknown, as we do not know how long the systems will take to stabilize.

The amount of oxygen removed is so tiny compared to the amount that is there, mentioning it in a non-academic setting is flirting with abuse of connotation.

That's all the steps it takes to say that humans are causing warming.

That is not a leap of logic I am willing to make on the evidence thus far.

The idea that the Sun is cooling considerably is nonsense.

I must agree, although I use the term "unproven" rather than "nonsense." We have no evidence to indicate a substantial differential in the solar output during the time spans under consideration.

Again, I repeat, Stefan-Boltzmann will provide a close approximation of the black body radiation of the planet, not a precise amount. All materials have specific quantum states they can exist in, as mentioned above, and they can only absorb energy equal to the difference between these states. This quantization throws off the exactness of the Stefan-Boltzmann law and causes it to be an approximation. What we see as temperature of a material is actually a combination of various molecules at various temperatures, averaged together to give what appears to be a purely analog temperature. A single molecule, however, will likely not be at that average temperature and indeed, could be extremely higher or lower than the average temperature. It is these particles that actually emit the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation, not the planet as a whole.

With that in mind, I do question if the relative spectral output of the sun has altered, since this could make a slight difference in the absorption/radiation of the various materials of the planet. I have not yet seen any data on that, so I cannot say one way or another if it is feasible.

TheRedneck

Don't you just love how the dialog for mass extinction has been reframed as a debated over climate change. That's just a side effect of the ecological disaster that mankind has imposed on Earth. Many species have already been pushed to extinction because of our greed, and many more are to follow. What I find particularly funny is that man just might drive himself to extinction in the process, and there is a bit of poetic justice with that. Mother Earth is going to do just fine, however. She is going to shake us off the planet like a bad case of fleas.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Justoneman
Yet we have trotted out the science over and over for you but you still are full of nonsense. Utterly foolish to ignore the things I have observed you ignore. You are no Ante.

No you haven't. Your thread on magnetic pole shifts doesn't disprove AGW. Plus I'm not obligated to pay attention to every piece of information posted by anti-AGW people. Most of you repeat the same nonsense points that have been debunked ad nauseam anyways. I tune most of it out. Also, I never claimed to be Ante. I'm me. He is Ante. I have my own thought processes. If that doesn't gel with you then too bad. I don't care. Most of you just insult me on a day to day basis anyways.

And neither are we obligated to listen to you, exactly because of the above. Unless you've proven otherwise somewhere else, you're just a young-ish guy that served in the military, and no where near a climate scientist.

And I wonder whom insulted who first. You typically enter into threads with a chip on your shoulder, from what I've seen, so you cannot possibly have been an innocent saint your whole ATS career.

a reply to: zGrimReapah

But, but, but cow farts.

a reply to: darkwingduck

Them too pal, them too.

Double Post, please delete mod, Idk how.

Global warming. Lmao

What most people don't get is that there is Climate Change. It's just been happening for the last 12,000 years. The only thing we're doing is accelerating it. But then, so is every volcano.

a reply to: 727Sky

I personally am in the cycle court. Meaning Earth goes through cycles; burn me if you want, but the darn sun is the driver.

You personally like most people do not really have a clue whats causing GW. That being said like most people you should be inclined to take the precautionary principle. Since you do not really know and the stakes are so high.
Instead you have been indoctrinated by petrochemical funding to form a belief that cleaning our air is somehow a waste of time and detrimental. Please apply some thought.

a reply to: purplemer

What, pray tell, is the 'precaution principle'?

TheRedneck

a reply to: 727Sky

The problem with CAGW has always been the math. If you cede that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the mathematically proven effect of it is that with every doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature will raise 2-3C (varies by which studies you look at). This is a logarithmic warming effect. But adding CO2 to the atmosphere is a linear process (kind of...). We just barely reached a doubling of the amounts that were in the atmosphere since just after the little ice age.

It took a couple hundred years to go from 200 to 400ppm. It will take nearly 700 years to go from 400 to 800ppm. Then a couple millennia to go from 800 to 1600ppm. To make matters worse for the CAGW crowd, the observed effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is anywhere from 0.8C (if you account for solar activity and other factors) to 1.8C (if you attribute the entirety of the warming cycle to CO2). So we could easily hit 1600ppm and have almost nothing to worry about as far as global warming is concerned.

a reply to: purplemer

Cleaning our air? CO2 is not a contaminant. You guys are scary with your ignorance.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: 727Sky

originally posted by: LordAhriman
Are there really people who believe that plowing down forests, burning fossil fuels, etc... aren't harming the planet?

I doubt it. No thinking person wants to destroy the environment they depend on for survival. Also no thinking person who has looked without a bias outlook can believe all the propaganda about AGW either IMO.

No thinking person should believe the anti-AGW bias since it is funded and promoted by the same asstards who tried to deny the link between cancer and cigarettes. Same disinfo campaign tactics too.

PS: Global warming has been worried about by scientists since the turn of the 20th century well over a century ago.

One simple question?

Have the numbers been tampered with, adjusted, changed, even a calculated small percent to increase the temps?

I read your posts, I understand that you are dedicated. There is absolutely no reason what so ever that the numbers need to be "adjusted". I've read the reasons, so please spare me with the so called "scientific" jargon.

Why in the hell can't "they" just publish raw unedited, unadjusted data?

The reasons that they say they adjust them is just to muddy the water and sway the numbers the way that they want.

a reply to: liejunkie01

Of course they have, just like the sea levels rising have been. The glacial isostatic adjustment is hilarious. No joke, according to that, even if the actual water level on a static post remains the same, sea levels have risen because if the glacier was still there, the land would be deeper into the ocean.

Well geniuses, if the glacier was still there, the land wouldn't be as deep in the ocean because there'd be less water in it!

(Note: as its own calculation, to simply register movement from a geological perspective and water volume, GIO is just fine. As it relates to rising sea levels, because of global warming, it's a joke.)

a reply to: liejunkie01

Why in the hell can't "they" just publish raw unedited, unadjusted data?

Because the whole damn theory is just a mathematical construct. There is no reality to it.

Look at the arguments: "CO2 is a greenhouse gas." OK, fine, you can say that. But how much heat does it reflect, at what frequencies? Oh, there's where factual statements have to give way to emotional ones... because the factual statements deny the reality of their math at that point.

Mathematics is just a language, like English. Just as how one can write a fiction novel in English, one can write fiction in math as well. And this time they have written a whopper to rival the flat earth nonsense. In English, one illustrates a book with pictures to emphasis the points; in math, one uses emotional appeals to do the same thing.

I guess one could think of Global Warming theory as one giant picture book about how pigs can really fly.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm guessing it has something to do with destroying your economy, just in case. LMAO

originally posted by: liejunkie01
Why in the hell can't "they" just publish raw unedited, unadjusted data?

That's what Don Easterbrook showed the Senate committee, unadjusted data.

Then they ask him why his data looks nothing like the global warming data they got from another source, to which he replies that's adjusted, his is not adjusted. They seem puzzled by the difference.

originally posted by: 727Sky
Data graphs senate fact finding...long but worth a watch for those who give a crap. youtu.be...

Yes that's interesting, and he denies having any link to big oil or other biased special interests, but he does seem to have his doubts about the adjusted data given he prefers showing the unadjusted data, which looks significantly different.