What Finally Convinced Me About Global Warming Lies

a reply to: Krakatoa

Wow - that video by Bjorn Lomburg that I previously posted really blew my mind.

Essently, this video is about how best to manage our resources so that the we get the best bang for the buck.

Even if you were to accept at face value that global warming is an issue that will destroy mankind, there are many other issues that will have the same result.

ie leaving the disenfranchised without assistance and putting all into our resources into global warming would likely result into desperate ie nuclear attack that could result in the same ending.

His top ranking issue that returns $60 for each dollar of investment, the top ranking issue is nutrition for the children (usually the poorest).

originally posted by: jrod
So the 45% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere that is a direct result of anthropogenic activity, mostly burning fossil fuels will not have consequences?

The rate is also increasing, in my lifetime that value maybe 100%+. Only those ignorant of science will argue this is not significant.

Thanks for your professional advice. In the future, try researching for yourself and applying critical thinking skills instead of taking the word of a government funded scientist that's only paid to bring you negative news about the weather. Then you wouldn't look so silly calling others ignorant.

originally posted by: jrod
So the 45% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere that is a direct result of anthropogenic activity, mostly burning fossil fuels will not have consequences?

The rate is also increasing, in my lifetime that value maybe 100%+. Only those ignorant of science will argue this is not significant.

He says that it does not have the effect that the figures they are using says it does. The parameters of the investigation used to evaluate global warming are not real, they do not match what is actually being seen.

The climate change scammers are saying it is way worse than it is using false interpretation of hand picked evidence. The guy in the video is trying to say it is not as bad as the Global warming/climate change people are saying it is....so far anyway. He does not say we can keep abusing mother nature in his video though, just that the thirty one markers are not correct and that the Russian version is more accurate.

a reply to: network dude

Michaels seems to be talking about something from John Christy: cei.org...
It's about the previous version of the Russian model (INM-CM4). There is now INM-CM5, which as yet has not produced any projections as far as I can tell, but the surface "hindcast" does match surface data (where people live) fairly well, if a bit warm. The heavy black line is surface data (HadCRUT4), the heavy red line the mean of the various model runs.



Version 5 seems to be an improvement over 4.

Numerical experiments with the previous model version (INMCM4) for CMIP5 showed unrealistic gradual warming in 1950–2014. The difference between the two model results could be explained by more accurate modeling of the stratospheric volcanic and tropospheric anthropogenic aerosol radiation effect (stabilization in 1950–1970) due to the new aerosol block in INM-CM5 and more accurate prescription of the TSI scenario (stabilization in 2000–2014) in the CMIP6 protocol.

www.earth-syst-dynam.net...

Seems like cherry picking on Christy's part to rely on temperatures at 30,000 to 40,000 feet in the tropics rather than global surface temperatures in order to claim the models are fundamentally unreliable. It is correct though that mid tropospheric temperatures seem to be rising at rate lower than predicted by most models. Which is a good reason to try to understand why that is. A 2017 study concludes that it is probably a combination of internal variability and assumptions used about future forcing influences (aerosol level, CO2 emissions, etc.) employed by the models. centaur.reading.ac.uk...


While short term internal variability (El Nino, PDO, etc.) and forcing influences are problematic in modeling, the newest model set (CMIP6) will update its future forcing datasets. But some things are just not very predictable; volcanic activity, human aerosol production, even the rate of CO2 emissions. The problem is, these factors are crucial to the models. So it is a matter of refining. www.wcrp-climate.org...

originally posted by: Krakatoa
Like this? Sure looks like a rhythmic cycle of the warming of the planet Earth to me.

Data from the ice-core samples collected at the Vostock station in Antarctica.

Yeah, looking at the ice core data is pretty enlightening. Yes, the Earth is warming? Is it probably going to get hotter? Yeah. Did we people accelerate it or make it worse? Not that you can tell from the data. It seems to be a natural cycle, and if we try to mess with it there's a good chance it will bite us in the ass in some way.

People will get mad at you if you suggest this, though. Fortunately, I'm not in charge and by the time anything (or nothing) is done about it, I won't be around worry about it.

a reply to: Blue Shift

It seems to be a natural cycle, and if we try to mess with it there's a good chance it will bite us in the ass in some way.

If one were to go by that cycle, things should be cooling down. Look closely at it that chart.

The Milankovich cycles would seem to say the same thing, if they have anything to do with it.
biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Blue Shift

It seems to be a natural cycle, and if we try to mess with it there's a good chance it will bite us in the ass in some way.

If one were to go by that cycle, things should be cooling down. Look closely at it that chart.

But overall, is the delayed cooling outside reasonable statistical variations? Which is maybe still a good reason to hold off on doing anything drastic. After all, if we really did kick over the spittoon on this, what makes us think that we have the knowledge and expertise to appropriately correct it?

I'm of the opinion that most of the interglacial warming periods we've experienced in the past were an actual boon to human civilization, so I'm not all that worried. It'll probably cool down again soon enough on its own.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: jrod
Now CO2 has been higher in the past and has been lower in the past. Don't know what caused it to up or down.

However, you must know what optimum amount of CO2 in the atmospere is???

Right now the earth is loving the amount of CO2 and greened by 14 %

www.nasa.gov...

I guess that is bad too?

Never in the history of civilization has CO2 been this high.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Are you trying to say that CO2 levels are not inceasing?

They are, and it is directly related to our fossil fuel dependence.

originally posted by: jrod

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: jrod
Now CO2 has been higher in the past and has been lower in the past. Don't know what caused it to up or down.

However, you must know what optimum amount of CO2 in the atmospere is???

Right now the earth is loving the amount of CO2 and greened by 14 %

www.nasa.gov...

I guess that is bad too?

Never in the history of civilization has CO2 been this high.

Nor for a good deal longer than that.

“According to this research, from the first Homo erectus, which is currently dated to 2.1 to1.8 million years ago, until 1965, we have lived in a low-carbon dioxide environment — concentrations were less than 320 parts per million,” said Yige Zhang, a co-author of the research study and an assistant professor in the Department of Oceanography in the College of Geosciences.

www.zmescience.com...

a reply to: Blue Shift

After all, if we really did kick over the spittoon on this, what makes us think that we have the knowledge and expertise to appropriately correct it?

You mean by reducing carbon emissions? The longer we wait the harder it will be to do any "correcting."

I saw this in August, the most interesting part is that NOAA is reporting actual data now and moving away from the globalists clutches:

NOAA: No US Warming since 2005

~trouble adding graph - will try and add it after posting~


"In January 2005, NOAA began recording temperatures at its newly built U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN). USCRN includes 114 pristinely maintained temperature stations spaced relatively uniformly across the lower 48 states. NOAA selected locations that were far away from urban and land-development impacts that might artificially taint temperature readings.


Prior to the USCRN going online, alarmists and skeptics sparred over the accuracy of reported temperature data. With most preexisting temperature stations located in or near urban settings that are subject to false temperature signals and create their own microclimates that change over time, government officials performed many often-controversial adjustments to the raw temperature data. Skeptics of an asserted climate crisis pointed out that most of the reported warming in the United States was non-existent in the raw temperature data, but was added to the record by government officials.

The USCRN has eliminated the need to rely on, and adjust the data from, outdated temperature stations. Strikingly, as shown in the graph below, USCRN temperature stations show no warming since 2005 when the network went online. If anything, U.S. temperatures are now slightly cooler than they were 14 years ago."

a reply to: ganjoa

www.esrl.noaa.gov...

This year's average CO2 was about 410ppm, before industrialization we are around 280ppm.

That is about a 130ppm increase, about 46%.

Unreal that you think that is just a made up figure. It makes me think you are here just to cast doubt.

a reply to: bluesjr

You did not link NOAA there, nice try at trickery.

www.climate.gov...

According to the American Meteorological Society's State of the Climate in 2018, 2018 came in as the fourth warmest year on record in all four of the major global temperature datasets. Only 2015, 2016, and 2017 were warmer. The warmth occurred in the absence of El Niño, which is usually a factor in extreme global warmth. In fact, la Niña was in place across the tropical Pacific from January–April, and it left an imprint on the region's temperatures, as shown in the annual map.

Some of you people are just unreal. You will believe something some quack says on Fox News but completely discount what the actual observations and studies tell us. The confirmation bias is strong.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Blue Shift

After all, if we really did kick over the spittoon on this, what makes us think that we have the knowledge and expertise to appropriately correct it?

You mean by reducing carbon emissions? The longer we wait the harder it will be to do any "correcting."

But do we know it will even work? Or will it work too well? I can see it just kicking us back into another ice age. I've read articles that all it takes is a run of cold winters with a lot of snow to put us back in the deep freeze.

I say we wait another 1,000 years to see how the trend continues, and by then if we determine that it does, we'll have the knowledge and technology to make a better, more educated and skillful decision about it.

a reply to: bluesjr

Here’s that USCRN data, from January 2005 through September of 2017, and I’ve added (in red) a trend line estimated by linear regression:

The estimated trend is upward, but its uncertainty is large because the time covered is so short. I estimate the warming rate at 10 ± 14 °F/century (95% confidence limits). Because the uncertainty is so large, we say that the claim the trend is upward fails to reach “statistical significance.”

The upshot is that, as good as the USCRN data are, they don’t cover a long enough time span to give us any useful information about the trend. Let’s face facts: “between -4 and +24 °F/century” tells us just about nothing we didn’t already know. If you were to tout the trend estimate from USCRN data alone, to draw any conclusion or even to imply any conclusion, you’d be wrong.

tamino.wordpress.com...

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: bluesjr

You did not link NOAA there, nice try at trickery.

The NOAA data is in the article, no trickery involved. It also includes current data which invalidates Phage's trend line. Once the ATS system allows me to post it, I will. Or you can go directly to NOAA if you don't believe it to verify yourself. You probably won't though as it doesn't fit your narative.

a reply to: LSU2018

That is one of the most ignorant things I have read on here.

I have researched this myself. The CO2 levels are rising, this is confirmed world wide by observation sites. To say this is a government funded scare tactic is just stupid.

The fact you get stars for this is just sad. What happened to ATS?

a reply to: bluesjr

It also includes current data which invalidates Phage's trend line.

It's not my trend line but feel free to provide your own. But the fact remains, the dataset is not large enough to produce a meaningful trend.

a reply to: Phage

How about creating a trend line using the current data? Yours stops in 2017 and the data between then and now changes it to flat or slightly downward.

I'd post it if I could but when I try and add a picture from my ATS library I get a blank box. Looking forward to your thoughts after seeing the new data ....