Are human activities influencing the climate?

Akrasia

cfuserkildare wrote: »

I quote these figures:-

Over the last 400,000 years the natural upper limit of atmospheric CO2 concentrations is assumed from the ice core data to be about 300 ppm. Other studies using proxy such as plant stomata, however, indicate this may closer to the average value, at least over the last 15,000 years. Today, CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 380 ppm. Compared to former geologic periods, concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere are still very small and may not have a statistically measurable effect on global temperatures. For example, during the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 4400 ppm while temperatures then were about the same as they are today.


and here is my source:-
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html


So can someone PLEASE EXPLAIN our involvement in raising the Global CO2 levels, even though they are at almost the lowest levels EVER RECORDED????

They are not at the lowest level ever recorded.
For the last half a million years levels have cycled between about 170ppm and about 290ppm

As of 2017 the global average CO2 content is currently at 403ppm this is 40% higher than pre-industrial levels.

Co2 concentrations are currently climbing at more than 2 ppm a year which is an incredibly rapid change compared to the natural rate of change

Regarding the Ordovican CO2 concentration, that figure of 4400ppm is wrong (out of date). The correct figure is closer to 2200ppm. And to claim that temperatures were comparable to today is also wrong. It was much hotter back then with ocean levels much higher than today. As plants and chemical weatherng drew that CO2 out of the atmosphere, the planet cooled, ice caps formed and there was a severe ice age that led to mass extinctions.

Directly comparing earth today to earth 460 million years ago is problematic
460 million years ago the planet was very different. The sun was cooler, and the continents were in different places, but the link between CO2 and temperature is still perfectly consistent with climate science.

Instead of believing what you read in blogs, you should check your sources, check that the facts they say are true, and that there are published peer reviewed papers to support their conclusions.

dense

Samaris wrote: »

I see you're cutting off at 1987 again. Tis a reputable paper, just about fifteen-twenty years out of date.

So, it's a reputable paper, but, it's just that it's a bit out of date for your liking?

What does that make of the tree ring data, is that out of date too?

Samaris wrote: »

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-temperature

I know the graph is upsetting, but look UNDER the graph. At the data. Download that data. Analyse it. Come to your own conclusions (god knows what, admittedly)

Ok, here it is, the data from the graph that is upsetting some people.

For the first 78 years there is NO satellite data. Surprise surprise.

Year,Earth's surface,Lower troposphere (measured by satellite) (UAH),Lower troposphere (measured by satellite) (RSS)

1901,-0.15,null,null
1902,-0.43,null,null
1903,-1.4,null,null
1904,-0.86,null,null
1905,-1.02,null,null
1906,-0.29,null,null
1907,-0.54,null,null
1908,0.06,null,null
1909,-0.59,null,null
1910,0.4,null,null
1911,0.01,null,null
1912,-1.79,null,null
1913,-0.48,null,null
1914,-0.18,null,null
1915,-0.57,null,null
1916,-1.17,null,null
1917,-1.96,null,null
1918,-0.15,null,null
1919,-0.47,null,null
1920,-0.95,null,null
1921,1.78,null,null
1922,0.01,null,null
1923,-0.38,null,null
1924,-1.43,null,null
1925,0.5,null,null
1926,-0.07,null,null
1927,0.13,null,null
1928,-0.1,null,null
1929,-1.17,null,null
1930,-0.04,null,null
1931,1.52,null,null
1932,-0.29,null,null
1933,0.97,null,null
1934,2.08,null,null
1935,-0.12,null,null
1936,0.13,null,null
1937,-0.47,null,null
1938,1.16,null,null
1939,1.24,null,null
1940,-0.13,null,null
1941,0.64,null,null
1942,-0.18,null,null
1943,0.05,null,null
1944,-0.19,null,null
1945,-0.27,null,null
1946,0.93,null,null
1947,-0.1,null,null
1948,-0.41,null,null
1949,0,null,null
1950,-0.63,null,null
1951,-0.9,null,null
1952,0.25,null,null
1953,1.35,null,null
1954,1.31,null,null
1955,-0.33,null,null
1956,0.32,null,null
1957,0.02,null,null
1958,-0.09,null,null
1959,0.09,null,null
1960,-0.58,null,null
1961,-0.15,null,null
1962,-0.12,null,null
1963,0.24,null,null
1964,-0.35,null,null
1965,-0.33,null,null
1966,-0.53,null,null
1967,-0.26,null,null
1968,-0.7,null,null
1969,-0.52,null,null
1970,-0.41,null,null
1971,-0.36,null,null
1972,-0.65,null,null
1973,0.27,null,null
1974,0.24,null,null
1975,-0.52,null,null
1976,-0.55,null,null
1977,0.53,null,null
1978,-0.97,null,null
1979,-1.14,-0.427364865,-0.299277027
1980,0.37,0.300135135,0.564122973
1981,1.1,0.885135135,1.020572973
1982,-0.67,-0.451364865,-0.251727027
1983,-0.14,-0.331364865,-0.090477027
1984,-0.04,-0.305864865,-0.140427027
1985,-0.72,-0.160364865,-0.198177027
1986,1.3,0.975135135,1.072172973
1987,1.31,1.015635135,1.259372973
1988,0.61,0.568635135,0.711272973
1989,-0.18,0.624135135,0.391022973
1990,1.49,1.492635135,1.399922973
1991,1.14,1.158135135,1.107422973
1992,0.58,0.529635135,0.554372973
1993,-0.76,-0.367364865,-0.427527027
1994,0.85,0.882135135,1.100222973
1995,0.63,0.649635135,0.837572973
1996,-0.13,0.400635135,0.319172973
1997,0.18,0.307635135,0.417572973
1998,2.21,1.662135135,1.868672973
1999,1.86,1.882635135,1.869422973
2000,1.25,1.366635135,1.395572973
2001,1.68,1.219635135,1.414322973
2002,1.19,0.864135135,0.941372973
2003,1.24,1.132635135,1.323272973
2004,1.08,0.702135135,0.829022973
2005,1.62,1.338135135,1.394072973
2006,2.23,1.791135135,1.528622973
2007,1.63,1.696635135,1.638272973
2008,0.27,0.547635135,0.259772973
2009,0.37,0.736635135,0.415172973
2010,0.96,1.090635135,0.828572973
2011,1.16,1.213635135,0.946472973
2012,3.26,2.506635135,2.375522973
2013,0.41,0.715635135,0.334472973
2014,0.52,0.714135135,0.333122973
2015,2.38,2.173635135,2.057072973

Samaris wrote: »

Also, given you started the UHI business - need I remind you of your claim that 42% of thermometers are hot (not many people know this)? - it's a bit rich to suddenly reverse positions, claim that the raw data showed nothing, then claim that NASA adjusted the temperatures to account for UHI and wind up with that they adjusted them the wrong direction.

I didn't reverse positions.

Samaris had not allowed for the fact that his raw data already includes UHI affected records.

I've actually asked for someone to show where NASA has said it adjusted much raw data downwards to compensate for UHI, after it was reported on, and have already provided a link to NASA, prior to the report, saying there were no problems with USHCN data other than some stations getting old and simply not working anymore:

You could throw out 50 percent of the station data or more, and you’d get basically the same answers. Individual stations do get old and break down, since they're exposed to the elements, but this is just one of things that the NOAA has to deal with. One recent innovation is the set up of a climate reference network alongside the current stations so that they can look for potentially serious issues at the large scale – and they haven't found any yet.

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/gavin-schmidt.html

Potential issues were found later, on publication of the US government report that said 42% were prone to UHI effect. What effect, we don't seem to know, but if you're asking people to believe that the US has warmed by x°c in the 20th century, you really need to tell us what that x is so that we can evaluate the 0.5°c that nasa adjusted in to it to see just how much adjustments are affecting modern records.

If on the other hand if you're going to continue with the, "I can't give you that figure but it doesn't matter", "it just warmed", or, "it doesn't matter because everyone says it warmed", well that's not very scientific, is it?

Using the same excuses fornot having such a figure, such as, "it warms in different places at different times", "there's no real average warming figure available because there's so many local variations" we must then reject the claims that say a global average rise of one degree over a hundred and fifty years proves there is rampant global warming.

And how much of that came from adjustments?

cfuserkildare

Hi Akrasia,

I am just wondering, Since you seem to Know all the Correct answers,
What is your background in Paleo-Meteorology?

And Paleo-Atmospheric Chemistry?

( Not calling you out, just interested )

Akrasia

cfuserkildare wrote: »

Hi Akrasia,

I am just wondering, Since you seem to Know all the Correct answers,
What is your background in Paleo-Meteorology?

And Paleo-Atmospheric Chemistry?

( Not calling you out, just interested )

I don't have any qualifications in these fields, I have been interested in this subject for a long time and I have spent a long time looking at the arguments against Climate Change so I've seen most of them before.

But all I'm really doing is checking the sources of the claims that people make
There's a really good youtube video by Peter Hadfield (an English journalist and youtube channel potholer54) that why it's important to check sources and he demonstrates that lots of scientific claims get repeated without ever being properly checked.

dense

In the 1980s the earth's average temperature was widely accepted as being 15°c.

Then it was adjusted down to 14°c, meaning that 14.6°c was "alarming".

The earth's average temperature will probably be retrospectively adjusted down to 13°c in the next few years leading to widespread hysteria.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/11/fourteen_is_the_new_fifteen.html#ixzz2DtU2RoaG

Doctor Jimbob

dense wrote: »

In the 1980s the earth's average temperature was widely accepted as being 15°c.

Then it was adjusted down to 14°c, meaning that 14.6°c was "alarming".

The earth's average temperature will probably be retrospectively adjusted down to 13°c in the next few years leading to widespread hysteria.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/11/fourteen_is_the_new_fifteen.html#ixzz2DtU2RoaG

Out of interest, do you have any sources that aren't based on outdated information or random outliers?

Something that actually follows the scientific method would be even better, but even something that meets the above criteria would be a great start.

cfuserkildare

Akrasia wrote: »

I don't have any qualifications in these fields, I have been interested in this subject for a long time and I have spent a long time looking at the arguments against Climate Change so I've seen most of them before.

But all I'm really doing is checking the sources of the claims that people make
There's a really good youtube video by Peter Hadfield (an English journalist and youtube channel potholer54) that why it's important to check sources and he demonstrates that lots of scientific claims get repeated without ever being properly checked.

Cool.
Always good to know knowledgable people.
Might have Off-Topic conversation with you sometime. ;-)

conditioned games

Akrasia wrote: »

No he didn't
https://www.snopes.com/did-prof-michio-kaku-say-haarp-caused-irma-and-harvey/

And your conspiracies are not welcome in this thread

Actually he did, you should view his interview rather than relying on 'snopes' to tell you what is real.

The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program is used by our controllers to manipulate the weather all over the world.

The station located in Alaska, near Anchorage includes 180 antennas joined together to form one massive antenna.

By emitting high frequency watts into a spot in the atmosphere called the ionosphere, they can ionise particles pushing them out into space.

The one in Alaska is equivalent to 72,000 radio stations injecting their frequency into one spot in the atmosphere. By pushing the ionosphere out of place, the stratosphere which is underneath moves out thereby moving the flow of the jet stream.

Since the HAARP station in Alaska went active in 1994, there have been very unusual weather patterns, which is being blamed on human activities. This also explains the unnormal cloud formations off the Cape Verde islands this year, where i suspect another HAARP station is located which is where the hurricanes developed.

Doctor Jimbob

conditioned games wrote: »

Actually he did, you should view his interview rather than relying on 'snopes' to tell you what is real.

It's always the same with you conspiracy folks, making condescending comments about people being told what is real by snopes/the media/the government/whoever.

As if the inevitable drivel that follows is an original thought and not just something pulled from the rectum of the internet.

dense

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It's always the same with you conspiracy folks, making condescending comments about people being told what is real by snopes/the media/the government/whoever.

As if the inevitable drivel that follows is an original thought and not just something pulled from the rectum of the internet.

Not from anyone's rectum.

The European Commission was "alarmed" that HAARP could potentially affect the global environment.

Read the "inevitable drivel":

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A4-1999-0005+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

"27. Considers HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project) by virtue of its farreaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body before any further research and testing; regrets the repeated refusal of the United States Administration to send anyone in person to give evidence to the public hearing or any subsequent meeting held by its competent committee into the environmental and public risks connected with the high Frequency Active Auroral Research Project (HAARP) programme currently being funded in Alaska;

28. Requests the Scientific and Technological Options Assessment (STOA) Panel to agree to examine the scientific and technical evidence provided in all existing research findings on HAARP to assess the exact nature and degree of risk that HAARP poses both to the local and global environment and to public health generally;

29. Calls on the Commission, in collaboration with the governments of Sweden, Finland, Norway and the Russian Federation, to examine the environmental and public health implications of the HAARP programme for Arctic Europe and to report back to Parliament with its findings;"

Akrasia

conditioned games wrote: »

Actually he did, you should view his interview rather than relying on 'snopes' to tell you what is real.

.

You probably did see a video where he said that, but there are heavily edited videos of his interview.

But this and weather manipulation are off topic for this thread. If you start a different thread with your best evidence for these points, I'll happily discuss this there

pitifulgod

Wait, this discussion has descended into weather control conspiracies? I just fell out of my chair...

Akrasia

pitifulgod wrote: »

Wait, this discussion has descended into weather control conspiracies? I just fell out of my chair...

Hopefully that's over now

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Not from anyone's rectum.

The European Commission was "alarmed" that HAARP could potentially affect the global environment.

Read the "inevitable drivel":

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A4-1999-0005+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

"27. Considers HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project) by virtue of its farreaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body before any further research and testing; regrets the repeated refusal of the United States Administration to send anyone in person to give evidence to the public hearing or any subsequent meeting held by its competent committee into the environmental and public risks connected with the high Frequency Active Auroral Research Project (HAARP) programme currently being funded in Alaska;

28. Requests the Scientific and Technological Options Assessment (STOA) Panel to agree to examine the scientific and technical evidence provided in all existing research findings on HAARP to assess the exact nature and degree of risk that HAARP poses both to the local and global environment and to public health generally;

29. Calls on the Commission, in collaboration with the governments of Sweden, Finland, Norway and the Russian Federation, to examine the environmental and public health implications of the HAARP programme for Arctic Europe and to report back to Parliament with its findings;"

Sigh

dense

pitifulgod wrote: »

Wait, this discussion has descended into weather control conspiracies? I just fell out of my chair...

As opposed to trying to control the climate?

Oh, wait...

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

As opposed to trying to control the climate?

Oh, wait...

If this is the best that climate skeptics can come up with then maybe we should stick to the overwhelming consensus of published research, and the 100%* consensus of all the worlds universities and academies of sciences

* rounded to the nearest 1%

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

If this is the best that climate skeptics can come up with then maybe we should stick to the overwhelming consensus of published research, and the 100%* consensus of all the worlds universities and academies of sciences

* rounded to the nearest 1%

Doesn't quite have the same ring to it as the "97% of scientists" catchphrase, which we busted right here in this thread.

Please verify your claim that there's a ~ 100% "consensus of all the world's universities and academies of sciences".


It looks like something you've crafted from thin air.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Doesn't quite have the same ring to it as the "97% of scientists" catchphrase, which we busted right here in this thread.

Please verify your claim that there's a ~ 100% "consensus of all the world's universities and academies of sciences".


It looks like something you've crafted from thin air.

You haven't been able to find a single one that agrees with your position. The * was put in there to cover the chance that some nutty university in north korea thinks Kim controls the climate

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

You haven't been able to find a single one that agrees with your position.

I didn't claim there were any that agree with my position.

Your new claim looks fraudulent. It smells.
You're just making things up and hoping you'll get away with it.

Show us where and when 100% of the world's universities and science academies have been surveyed and responded about their position on AGW.

I'm not sure what's motivating you to make these things up, but whatever it is, it looks suspicious and throws doubt on the rest of what you have to say.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

I didn't claim there were any that agree with my position.

Doesn't that give you any doubts that maybe you're not as clever as you think you are?

Ultimanemo

20.000 Years ago Most of Ireland "save the southern areas" was covered with snow thousands of feet thick. all that snow melted
I don't think it was the cage man fire which caused that

Akrasia

Ultimanemo wrote: »

20.000 Years ago Most of Ireland "save the southern areas" was covered with snow thousands of feet thick. all that snow melted
I don't think it was the cage man fire which caused that

20 years ago?

But typo aside, do you think the glaciers melted for no reason.

Go and find out what caused the end of the last ice age, and then go and find out if those same factors are causing the current global warming.

We are in a a naturally cooling phase at the moment, yet temperatures are going up. Nature isn't the cause of the current warming, it's the fact that we've dug out the Carbon that took hundreds of millions of years to be sequestered under the ground as oil gas and coal, and we're releasing all of that CO2 in only a few short decades.

think of your own house. If you don't vacuum the house, after a few days, there will be a layer of dust on the ground and other surfaces. That happens 'naturally'. The house might need a quick clean, but it's not a big deal.

Now, go to your hoover, open it up and just throw the contents of the dust collector into the air.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Doesn't that give you any doubts that maybe you're not as clever as you think you are?

Sure, if I'd said there are, but I didn't.

You've been asked for details about how you've arrived at your shiny new claim and you're stumped.

Reason being, you've made it up.

server down

dense wrote: »

Sure, if I'd said there are, but I didn't.

You've been asked for details about how you've arrived at your shiny new claim and you're stumped.

Reason being, you've made it up.

He said approximately 100% which is approximately right. You seem to agree when you admit 0% of experts agree with you.

The Rape of Lucretia

Cant be. Our public representative Danny Healy Rae says we are not. And if the people of Kerry trust him as capable of speaking on such matters, the rest of us should too.
So no, zero influence on the climate.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Sure, if I'd said there are, but I didn't.

You've been asked for details about how you've arrived at your shiny new claim and you're stumped.

Reason being, you've made it up.

When people say the debate is over, it's because there are no scientific bodies of any worth anywhere in the world that don't agree that the earth is warming and humans are the main cause. All the deniers have are a few individual contrarians and political 'think tanks'.

Mountainsandh

Akrasia wrote: »

When people say the debate is over, it's because there are no scientific bodies of any worth anywhere in the world that don't agree that the earth is warming and humans are the main cause. All the deniers have are a few individual contrarians and political 'think tanks'.

Akrasia, what would happen to a university body if they publicly declared that they do not agree with the consensus ?
On a human, financial, and professional level ?
How many people would such a decision (to publicly go against the consensus) affect ? What is the smallest university we could think of ? Would a wacky statement from one department/faculty affect all the others ? Etc...
Surely these considerations have to counterbalance your personal convictions.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

When people say the debate is over, it's because there are no scientific bodies of any worth anywhere in the world that don't agree that the earth is warming and humans are the main cause. All the deniers have are a few individual contrarians and political 'think tanks'.

People who say the debate is over don't want to debate.
History is being rewritten in front of our eyes to suit the agenda.

From NASA, MAY 2000.

Global Warming & the Atmosphere

Temperatures measured at the earth's surface have been increasing by about 0.1 oC per decade for twenty years. (Oh my, that much??? 0.2° in 20 years??)

Computer models of global warming suggest that the lower atmosphere should be warming up as well, but temperature measurements from space show otherwise.

There has been no systematic warming in the troposphere for the past 19 years, and the temperature of the stratosphere is actually decreasing. Does this mean that global warming is a myth?

Probably not.

Instead, say researchers, it shows that the temperature structure of the atmosphere is more complex than previously thought. More Information

The Global Warming Debate Continues

12 Aug 1998 - A paper published in Nature this week is sure to generate controversy about satellite measurements of global tropospheric temperatures. But even with recommended corrections, satellite trends still do not show the expected signature of global warming. MORE

They would if the figures were adjusted.


https://web.archive.org/web/20000511141527/http://www.climatenews.com:80/

What you can say is, yes, carbon dioxide (in the atmosphere) is at levels higher than ever before, and carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, so it's reasonable to say that there's warming associated with the increase of carbon dioxide," said Dr. Waleed Abdalati, co-author of the paper that announced the Greenland discovery.

"But you can't make the leap yet that all the cars in the world have led to what we're observing in the thinning of the Greenland ice sheet," Abdalati said.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast20oct_1

Tell us NASA was hacked.

NASA 1997

"We've concluded there isn't a problem with the measurements," Spencer explained. "In fact, balloon measurements of the temperature in the same regions of the atmosphere we measure from space are in excellent agreement with the satellite results."

"Instead, we believe the problem resides in the computer models and in our past assumptions that the atmosphere is so well behaved.

These models just don't handle processes like clouds, water vapor, and precipitation systems well enough to accurately predict how strong global warming will be, or how it will manifest itself at different heights in the atmosphere," remarked Spencer.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd5feb97_1

And this was all before the pause, which did or didn't happen depending on which pseudo scientist you want to believe.



But: IPCC: Despite hiatus, climate change here to stay

Global warming will be irreversible for centuries, latest report warns.

https://www.nature.com/news/ipcc-despite-hiatus-climate-change-here-to-stay-1.13832


The IPCC has it's own agenda and problems of course.

https://www.nature.com/news/2010/101019/full/467891a.html


From the University of Alabama Huntsville 1999

Globally, the temperature trend from January 1979 through December 1998 was warming at the rate of about 0.06° Celsius per decade.

That equals a warming trend of just over one-half degree Celsius (about one degree Fahrenheit) per century.

Scientifically, any trend that small over a period of time as short as 20 years could be considered statistical "noise," according to Christy.

Statistical noise, I like that.

https://web.archive.org/web/19990428075153/http://www.uah.edu:80/News/Stories/011299-01.html


NASA 1999, quite open to discussion about the existence or magnitude of human activity.

Surface thermometer measurements indicate that the temperature of the Earth is warming, while the satellite data show no significant long-term trends.

These differences are the basis for discussions over the existence and magnitude of any global warming the Earth may be experiencing as a result of human activity.

https://web.archive.org/web/19990427101301/http://science.msfc.nasa.gov:80/newhome/essd/essd_strat_temp.htm

Akrasia

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Akrasia, what would happen to a university body if they publicly declared that they do not agree with the consensus ?
On a human, financial, and professional level ?
How many people would such a decision (to publicly go against the consensus) affect ? What is the smallest university we could think of ? Would a wacky statement from one department/faculty affect all the others ? Etc...
Surely these considerations have to counterbalance your personal convictions.

A university science dept who publicly renounced global warming would be treated in a similar way to one that renounced plate tectonics.

It's not that there is huge social pressure to accept plate tectonics, it's the sheer weight of evidence. An academic body would be expected to provide evidence to support a controversial position.

There is valid debate over aspects of climate change, but Dense doesn't even accept that the planet is warming, and that is ridiculous given the weight of evidence

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

People who say the debate is over don't want to debate.
History is being rewritten in front of our eyes to suit the agenda.

From NASA, MAY 2000.

They would if the figures were adjusted.


https://web.archive.org/web/20000511141527/http://www.climatenews.com:80/





https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast20oct_1

Tell us NASA was hacked.

NASA 1997




https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd5feb97_1

And this was all before the pause, which did or didn't happen depending on which pseudo scientist you want to believe.



But: IPCC: Despite hiatus, climate change here to stay

Global warming will be irreversible for centuries, latest report warns.

https://www.nature.com/news/ipcc-despite-hiatus-climate-change-here-to-stay-1.13832


The IPCC has it's own agenda and problems of course.

https://www.nature.com/news/2010/101019/full/467891a.html


From the University of Alabama Huntsville 1999




Statistical noise, I like that.

https://web.archive.org/web/19990428075153/http://www.uah.edu:80/News/Stories/011299-01.html


NASA 1999, quite open to discussion about the existence or magnitude of human activity.




https://web.archive.org/web/19990427101301/http://science.msfc.nasa.gov:80/newhome/essd/essd_strat_temp.htm

this is like a hollow earth proponent pulling papers from the 1940s when Plate Tectonics was still being debated and ignoring all the data that emphatically proves continental drift.

And it's a poor attempt too, because most of those links are in support of global warming theory. You're just pulling sections out totally out of context. I'm beginning to wonder if you're not just trolling now.

Science moves forwards, mistakes get corrected, uncertainties get eroded by better data. We know an awful lot more about the climate now than we did 20 years ago. (and even 20 years ago, the weight of evidence was overwhelmingly on the side of global warming theory, it's just that 'skeptics' had a little but more uncertainty to exaggerate, just like in the tobacco/lung cancer 'debate')

flaneur

“I don’t believe” ≠ “I don’t have evidence of / have evidence to prove the contrary “

This is the fundamental problem with this debate, which let’s face it, is almost entirely in the USA.

The science behind this is pretty overwhelming and is not based on firmly held beliefs. It’s based on extensive research!

A firmly held opinion is NOT a fact or an alternative fact.
This trend of just ignoring evidence is getting beyond ridiculous and it’s how certain countries have ended up in a political mess too! Not to mention falling vaccination rates when vaccines are the safest, most natural way you could possibly come up with for combatting diseases by basically training your own immune response!!

If we’re going to just ignore reason and the scientific method of finding and testing knowledge in favour of just accepting any old nonsense, we are back to the dark ages.

Even journalism, which used to adopt a robust and rigorous fact checking approach to gathering information and testing it was real now seems to increasingly just publish any old nonsense.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

There is valid debate over aspects of climate change, but Dense doesn't even accept that the planet is warming, and that is ridiculous given the weight of evidence

Show me where I've denied the planet is warming?

Stop lying. I've said there's been a barely measurable warming with no ill consequences and there's no need for the doomsday scenario hysteria.


Better still, instead of making things up, just pretend I'm not here and expand on what you mean by "There is valid debate over aspects of climate change".

What aspects can be debated, given that you've just said the debate is over?

Your spinning here is quite hard to keep up with.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Show me where I've denied the planet is warming?

dense wrote: »

I've said there's been a barely measurable warming

lol

Better still, instead of making things up, just pretend I'm not here and expand on what you mean by "There is valid debate over aspects of climate change".

What aspects can be debated, given that you've just said the debate is over?

Your spinning here is quite hard to keep up with.

There are error bars in all the data that are still being debated.

The global warming consensus is that climate sensitivity is 3 degrees celcius plus or minus 1.5 degrees celcius

This means that the vast majority of scientists agree that doubling CO2 above pre-industrial levels will cause temperatures to increase by at least 1.5 degrees celcius, and possibly even up to 4.5 degrees C.

Valid scientific debate is debate that is supported by the best available data.

When new discoveries are made and validated, scientists incorporate this into their model of the world. Cranks and pseudo scientists ignore all the science that they don't like, and pretend that their pet theory was never falsified even if it has been comprehensively debunked.

dense

flaneur wrote: »

The science behind this is pretty overwhelming and is not based on firmly held beliefs.

Take it all with a pinch of salt.

One in three scientists has committed some type of scientific misconduct, according to a study released in June. The survey, based on the responses of thousands of early- and mid-career scientists, was the first to consider overlooked examples of scientific misconduct (Nature 435, 737–738; 2005).

https://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v11/n7/pdf/nm0705-699.pdf?origin=ppub

Doctor Jimbob

dense wrote: »

Take it all with a pinch of salt.


https://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v11/n7/pdf/nm0705-699.pdf?origin=ppub

Presumably the handful of scientists backing up what you're saying are incapable of misconduct?

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

The global warming consensus is that climate sensitivity is 3 degrees celcius plus or minus 1.5 degrees celcius

This means that the vast majority of scientists agree that doubling CO2 above pre-industrial levels will cause temperatures to increase by at least 1.5 degrees celcius, and possibly even up to 4.5 degrees C.

Valid scientific debate is debate that is supported by the best available data.

A complete lack of agreement would suggest that the majority of scientists don't even agree about that.

No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.

IPCC AR5

Akrasia

No best estimate for a specific figure, so they give a range

The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multicentury
time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a
doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high
confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)
16.
The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the
same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean,
and new estimates of radiative forcing. {TS TFE.6, Figure 1; Box 12.2}

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

flaneur

There isn't a "complete lack of agreement".

dr.fuzzenstein

We're living in the age of the Donald Trump voter. Trolling has become a global sport (lizard conspiracies, flat earthers), so right now it's fashionable to subscribe to the well thought out point of view of "LOLz, IDK, Whatever!"
The problem is that it used to be relatively easy to ignore the cranks and loons, but the internet has given them a platform (see also anti-vaxxers) and right now collective stupidity is actually doing damage to humankind and the planet.
I used to think we would all die because of nukes, but sadly humanity will eradicate itself by sheer stupidity.

Akrasia

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Presumably the handful of scientists backing up what you're saying are incapable of misconduct?

The scientific method has mechanisms built in to address fraudulent research.

Mainly, reproducibility and peer review.

If a scientist makes a discovery, their research is only scientific if it is falsifiable, so other scientists check their work, and try to reproduce the experiment using the same methodology. If they get different results, then this is an indication that there is something wrong with the findings of the first paper.

With global warming, there are many many independent lines of evidence analysed by many different teams of scientists. The findings in favour of global warming theory are much more robust than the findings of the few contrarian 'skeptics' who have had their papers heavily criticised within the field for making basic errors that compromise their findings.

Master of the Omniverse

There is no doubt that the climate is changing,the climate has never stopped changing.Look at the history of the planets climate(ofcourse we should never just accept blindly).However,this current presentation as to the causes of climate change needs to be widened.The suns activity is not mentioned to the degree that it should,this has a major impact on the earths climate.

Master of the Omniverse

Is human activity also playing a role?Ofcourse,but one question that is never asked is this:Is leaking radiation from nuclear plants like fukishima that is now embedded in our climate system also playing a role in disrupting our weather patterns?

Master of the Omniverse

Akrasia wrote: »

The scientific method has mechanisms built in to address fraudulent research.

Mainly, reproducibility and peer review.

If a scientist makes a discovery, their research is only scientific if it is falsifiable, so other scientists check their work, and try to reproduce the experiment using the same methodology. If they get different results, then this is an indication that there is something wrong with the findings of the first paper.

With global warming, there are many many independent lines of evidence analysed by many different teams of scientists. The findings in favour of global warming theory are much more robust than the findings of the few contrarian 'skeptics' who have had their papers heavily criticised within the field for making basic errors that compromise their findings.

Dont forget about "climate gate".Scientists regularly manipulate data.The fact that so many do it is one of the reasons that contradictory findingz receive so much scepticism.

dr.fuzzenstein

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Is human activity also playing a role?Ofcourse,but one question that is never asked is this:Is leaking radiation from nuclear plants like fukishima that is now embedded in our climate system also playing a role in disrupting our weather patterns?

How?

dr.fuzzenstein

Akrasia wrote: »

The scientific method has mechanisms built in to address fraudulent research.

Mainly, reproducibility and peer review.

If a scientist makes a discovery, their research is only scientific if it is falsifiable, so other scientists check their work, and try to reproduce the experiment using the same methodology. If they get different results, then this is an indication that there is something wrong with the findings of the first paper.

With global warming, there are many many independent lines of evidence analysed by many different teams of scientists. The findings in favour of global warming theory are much more robust than the findings of the few contrarian 'skeptics' who have had their papers heavily criticised within the field for making basic errors that compromise their findings.

Thank you for bringing a little bit of sanity to this train wreck of a thread.
The problem is the internet. Any crank and idiot can write anything up and right now it seems to be that the more outlandish, idiotic and just downright moronic your ideas are, the more the baying masses will lap it up. The rapidly shrinking minority with even a few braincells who are trying to make a reasoned argument are getting shouted down.
Of course scientific facts don't care about the opinion of idiots, they remain true nevertheless.

Akrasia

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

There is no doubt that the climate is changing,the climate has never stopped changing.Look at the history of the planets climate(ofcourse we should never just accept blindly).However,this current presentation as to the causes of climate change needs to be widened.The suns activity is not mentioned to the degree that it should,this has a major impact on the earths climate.

The sun has been heavily studied and has been ruled out as the cause of the current warming.



http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

Akrasia

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Is human activity also playing a role?Ofcourse,but one question that is never asked is this:Is leaking radiation from nuclear plants like fukishima that is now embedded in our climate system also playing a role in disrupting our weather patterns?

No, The amount of additional solar radiation trapped by our CO2 emissions is the same amount of energy as 4 Hiroshima sized bombs being detonated every second
250 trillion joules of energy per second

Leaking radiation from Fukushima is utterly dwarfed by the amount of energy we are accumulating due to our emissions of Greenhouse Gasses

The extra energy trapped by our greenhouse emissions is more than all the energy generated by humans combined

Humans generate about 19 trillion joules a second, global warming traps 250 trillion joules a second.

(Back of the envelope calculation)

Master of the Omniverse

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

How?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mFfWvCNpW0U

Master of the Omniverse

Akrasia wrote: »

No, The amount of additional solar radiation trapped by our CO2 emissions is the same amount of energy as 4 Hiroshima sized bombs being detonated every second
250 trillion joules of energy per second

Leaking radiation from Fukushima is utterly dwarfed by the amount of energy we are accumulating due to our emissions of Greenhouse Gasses

The extra energy trapped by our greenhouse emissions is more than all the energy generated by humans combined

Humans generate about 19 trillion joules a second, global warming traps 250 trillion joules a second.

(Back of the envelope calculation)

Brilliant,now we have "back of the envelope science " to back up your theory.

srsly78

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Brilliant,now we have "back of the envelope science " to back up your theory.

Don't need back of the envelope to dismiss your theory. It's "not even wrong".