Thanks, Internet! Conspiracy theorists (and skeptics) thrive online

[hak]

There may be others, but I have not studied climate change in detail.

That wouldn't matter in this case.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Peer Reviewed? lol...I will read any paper that anyone here brings forth. As you may or may not know the Scientific Method involves trying to disprove whatever is found as "proof" (unlike IPCC AGW 'scientists")... as you probably do NOT know unless you read the ClimateGate emails is that the peer review process was admittedly hijacked by the "scientists" involved with the IPCC.

Have you read the ClimatgeGate emails?

Yup, and they were explained. The scientists were less than intelligent to speak that way, but it doesn't change the evidence. Unfortunately Pixelsmith, no matter what any one shows you, you will find a reason to discredit it. There's no point in discussing this matter with you, a conclusion many on this forum have reached.

I don't agree with a lot of what the environmental movement does, such as BS carbon credits and some recycling programs that produce more waste than they prevent. Regardless of that, I can't deny that we are having an effect on the Earth. It's not nothing, like some people will have you believe. It's also not as dire as some documentaries will have you believe.

 

[pixelsmith]

I find your contention not credible. Detailed quantitative computer modelling goes against your argument, as do environmental temperature measurements across the globe. You know the greenhouse effect is a real physical phenomenon and yet you implicitly assume it is not a significant part of global temperature changes. Do you have quantitative computer modelling to back up your contention? If so, what are its numerical predictions for rising CO2 levels?
You are aware of the positive feedback loop on temperature due to greenhouse by water vapor, are you not? There are further positive feebacks from other sources too, such as increased solar absorption by dark, open sea water versus good reflection by white pack ice. There may be others, but I have not studied climate change in detail.

Thank You for this post. The main focus should be on "quantitative computer modeling". Computer modeling programs are written by humans and the ONLY thing you get out comes from what you put in. Read the ClimateGate emails and look at the computer data and you will understand. They fudged these programs every way they could to arrive at a desired outcome. This is FACT. Another FACT is when inputting RANDOM white noise data into a climate model they got back a "hockey stick" graph. The othe problem with models is that they do not accurately take into consideration CLOUDS. Why would you rely on a computer model that cant even understand cloud data?
The greenhouse effect is somewhat true depending on how you look at it. It is a misnomer as the atmosphere is not a closed system like a greenhouse. And warm air will migrate towards COLDER space more readily than towards an already warm planet.

You have another 8-10 years of research to do in order to get up to speed.

---------- Post added at 02:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:44 PM ----------

Yup, and they were explained. The scientists were less than intelligent to speak that way, but it doesn't change the evidence. Unfortunately Pixelsmith, no matter what any one shows you, you will find a reason to discredit it. There's no point in discussing this matter with you, a conclusion many on this forum have reached.

I don't agree with a lot of what the environmental movement does, such as BS carbon credits and some recycling programs that produce more waste than they prevent. Regardless of that, I can't deny that we are having an effect on the Earth. It's not nothing, like some people will have you believe. It's also not as dire as some documentaries will have you believe.

Explained?! LMAO... riiight... by who? Those boys were caught red handed and many GOOD scientists involved bailed out on them because of it. SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE you speak of.

A single volcano blast will emit more noxious gas and CO2 than all human activity since the beginning of time, and how many active volcanos are there? The ocean releases more CO2 in one year than ALL human induced CO2 ever produced.

Where is the proof? You warmists and people like Al Gore and his ilk keep talking about proof but never provide anything credible. PROVE that human generated CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming. CO2 involvement is the foundation for the AGW movement/religion.

 

[hak]

Oh my god.. i can't breath

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Thank You for this post. The main focus should be on "quantitative computer modeling". Computer modeling programs are written by humans and the ONLY thing you get out comes from what you put in. Read the ClimateGate emails and look at the computer data and you will understand. They fudged these programs every way they could to arrive at a desired outcome. This is FACT. Another FACT is when inputting RANDOM white noise data into a climate model they got back a "hockey stick" graph. The othe problem with models is that they do not accurately take into consideration CLOUDS. Why would you rely on a computer model that cant even understand cloud data?
The greenhouse effect is somewhat true depending on how you look at it. It is a misnomer as the atmosphere is not a closed system like a greenhouse. And warm air will migrate towards COLDER space more readily than towards an already warm planet.

You have another 8-10 years of research to do in order to get up to speed.

---------- Post added at 02:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:44 PM ----------



Explained?! LMAO... riiight... by who? Those boys were caught red handed and many GOOD scientists involved bailed out on them because of it. SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE you speak of.

A single volcano blast will emit more noxious gas and CO2 than all human activity since the beginning of time, and how many active volcanos are there? The ocean releases more CO2 in one year than ALL human induced CO2 ever produced.

Where is the proof? You warmists and people like Al Gore and his ilk keep talking about proof but never provide anything credible. PROVE that human generated CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming. CO2 involvement is the foundation for the AGW movement/religion.

Regardless of anything I post, you will say that they are in the pockets of the moneygrubbers at the World Wildlife Fund, but he's one article:

'Climategate' report: the main points | Environment | The Guardian

Of course, there will be something wrong with that and you'll point me to some guy's blog about how they're evil and looking for money.

 

[pixelsmith]

Oh my god.. i can't breath

Here... lets take a look back at the "settled science" we are discussing. Below is just a few quotes that are a 180 from today. We were threatened by a massive Ice Age in the 70s... even John Holdren our current science czar to obama warned that a giant ice berg was going to break off and the resulting tidal wave would flood a great portion of the planet... now he says global warming is going to kill us all including the poor polar bears... who.. I might add would not even exist WITHOUT frikkin climate change! duh..


”There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change and cool dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon. The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it.” - Newsweek, April 28, (1975)

“This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.” - Lowell Ponte "The Cooling" (1976)

“The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population.” - Reid Bryson, Global Ecology (1971)

“The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer.” - Prof. Paul Ehrlich - The Population Bomb (1968)

“In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.” - Prof. Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)

“This cooling trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.” - Peter Gwynne, climatologist, Newsweek (1976)

“If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” - Kenneth Watt, Earth Day (1970)

 

[softbeard]

They fudged these programs every way they could to arrive at a desired outcome. This is FACT. Another FACT is when inputting RANDOM white noise data into a climate model they got back a "hockey stick" graph. The othe problem with models is that they do not accurately take into consideration CLOUDS. Why would you rely on a computer model that cant even understand cloud data? The greenhouse effect is somewhat true depending on how you look at it. It is a misnomer as the atmosphere is not a closed system like a greenhouse. And warm air will migrate towards COLDER space more readily than towards an already warm planet. You have another 8-10 years of research to do in order to get up to speed.

I will not argue conspiracies with you, so please do not use them as arguments. Believe me, conspiracy theories make all your other arguments, however factual they may be, look weak. For all I know, you might be part of a conspiracy on the part of the oil companies and their reptilian overlords.
To answer some of your points, and not being an expert on the modelling, I could guess that clouds, being random in nature with respect to albedo, could simply be accounted for by a numerical constant. No real need to model them further dynamically. Though I'm sure it could be easily done if needed.
Yes, pixelsmith, you can always put a bounding box around the earth and its atmosphere The only significant energy source entering is sunlight, the only thing leaving is IR (and a bit in the visible, radio waves, etc.).
Why, exactly, do you contend the atmosphere is not a closed system like a greenhouse. What, exactly, is open about it?
What, exactly, does 'warm air will migrating towards COLDER space more readily than towards an already warm planet', have to do with anything?? The temperatures on the ground already are accounting for this effect.
From your points, it is obvious to me that you are using simplistic thinking about the scenario in your attempt at analysis. It is also obvious to me that you do not have a background in physics or thermodynamics. You have not/are unable to present mathematical modelling to support your point of view; i.e. you have no argument except gut instinct and conspiracy theories.
I may require 8-10 years of research to do in order to get up to speed (though I don't know where you got those figures), but it is obvious that you are still very close to the starting line.
I would strongly suggest researching basic physics principles, then learning thermodynamics. After this, you may be better equipped to argue your points.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Here's an interesting look at how the models have worked out:

IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001 - Complete online versions | UNEP/GRID-Arendal - Publications - Other


They don't seem to be off.


About clouds:

IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001 - Complete online versions | UNEP/GRID-Arendal - Publications - Other



Of course, these finding are part of the conspiracy, so that's the argument that will be used by deniers.

 

[softbeard]

A single volcano blast will emit more noxious gas and CO2 than all human activity since the beginning of time, and how many active volcanos are there? The ocean releases more CO2 in one year than ALL human induced CO2 ever produced.

This is simplistic. It depends which volcano you are talking about and has nothing to do with the extra CO2 we (mankind) are adding. The ocean releasing CO2 is not a valid argument. The oceans are in equilibrium with respect to dissolved CO2 and CO2 atmospheric partial pressure. The oceans do not generate CO2, rather they act as a giant reseviour/buffer for atmospheric CO2 as they do for water vapour.

 

[Double Nought Spy]

Y'all might as well argue with a Jehovah's Witness.

 

[pixelsmith]

I will not argue conspiracies with you, so please do not use them as arguments. Believe me, conspiracy theories make all your other arguments, however factual they may be, look weak. For all I know, you might be part of a conspiracy on the part of the oil companies and their reptilian overlords.
To answer some of your points, and not being an expert on the modelling, I could guess that clouds, being random in nature with respect to albedo, could simply be accounted for by a numerical constant. No real need to model them further dynamically. Though I'm sure it could be easily done if needed.
Yes, pixelsmith, you can always put a bounding box around the earth and its atmosphere The only significant energy source entering is sunlight, the only thing leaving is IR.
Why, exactly, do you contend the atmosphere is not a closed system like a greenhouse. What, exactly, is open about it?
What, exactly, does 'warm air will migrating towards COLDER space more readily than towards an already warm planet', have to do with anything?? The temperatures on the ground already are accounting for this effect.
From your points, it is obvious to me that you are using simplistic thinking about the scenario in your attempt at analysis. It is also obvious to me that you do not have a background in physics or thermodynamics. You have not/are unable to present mathematical modelling to support your point of view; i.e. you have no argument except gut instinct and conspiracy theories.
I may require 8-10 years of research to do in order to get up to speed (though I don't know where you got those figures), but it is obvious that you are still very close to the starting line.
I would strongly suggest researching basic physics principles, then learning thermodynamics. After this, you may be better equipped to argue your points.

Yes I am using simplistic examples because... well to be honest you are behind on your research and understanding of AGW.

Does heat migrate toward cold or warmth?
Does the atmosphere have a glass roof?
Do you really believe a computer model can duplicate a planetary process we dont even fully understand?
The models used have not accurately predicted anything. ZIP.

---------- Post added at 03:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:36 PM ----------

Y'all might as well argue with a Jehovah's Witness.

funny you should bring that up. I have converted 2 JWs back to sanity over the years. "The Lion shall one day lie with the Lamb" is about as ridiculous a statement as "The science is settled"... As we know, the Lion will never lie with the lamb nor is Science ever settled.

Again... please provide some proof of the looming CAGW. You DO have the burden of proof you know.

 

[Double Nought Spy]

Yes, and you kept Earth from being overrun by Romulans. We all know about that too. And you were the third person to sign up here. No need of reminding us of that again.

 

[pixelsmith]

Yes it is simplistic...

The ocean is the biggest contributor of CO2 in our atmosphere... I think it is valid to discuss. Also worth mentioning is the big hot ball of gas in the sky...

---------- Post added at 03:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:45 PM ----------

Yes, and you kept Earth from being overrun by Romulans. We all know about that too. And you were the third person to sign up here. No need of reminding us of that again.

Actually I did not save the Earth from Romulans. That scenario has been greatly exaggerated.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

This thread pretty much proves the point of my original post. Conspiracy theories thrive online.

 

[softbeard]

Does heat migrate toward cold or warmth? Does the atmosphere have a glass roof? Do you really believe a computer model can duplicate a planetary process we dont even fully understand?

Ooh...I'm starting to get a headache...
Heat 'flows' so as to redistribute itself and increase the entropy of a system. Hot air 'rises' because its density is lower than cold air and it experiences buoyancy. All this means is that convection currents are set up in the atmosphere. All this has no significant effect on the amount of IR radiated into space from earth.
The 'glass roof' of a greenhouse is actually what the CO2, in effect, is.
You do not need to undertand every particular detail in a system to model its behaviour.
Again, a blanket contention that the models are useless, but nothing to back it up except intuition. Ughh.

 

[Double Nought Spy]

This thread pretty much proves the point of my original post. Conspiracy theories thrive online.

Two-bit blowhards are now free on the Internet. Well, you have to have a connection, but you can download all the useless blather you want for nothing after that. You get what you pay for.

 

[pixelsmith]

Here is something we all paid for. Can you tell me what is missing from this graph that was used to try and set global policy?

 

[softbeard]

The ocean is the biggest contributor of CO2 in our atmosphere... I think it is valid to discuss. Also worth mentioning is the big hot ball of gas in the sky...

But it is not a CO2 generator! If anything it is a huge buffer and net absorber of CO2. As for the big hot ball of gas in the sky, what about it?

 

[pixelsmith]

But it is not a CO2 generator! If anything it is a huge buffer and net absorber of CO2. As for the big hot ball of gas in the sky, what about it?

Yes I understand it is not a generator. It not only absorbs, when it warms from the SUN it releases more CO2 than anything else on the planet.
What about the SUN?!?! Seriously??

---------- Post added at 04:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 PM ----------

now explain the Hockey Stick graph to me and what is deliberately, intentionally and methodically missing.

 

[softbeard]

Here is something we all paid for. Can you tell me what is missing from this graph that was used to try and set global policy?

From the graph, it looks to me like statistically significant rise in temperature fluctuations towards year 2000 of about 0.5 deg. C. Meaning more temperature variability, all consistent with an overall temperature rise. Higher temperature variation is a consequemce of higher overall temperatures.
The graph seems to support the global warming scenario.