Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 2 votes

The IPCC exposed


  • Please log in to reply
160 replies to this topic

#136    spacecowboy342

spacecowboy342

    Traveler of both time and space

  • Member
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

  • I shall now proceed to entangle the entire area

Posted 16 October 2013 - 05:14 PM

 Little Fish, on 16 October 2013 - 03:42 PM, said:

the co2 rise follows the warming. the warming is first then the co2 rise, so co2 cannot control the temperature.
No I believe the rise and fall of temps in the miocene correlate well. This may not prove causality but it would seem to indicate it to me especially as the sun was 0.4% less luminous at the time. I still can't find the link I want but consider these:
http://www.pnas.org/.../105/2/449.long

http://www.nature.co...NATURE-20130829


#137    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 16 October 2013 - 07:36 PM

 spacecowboy342, on 16 October 2013 - 05:14 PM, said:

No I believe the rise and fall of temps in the miocene correlate well. This may not prove causality but it would seem to indicate it to me especially as the sun was 0.4% less luminous at the time. I still can't find the link I want but consider these:
http://www.pnas.org/.../105/2/449.long

http://www.nature.co...NATURE-20130829
Posted Image
co2 data from here:

Posted Image
temperature data from here, fig 2 (vertical plot makes comparison difficult, so see diagram above with blue and yellow plots overlayed)
http://www.essc.psu..../Zachosetal.pdf

as can be seen from the data, it cannot be concluded that co2 was driving the temperature during the miocence.

Edited by Little Fish, 16 October 2013 - 07:51 PM.


#138    Professor Buzzkill

Professor Buzzkill

    Integrity is all we have

  • Member
  • 2,598 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:White Cloud

Posted 16 October 2013 - 08:28 PM

 Little Fish, on 15 October 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:



Brilliant video. But i didn't much enjoy the joke about wiping out NZ with another super volcano! Come on, we've had our share of disasters.


#139    spacecowboy342

spacecowboy342

    Traveler of both time and space

  • Member
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

  • I shall now proceed to entangle the entire area

Posted 16 October 2013 - 09:33 PM

 Little Fish, on 16 October 2013 - 07:36 PM, said:

Posted Image
co2 data from here:

Posted Image
temperature data from here, fig 2 (vertical plot makes comparison difficult, so see diagram above with blue and yellow plots overlayed)
http://www.essc.psu..../Zachosetal.pdf

as can be seen from the data, it cannot be concluded that co2 was driving the temperature during the miocence.
There are many other factors involved. Oceanic currents have changed greatly on the time scales shown. This doesn't mean raising co2 doesn't raise temperature and vice versa. During the miocene for example in the middle part co2 and temps were high and there were no icecaps. At the end co2 and temps dropped and icecaps formed.


#140    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 16 October 2013 - 10:40 PM

 spacecowboy342, on 16 October 2013 - 09:33 PM, said:

There are many other factors involved. Oceanic currents have changed greatly on the time scales shown. This doesn't mean raising co2 doesn't raise temperature and vice versa. During the miocene for example in the middle part co2 and temps were high and there were no icecaps. At the end co2 and temps dropped and icecaps formed.
but let's recap, you brought up the miocene twice, firstly with a reference to a talking point about "the last time co2 was this high", and secondly with a reference to a paper making rhetorical connections between certain narrow points in the miocene correlating with temperature movement. so it was left to me to infer your point as being that our current temperature will revert to the temperature that was present when our present co2 levels existed in the past, namely the miocene period and in particular when co2 was measured at 400ppm which would mean a temperature increase of about 3 or 4 degrees from where we are now, but you said yourself "oceanic currents have changed greatly" as a reason why the correlation does not hold for the majority of the miocene spanning about twenty million years! but those same factors you use to dismiss inconvenient data would also apply when comparing todays conditions with those you chose to pick within the miocene. so, in short you are saying apples are oranges but oranges are not apples.


#141    spacecowboy342

spacecowboy342

    Traveler of both time and space

  • Member
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

  • I shall now proceed to entangle the entire area

Posted 16 October 2013 - 11:14 PM

 Little Fish, on 16 October 2013 - 10:40 PM, said:

but let's recap, you brought up the miocene twice, firstly with a reference to a talking point about "the last time co2 was this high", and secondly with a reference to a paper making rhetorical connections between certain narrow points in the miocene correlating with temperature movement. so it was left to me to infer your point as being that our current temperature will revert to the temperature that was present when our present co2 levels existed in the past, namely the miocene period and in particular when co2 was measured at 400ppm which would mean a temperature increase of about 3 or 4 degrees from where we are now, but you said yourself "oceanic currents have changed greatly" as a reason why the correlation does not hold for the majority of the miocene spanning about twenty million years! but those same factors you use to dismiss inconvenient data would also apply when comparing todays conditions with those you chose to pick within the miocene. so, in short you are saying apples are oranges but oranges are not apples.
I would say the climate has become more succeptible to warming due to co2 than before.
http://www.skeptical...sitive_NSF.html
Also the chart you displayed covered much more than the miocene. There is data that the pliocene had co2 levels of 400ppm and a much warmer wetter arctic than today suggesting that todays temps just haven't caught up to current co2 levels. After the heat sinks heat up this could change rapidly.
http://www.scientifi...ls-above-400ppm


#142    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 16 October 2013 - 11:55 PM

 spacecowboy342, on 16 October 2013 - 11:14 PM, said:

I would say the climate has become more succeptible to warming due to co2 than before.
http://www.skeptical...sitive_NSF.html
why would you say that?
would you also say that the motion of planets across our sky is governed by epicycles?
https://en.wikipedia...for_bad_science

Quote

Also the chart you displayed covered much more than the miocene. There is data that the pliocene had co2 levels of 400ppm and a much warmer wetter arctic than today suggesting that todays temps just haven't caught up to current co2 levels. After the heat sinks heat up this could change rapidly.
http://www.scientifi...ls-above-400ppm
circular reasoning is when you use your premise (that co2 controls earth's temperature) to prove your premise, but you aren't even doing this, you are using your premise to speculate your premise.

I hope others are reading this, so they realise that warming dogma is not falsifiable. if it's not falsifiable then it is not science, it's religion. the data doesn't fit so you are speculating your way out of it. if that's the benchmark you live by then i can prove to your satisfaction that snow is black.

"Education should aim at destroying free will so that after pupils are thus schooled they will be incapable throughout the rest of their lives of thinking or acting otherwise than as their school masters would have wished ... The social psychologist of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for more than one generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen." -----Bertrand Russell quoting Johann Gottlieb Fichte, the head of philosophy & psychology who influenced Hegel and others – Prussian University in Berlin, 1810"

so we've established the miocence doesn't support your contention, what about recent history of co2 and temperature.
Posted Image

Edited by Little Fish, 17 October 2013 - 12:18 AM.


#143    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 18 October 2013 - 12:28 PM

 spacecowboy342, on 16 October 2013 - 11:14 PM, said:

There is data that the pliocene had co2 levels of 400ppm and a much warmer wetter arctic than today suggesting that todays temps just haven't caught up to current co2 levels. After the heat sinks heat up this could change rapidly.
http://www.scientifi...ls-above-400ppm
I looked further into this, and it appears to be propaganda.

the co2 proxy measurements referred to by the author of this El'gygytgyn study (not taken by her team) were between 300ppm and 325ppm, not 400ppm as claimed by the SA journalist in your linked article.

furthermore
this study does not support co2 controlling the polar climates.
this study reveals that the arctic temperature is more variable than previously assumed with previous interglacials having an order of magnitude warmer arctic conditions (already known from other studies), yet no co2 variability coupling, in fact the co2 during that pliocence period was practically the same as the pre-industrial times in the current interglacial.

watch the interesting presentation, see the co2 measurements at the 12 minute mark
see how she obfuscates the critical issue hiding the obvious elephant in the room - "it is possible the co2 was warmer in the atmosphere during this time" - wtf?!!!
"a little warmer, er higher than we would expect" - wtf?!!
see how uncomfortable she is when asked about co2 at 21 minute mark, she will not commit herself, but defers to someone else's authority (which turns out to be circular reasoning, not data based reasoning), but it's clear what the data is telling us and it is clear she knows it too, namely that co2 is not controlling the arctic temperature during the pliocene.

https://www.youtube....h?v=YxbOSB7zDgY


#144    MonkeyLove

MonkeyLove

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 233 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2010

Posted 19 October 2013 - 06:28 AM

 Little Fish, on 16 October 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

positive feedback loops are guesses not based on measurements or knowledge.

So, how did you come up with your next two sentences?

Quote


all the empirical evidence suggests the feedback is negative to mildly positive.


You contradicted your previous sentence.

Quote


the evidence does not support your position.


You contradicted your previous sentence again. That's two in a row.

A list of positive feedbacks based on empirical evidence and studies:

http://guymcpherson....ary-and-update/

Quote


Lincdzen and Choi 2011 showed from empirical satellite readings that over the tropics the earth emitted more heat when the oceans warmed which means a negative feedback. what you are referring to is computer models which have been programmed to give the result you like, they are not empirical measurements, they are just hypotheses which have been falsified by measurements. it's the real world you need to look at, not what the computer says. they don't look at the effects of the sun, they only look at TSI reconstruction as the only measure of solar activity, then make the assumption that anything else is due to co2 and an imagined positive feedback.


Which is not good:

http://thinkprogress...-acidification/

Quote


why do you keep bringing up BEST? there is nothing there which shows 20th century warming is due to co2. even the co-author of BEST has told you this. the 20th century was a grand maximum for solar activity, and yet Muller from the BEST study opinionated that all 20th century warming was due to co2, how can that be when the past was always perfectly correlated with solar activity and 20th century had an all time high in solar activity?


Because BEST was the only thing that deniers could come up with in terms of an independent study of the matter. Should deniers try again?

Quote


no it isn't, read it again.


Check the link again.

http://www.skeptical...bal-warming.htm

Edited by MonkeyLove, 19 October 2013 - 06:29 AM.


#145    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 19 October 2013 - 06:41 PM

 MonkeyLove, on 19 October 2013 - 06:28 AM, said:

So, how did you come up with your next two sentences? You contradicted your previous sentence. You contradicted your previous sentence again. That's two in a row.
there is no contradiction, read it again.

Quote

A list of positive feedbacks based on empirical evidence and studies:
http://guymcpherson....ary-and-update/
Which is not good:
http://thinkprogress...-acidification/
a blog by a lunatic flagellant cnute wearing a sandwich board that claims the entirety of mankind will be extinct in 27 years, and claims the linked telegraph article "calls for scientists to be killed" when in fact the article says no such thing, you are clearly not on solid ground here. did you verify the other things your link stated, i doubt it. There is no empirical evidence for positive feedback, the empirical evidence already given to you suggests harmless negative feedback from co2 re-radiation (namely when the ocean warms more heat escapes to space) to which you responded with a nothing comment and a reference to another political website that says nothing to the point.

Quote

Because BEST was the only thing that deniers could come up with in terms of an independent study of the matter. Should deniers try again?
that study evidences nothing to the points being made to you. even it's co author has said this to you, but still you just spam and repeat this meaningless talking point. can you explain what you think is important about that study and what it reveals about catastrophic man made global warming?

Quote

what does it say under it' graph?
"Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD)."
do you see from 1979 to 2009 where the divergence begins it is using different data to the data previous to 1979?
what did the solar scientist Richard Wilson who heads the ACRIM solar satellite program say as explained to you previously here:
http://www.unexplain...30#entry4940778
he said - "Frohlich made unauthorised and incorrect adjustments to the ACRIM TSI results..." etc

he also said:
"to adjust satellite data to agree with such models is incompatible with the scientific method"
do you get that you do NOT change data to match your theory? that's called drylabbing, or scientific fraud.

what did the solar scientist Douglas Hoyt say as already explained to you previously?
"Frolich's PMOD TSI composite" (from 1979 onwards in the graph on the cultist site you linked) "is not consistent with the internal data or physics of the Nimbus 7 cavity radiometer (the instrument that takes the readings)"

any chance you could address the points raised?

Edited by Little Fish, 19 October 2013 - 07:03 PM.


#146    MonkeyLove

MonkeyLove

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 233 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2010

Posted 20 October 2013 - 11:37 AM

 Little Fish, on 19 October 2013 - 06:41 PM, said:

there is no contradiction, read it again.
​

There's no evidence, there's evidence, there's no evidence.


Quote

a blog by a lunatic flagellant cnutewearing a sandwich board that claims the entirety of mankind will be extinct in 27 years, and claims the linked telegraph article "calls for scientists to be killed" when in fact the article says no such thing, you are clearly not on solid ground here. did you verify the other things your link stated, i doubt it. There is no empirical evidence for positive feedback, the empirical evidence already given to you suggests harmless negative feedback from co2 re-radiation (namely when the ocean warms more heat escapes to space) to which you responded with a nothing comment and a reference to another political website that says nothing to the point.



The point of the sharing that post is to show that your claims that there is no empirical evidence for feedbacks is wrong. There are links in the post to various studies and news reports.


Quote

that study evidences nothing to the points being made to you. even it's co author has said this to you, but still you just spam and repeat this meaningless talking point. can you explain what you think is important about that study and what it reveals about catastrophic man made global warming?


The sources you use, including Watts, supported BEST as an independent study in order to counter AGW claims. When the results came out, he and others backpedaled, and the best we've now seen are blog entries. What independent study will they support next?


Quote

what does it say under it' graph?

"Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD)."
do you see from 1979 to 2009 where the divergence begins it is using different data to the data previous to 1979?
what did the solar scientist Richard Wilson who heads the ACRIM solar satellite program say as explained to you previously here:
http://www.unexplain...30#entry4940778
he said - "Frohlich made unauthorised and incorrect adjustments to the ACRIM TSI results..." etc
​
he also said:
"to adjust satellite data to agree with such models is incompatible with the scientific method"
do you get that you do NOT change data to match your theory? that's called drylabbing, or scientific fraud.

what did the solar scientist Douglas Hoyt say as already explained to you previously?
"Frolich's PMOD TSI composite" (from 1979 onwards in the graph on the cultist site you linked) "is not consistent with the internal data or physics of the Nimbus 7 cavity radiometer (the instrument that takes the readings)"

any chance you could address the points raised?




This might help:

http://www.skeptical...ting-hotter.htm

And an update:

http://www.realclima.../acrim-vs-pmod/


#147    spacecowboy342

spacecowboy342

    Traveler of both time and space

  • Member
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

  • I shall now proceed to entangle the entire area

Posted 20 October 2013 - 02:13 PM

 Little Fish, on 18 October 2013 - 12:28 PM, said:

I looked further into this, and it appears to be propaganda.

the co2 proxy measurements referred to by the author of this El'gygytgyn study (not taken by her team) were between 300ppm and 325ppm, not 400ppm as claimed by the SA journalist in your linked article.

furthermore
this study does not support co2 controlling the polar climates.
this study reveals that the arctic temperature is more variable than previously assumed with previous interglacials having an order of magnitude warmer arctic conditions (already known from other studies), yet no co2 variability coupling, in fact the co2 during that pliocence period was practically the same as the pre-industrial times in the current interglacial.

watch the interesting presentation, see the co2 measurements at the 12 minute mark
see how she obfuscates the critical issue hiding the obvious elephant in the room - "it is possible the co2 was warmer in the atmosphere during this time" - wtf?!!!
"a little warmer, er higher than we would expect" - wtf?!!
see how uncomfortable she is when asked about co2 at 21 minute mark, she will not commit herself, but defers to someone else's authority (which turns out to be circular reasoning, not data based reasoning), but it's clear what the data is telling us and it is clear she knows it too, namely that co2 is not controlling the arctic temperature during the pliocene.

https://www.youtube....h?v=YxbOSB7zDgY
So any information that doesn't support your position is propaganda? Admittedly there seems to be contradictory information. But I think these points are self-evident.
1) co2 is a greenhouse gas. It allows energy from the sun in visible spectrums to pass freely while not allowing heat to irradiate from earth in the infra-red.
2) more co2 will then cause more heat in a system
3)co2 levels are rising
4) humans are dumping a lot of co2 into the atmosphere
5) despite the fact that many factors control the climate how much co2 we put into the atmosphere is one we can control
http://www.scientifi...-greenhouse-gas

Edited by spacecowboy342, 20 October 2013 - 02:16 PM.


#148    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,478 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 20 October 2013 - 07:01 PM

 Little Fish, on 16 October 2013 - 03:42 PM, said:

the co2 rise follows the warming. the warming is first then the co2 rise, so co2 cannot control the temperature.
This is entirely a matter of time scale.  CO2 follows warming on millennial time scales, especially if the dataset does not include the last hundred years.  As you have pointed out before, this is due to the ocean releasing CO2 to the air as it warms and absorbing it as it cools.  That is a feedback loop - something you only believe in when it suppports your contentions.

But at decadal scales for the last 110 years or so, warming has followed CO2.  That's something different.  So this argument depends entirely on what time-scale you are using.  And that is something deniers do not like to reveal.

For temperature rise in the 20th century, the warming-before-CO2 principle requires a doctrine (an assumption needed to make an idea work) to support it:  that for the last 110 years, the oceans have been warmed by something other than solar energy trapped by the Greenhouse Effect so that they will outgas CO2 and cause the observed increases in CO2/temperature that have been observed.  And that begs the question:  WHAT CAUSED THE OCEANS TO WARM UP?

If you can't propose a hypothetical mechanism for that, you don't have an argument.  So what's your mechanism and what evidence supports it?  Surely some of your denialist "scientists" have the answer to this question.  How about posting some citations that show this?
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#149    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,478 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 20 October 2013 - 07:07 PM

 Little Fish, on 16 October 2013 - 07:36 PM, said:

as can be seen from the data, it cannot be concluded that co2 was driving the temperature during the miocence.
Nor can it be concluded that CO2 follows warming.  These two curves do not even appear to be related.  So why then, does warming lag CO2 by about 300 years since the LGM and not during the last 100?  You have some explaining to do.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#150    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 20 October 2013 - 10:13 PM

 Doug1o29, on 20 October 2013 - 07:01 PM, said:

WHAT CAUSED THE OCEANS TO WARM UP?

If you can't propose a hypothetical mechanism for that, you don't have an argument. So what's your mechanism and what evidence supports it? Surely some of your denialist "scientists" have the answer to this question. How about posting some citations that show this?
Posted Image

what caused the warming of the medieval warm period, the roman warm period, the minoan warm period and all the other peaks and troughs behind it?

"Surely some of your denialist "scientists" have the answer to this question"
we know how the cultist "scientists" answered the question - they said in 1995 in a private email to professor David Deming (Oklahoma university) "we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period", and then in 1999 the MWP was erased with michael mann's infamous hockey stick graph which has since been discredited.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users