Global Warming Total Fraud

[Guest]

Ravenhawk, from what I just read - you have no understanding of climate science and your on the verge of raving.

There is no constructive point in trying to discuss the science with one so clueless of what the theory actual is.

Br Cornelius

[questionmark]

Precisely!!! Yes you did but that didn't counter Carter's first point. For all practical purposes, you just disproved AGW with that statement. If Man is not *ALL* sources then AGW cannot exist. It's really that simple. It's a matter of degree (pardon the pun). *cause* or *affect* are two different problems with two different solutions.

Let me put that in simple terms understandable by idiots like me:

Because in Soldiers Field the actions of the Bears are applauded by others than the fans of the Bears, the Bears Fan's applause does not exists?

Interesting, do you have that frequently?

[RavenHawk]

Actually, that's only part of the definition. To find a more complete one, try

In an academic sense, that is correct, but for the purposes of this thread, that’s all that is needed.

[Guest]

Ravenhawk, your friend Carter uses one location to make all of his inferences about global conditions, ie Greenland. This is like looking out of your back window and then saying with confidence what the conditions are like across the other side of the globe. Why does he do this ? Maybe because Greenland is atypical of Global conditions which can only be derived from looking at as many locations as possible. Why would a scientist cherry pick just one location to infer something it is incapable of showing ?

An analysis which starts on such a dodgy premise is not encouraging to say the least - and it still doesn't address the totality of what climate science tells us and the physical changes it predicts.

He makes great claim to his graphs, as do you, but they are incapable of supporting the claims he makes of them - other than possibly in Greenland.

Br Cornelius

Edited September 11, 2013 by Guest

[CyberKen]

The one area where we should worry is the fact that all these new hydrocarbons becoming available is going to make dealing with CO2 emissions (and global warming) politically more difficult.

I think the Global Warming / Cooling should be blamed on the sun and geothermal heat (El Nino) not humans on Earth.

We also have a new technology to moderate the warming and cooling on Earth: Geoengineering

BTW, have you noticed that no hurricanes have hit the USA in 2013?

http://science.time.com/2013/09/09/a-silent-hurricane-season-ignites-a-debate-over-global-warming/

[questionmark]

I think the Global Warming / Cooling should be blamed on the sun and geothermal heat (El Nino) not humans on Earth.

We also have a new technology to moderate the warming and cooling on Earth: Geoengineering

BTW, have you noticed that no hurricanes have hit the USA in 2013?

http://science.time....global-warming/

We do? Well, remarkably ineffective, innit? Greenland keeps on melting.

[Frank Merton]

I am hopeful about carbon dioxide reclamation technologies. At the moment they are impractical and would have negative environmental effects, but if things get really bad (warming begins to take off more than expected), they could be a stopgap that saves us.

Let us hope humanity is more sensible than that, but judging from the denialism going on, I wonder.

[CyberKen]

We do? Well, remarkably ineffective, innit? Greenland keeps on melting.

The amount of ice over the Arctic has increased 60% in 1 year.

They had to cancel plans to send ships through.

Earth is cooling.

[Guest]

I think the Global Warming / Cooling should be blamed on the sun and geothermal heat (El Nino) not humans on Earth.

We also have a new technology to moderate the warming and cooling on Earth: Geoengineering

BTW, have you noticed that no hurricanes have hit the USA in 2013?

http://science.time....global-warming/

Can you show us how the sun accounts for the current warming. The suns activity and the global temperature sharply diverge at about 1970. The El Nino accounts well for short term surface temperature variation on a decadal time scale, but has no periodicity which can account for over 150 years of warming. it is a natural system which redistributes heat through the oceans and atmosphere - but it is not a forcing of global temperatures so cannot account for long term trends. it does however account for much of the current pause in surface temperatures. Meanwhile the energy imbalance of the global system is positive and the total heat content of the oceans has been on a steady rise in response. Surface temperature represents just 5% of the total warming the planet has experienced - so we have to be more concerned about the accumulation of heat in the deep oceans.

Geo engineering is risky at best. We are currently geoengineering by pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and anything we do in addition to this will be fighting the changes we have already set in train. Remember that the primary idea put forward by geoengineers is to make Mars habitable by releasing stored CO2 into the atmosphere - which should tell you something about its power to warm a cold planet.

Br Cornelius

[questionmark]

I am hopeful about carbon dioxide reclamation technologies. At the moment they are impractical and would have negative environmental effects, but if things get really bad (warming begins to take off more than expected), they could be a stopgap that saves us.

Let us hope humanity is more sensible than that, but judging from the denialism going on, I wonder.

The most effective carbon reclamation is letting plants grow, but that is kind of difficult asphalting and cementing every piece of land we can find.

[Guest]

The amount of ice over the Arctic has increased 60% in 1 year.

They had to cancel plans to send ships through.

Earth is cooling.

I have already supplied a link showing that the ice cover is well below the average for the decade between 1990-2000 - which shows that it is just a rebound brought about by local conditions and has done nothing to reverse the overall trend of arctic sea ice decline.

Br Cornelius

[questionmark]

The amount of ice over the Arctic has increased 60% in 1 year.

They had to cancel plans to send ships through.

Earth is cooling.

We will see, that story is being sold by Enron and its affiliated Georgia university twice a year for the last ten years. So far it has not happened.

Greenland kept on melting and when the Arctic is freezing the Antarctic is melting.

So I won't hold my breath.

[CyberKen]

I am hopeful about carbon dioxide reclamation technologies. At the moment they are impractical and would have negative environmental effects, but if things get really bad (warming begins to take off more than expected), they could be a stopgap that saves us.

Let us hope humanity is more sensible than that, but judging from the denialism going on, I wonder.

This looks promising:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering

See: Solar Radiation Management - Aluminium Oxide Particles and self - levitating aerosols

[RavenHawk]

Ravenhawk, from what I just read - you have no understanding of climate science and your on the verge of raving.

Insulting me doesn’t change the fact nor distract from the fact that you have not countered Carter’s first point. And that your reply came fairly quickly shows that you haven’t read my reply. You have no idea what I said. You may think that you don’t need to, but if you wish to stay in the dialogue, you should at least do so, then you wouldn’t end up shoving your foot down your mouth.

There is no constructive point in trying to discuss the science with one so clueless of what the theory actual is.

You can’t counter the science, so you attack the person. That is so typical. Let’s face it, you can’t defend AGW. Carter filled it with holes. Instead of realizing that you’ve been pulled in by the politics and go back and look at the science, you’re going to stay on the bridge of the S.S. AGW.

[Guest]

Insulting me doesn't change the fact nor distract from the fact that you have not countered Carter's first point. And that your reply came fairly quickly shows that you haven't read my reply. You have no idea what I said. You may think that you don't need to, but if you wish to stay in the dialogue, you should at least do so, then you wouldn't end up shoving your foot down your mouth.

You can't counter the science, so you attack the person. That is so typical. Let's face it, you can't defend AGW. Carter filled it with holes. Instead of realizing that you've been pulled in by the politics and go back and look at the science, you're going to stay on the bridge of the S.S. AGW.

See my subsequent answer which addresses Carters cherry picking of cores which supports his case but do not counter AGW. You should have spotted this gross deficiency yourself, the fact that you didn't rather proves my point.

Br Cornelius

Edited September 11, 2013 by Guest

[CyberKen]

I have already supplied a link showing that the ice cover is well below the average for the decade between 1990-2000 - which shows that it is just a rebound brought about by local conditions and has done nothing to reverse the overall trend of arctic sea ice decline.

Br Cornelius

Here is the link:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html

Northwest Passage Closed

Ships can't get through. They say a photo speaks a 1,000 words. August 2012 - August 2013

It is what it is.

[questionmark]

Here is the link:

http://www.dailymail...redictions.html

Northwest Passage Closed

Ships can't get through. They say a photo speaks a 1,000 words. August 2012 - August 2013

It is what it is.

The daily snail... yep very peer reviewed, and always a fanal for the alarm against global warming...

Wonder why these guys are not jumping up and down.

A simple look at their satellite imagery films (30 day) will tell you a much less sensationalistic story. And while you are at it have a good look at the 2007 thaw. Once it is back to the state before that you might have a factual reason to rejoice. Before that all you have is a little ice sheet.

[Guest]

Here is the link:

http://www.dailymail...redictions.html

Northwest Passage Closed

Ships can't get through. They say a photo speaks a 1,000 words. August 2012 - August 2013

It is what it is.

The slant placed within that article is in line with the papers political bias. It misrepresents the overall trend concerning the Arctic sea ice trend. Year to year variability is to be expected in any system - as you will well know if you look out of your window occasionally.

Br Cornelius

[CyberKen]

The slant placed within that article is in line with the papers political bias. It misrepresents the overall trend concerning the Arctic sea ice trend. Year to year variability is to be expected in any system - as you will well know if you look out of your window occasionally.

Br Cornelius

I guess we will all know a lot more when we see the August 2012 Photo , August 2013 Photo and the August 2014 Photo.

One thing i do know. The predictions were....wrong.

Just ask the captains of those ships who traveled all the way up there only to discover a winter wonderland of ice.

[Frank Merton]

Yea -- that is something I notice; there is a distinct political aspect to this debate, on both sides. Look at just the scientific articles and ignore stuff in either The Guardian or the Daly Mail (US equivalents -- New Your Times and Wall Street Journal.

The scientific publications I trust are Nature and Science and Scientific American. They are unambiguous that human-caused global warming is real and presents a serious threat.

[Guest]

I guess we will all know a lot more when we see the August 2012 Photo , August 2013 Photo and the August 2014 Photo.

One thing i do know. The predictions were....wrong.

Just ask the captains of those ships who traveled all the way up there only to discover a winter wonderland of ice.

Which particular prediction was wrong ? Maybe it was this one scientist who said it would be ice free in 2016

Both Rose and Dixon referenced a 2007 BBC article quoting Professor Wieslaw Maslowski saying that the Arctic could be ice free in the summer of 2013. In a 2011 BBC article, he predicted ice-free Arctic seas by 2016 "plus or minus three years." Other climate scientists believe this prediction is too pessimistic, and expect the first ice-free Arctic summers by 2040.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/09/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-delusions

Lets see whats really happening:

Br Cornelius

Edited September 11, 2013 by Guest

[Whisperer]

No, no confusion, those were the words of the news paper article...and evidence, that depends on your willingness to seek doesnt it....and in point of fact, I am not offerring theories at all or posting my opiniopns on the matter, I am offering food for thought, another snippet you may accept or discard at your pleasure...

Cheers

[CyberKen]

Which particular prediction was wrong ?

Br Cornelius

Just read the article.

Those captains were told that all of the ice would be gone by 2013.

It was not gone. In fact it increased by 60%. OOPS!

Go ahead and read the comments at the bottom of the article. It's hilarious. One guy says the entire article is a hoax!

Hoax? Call the captains of those yachts and tell them it's just a hoax. The yachts traveled up there and ran into....reality.

The cruise ship turned around and probably cursed the so called "experts".

[RavenHawk]

Ravenhawk, your friend Carter uses one location to make all of his inferences about global conditions, ie Greenland.

If you had watched Carter’s clip or actually read what I wrote, you’d know this is not true. There are only basically two locations to get ice cores (the polar regions). I suppose that you can argue that there are exceptions and that is fine, but I don’t think you are going to be pulling many ice cores from the Bahamas. These proxies is all scientists have to peer into the past.

This is like looking out of your back window and then saying with confidence what the conditions are like across the other side of the globe.

I would tend to agree but I haven’t heard any of the world’s scientists come out and claim that any ice core locations (or even the deep sea cores) as a bad back window. And what happens at the poles controls the rest of the planet. Isn’t that what AGW apologists use to defend it? If not, then melting ice packs are nothing more than that back window. I asked you if you accepted these ice cores and you never expressed any exceptions. Or did you not read anything I wrote?

Why does he do this ? Maybe because Greenland is atypical of Global conditions which can only be derived from looking at as many locations as possible. Why would a scientist cherry pick just one location to infer something it is incapable of showing ?

That’s real disingenuous. There are many reasons to only use Greenland and cherry picking isn’t the only one. But what is missing then is a side-by-side comparison with any of the other cores. Can you provide that without cherry-picking yourself? If they turn out to be very similar, then it would be for convenience to use only the Greenland cores. If it is inconclusive, then it still doesn’t matter in that he found data that torpedoes AGW. Again, all Carter has to do is disprove one instance of AGW to find the whole thing false. So what you call cherry-picking is really only being focused and observant. And hence, calling Carter’s point dodgy does not counter it. Where is your science that counters ice & deep sea cores?

An analysis which starts on such a dodgy premise is not encouraging to say the least - and it still doesn't address the totality of what climate science tells us and the physical changes it predicts.

Carter doesn’t have to address the totality of AGW. Do you not understand that? Parading AGW and then calling it climate change is disingenuous as well.

He makes great claim to his graphs, as do you, but they are incapable of supporting the claims he makes of them - other than possibly in Greenland.

Again, that’s all the science community has. His claims had better support the graphs since they are an objective reporting of the data. You see what you are doing? You can’t counter the science that Carter uses, so now you are just simply attacking science in general.

[Guest]

Just read the article.

Those captains were told that all of the ice would be gone by 2013.

It was not gone. In fact it increased by 60%. OOPS!

Go ahead and read the comments at the bottom of the article. It's hilarious. One guy says the entire article is a hoax!

Hoax? Call the captains of those yachts and tell them it's just a hoax. The yachts traveled up there and ran into....reality.

The cruise ship turned around and probably cursed the so called "experts".

I gave you the exact quote made y a single scientist to the BBC and it specifically stated that he predicted the arctic summer icew to be gone by 2016, give or take 3 years. That represents a period of 2013 to 2019 for his prediction to come true with the most likely year been 2016. That is one mans opinion, but the majority of experts in the field predict a summer ice free arctic by 2040.

By any stretch of the imagination the article is disingenous to the original quote and grossly off the mark of the generally held position of the body of scientific experts. As they say, you can believe who you like, but thats not going to change the likely outcome.

Br Cornelius