Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Big Bad Voodoo

The IPCC exposed

161 posts in this topic

Pure BS

Very touchy you religious types, very touchy indeed, and with every post against me you two show that my original post was right on target. Keep attacking me, please.

Oh, and by the way I noticed your post 260 in the thread "The repercusions of being an atheist" where you write against believers etc as not caring about the environment because they think we are all doomed soon anyway, or words to that effect. You made a post in this thread likening me to that type of person. All I can say is that unlike me who hits the right target, you have lumped me with fundie loonies, and here is me an atheist. Warmism is clearly your religion just as much as the fundie loonies with theirs. I am no more interested in their "Thou shalt nots" than yours, as it's all dogma to me.

Edited by Kaa-Tzik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very touchy you religious types, very touchy indeed, and with every post against me you two show that my original post was right on target. Keep attacking me, please.

Oh, and by the way I noticed your post 260 in the thread "The repercusions of being an atheist" where you write against believers etc as not caring about the environment because they think we are all doomed soon anyway, or words to that effect. You made a post in this thread likening me to that type of person. All I can say is that unlike me who hits the right target, you have lumped me with fundie loonies, and here is me an atheist. Warmism is clearly your religion just as much as the fundie loonies with theirs. I am no more interested in their "Thou shalt nots" than yours, as it's all dogma to me.

You are the one accusing me of blind faith without giving any evidence to support such a claim. My point is that you look at one small thing like the leveling off of air temps and assume global warming is a myth while ignoring all other evidence of climate change. It is not dogma. There is good evidence to support my position though perhaps not conclusive. I think to wait for absolute certainty is a mistake as it will be too late to change anything. Warmism, that's a hoot. You may make a case that humans are not responsible for warming but can you really deny that warming is happening? Edited by spacecowboy342

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, not to my knowledge.

Watts had argued correctly that the effects of Urban Heat Island were not being taken into account in the land based measurements.

when he investigated he found that urbanization had occurred to encompass a lot of the measuring stations, meaning that over the last 50 years, a lot of the thermometers were showing a warming bias because previously they had been in open fields and now they are on open tarmac.

after a lot of bickering, the team that compiled HADCRUT land based readings which the ipcc used accepted there was a UHI effect but did not adjust their data, so the temperature record previous to satellites is contaminated with false warming.

what the team at HADCRUT did was add their estimate of UHI to the uncertaintly, so when the activists and alarmist media show you a straight line graph of HADCRUT you are not being told it is higher than it should be because they very rarely show you the uncertainty bars.

Watts then did a more in depth study on his own dime with the help of hundreds of volunteers and found that there was a significant warming bias for nighttime readings on most of the thermometer stations, and for that he has been vilified by zealous activists, even on this forum. despite what activists say on this forum, watts's blog is the most viewed blog on global warming with contributions from a lot of the mainstream respected empirical scientists.

He supported BEST then backpedaled:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the natural cycle over the last 10,000 years has been shown to fluctuate by several degrees in as little as a century on a regular basis, 20th century warming is just 0.7 degrees, there is nothing unusual about the magnitude or the rate of change of 20th century warming, that is what the ipcc is not telling you, furthermore the past correlates nicely with solar activity, so why does the ipcc pay virtually no attention to solar effects on climate. it doesn't tell you because the scientific "reports" are edited and sexed up by a small group of activist who have a vested interest in not being wrong, so anything contrary to their "cause" is not accepted in their "reports" or watered down.

This is explained in the NAS final report, together with positive feedback loops, the effects of the sun, etc. Their analysis of IPCC findings and others run contrary to your interpretation.

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?

BEST was funded by skeptics to counter the IPCC. When BEST confirmed what the latter stated, skeptics like Watts backpedaled.

The point about solar activity and temperature anomaly is also wrong:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[media=]

[/media]

He is absolutely correct. The climate has warmed and cooled many times in the past due to rising and falling co2 levels. When co2 is high plants grow bigger but are less nutricious. CO2 rising through natural processes is one thing. Volcanic activity eventually changes and the planet cleans the atmosphere. Not so with man made release. Warmer temps have been good for plants and large ruminants but the effects on other wildlife and human agriculture is not clear. People living in low lying sea coast areas like Florida might disagree that rising sea levels are harmless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is explained in the NAS final report, together with positive feedback loops, the effects of the sun, etc. Their analysis of IPCC findings and others run contrary to your interpretation.

positive feedback loops are guesses not based on measurements or knowledge. all the empirical evidence suggests the feedback is negative to mildly positive. the evidence does not support your position. 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.
BEST was funded by skeptics to counter the IPCC. When BEST confirmed what the latter stated, skeptics like Watts backpedaled.

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?

The point about solar activity and temperature anomaly is also wrong:

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

no it isn't, read it again. Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The climate has warmed and cooled many times in the past due to rising and falling co2 levels.
the co2 rise follows the warming. the warming is first then the co2 rise, so co2 cannot control the temperature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there's no correlation between co2 and temperature in and around the miocene.

Incorrect as higher co2 levels correlate to warm periods and low levels correlate to period of glaciation. I don't have the link at hand but I will find it to show evidence of this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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/content/105/2/449.long

http://www.nature.com/natural/journal/v500/n7464/full/nature12448.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20130829

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1z3qmg4.jpg

co2 data from here:

PaleogeneCO2.jpg

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
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[media=]

[/media]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1z3qmg4.jpg

co2 data from here:

PaleogeneCO2.jpg

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.skepticalscience.com/Todays-Climate-More-Sensitive_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.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ice-free-arctic-in-pliocene-last-time-co2-levels-above-400ppm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.

gisp220temperaturesince1070020bp20with20co220from20epica20domec1.gif

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

You contradicted your previous sentence.

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/

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/

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?

no it isn't, read it again.

Check the link again.

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

Edited by MonkeyLove

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
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.
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?
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is no contradiction, read it again.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.skepticalscience.com/acrim-pmod-sun-getting-hotter.htm

And an update:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/acrim-vs-pmod/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-carbon-dioxide-is-greenhouse-gas

Edited by spacecowboy342

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

gisp220temperaturesince1070020bp20with20co220from20epica20domec1.gif

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.