Global Warming Total Fraud

[MonkeyLove]

The "man made global warming" believers want to tell us that man-created CO2 content in the atmosphere is the sole cause of climate change, and that we can control the planetary climate like an airconditioner.

But just look at the numbers: The CO2 content in the atmosphere is currently about 0.038%. Of that 0.038 %, roughly 4% are man made. That means 0.00152 %! Lets go the whole hog and say we could reduce that by one third. So they are talking about a gas making up 0.0005 % of the atmosphere, and THAT, they want to tell us, CONTROLS the climate?

If you want a definition of insanity, look no further.

The whole "global warming" agenda is political, as even the politiians themselves admit sometimes.

"One must say clearly that we want to redistribute the world`s wealh by climate policy". (Ottmar Edenhofer, United Nations IPCC)

You need to look at positive feedback loops. For more details, read the NAS final report.

[MonkeyLove]

And those who gobble up the IPPC political talking points: You are the definition of gullability. Every politicians dream!

Wear the hat if it fits.

Indeed. Hence,

http://www.alternet.org/environment/climate-risks-have-been-underestimated-last-20-years

The situation is similar for peak oil. It is never in the best interest of government to give bad news, especially predicaments, as that leads to lower sales, which in turn leads to lower tax revenues.

[MonkeyLove]

"global-mean sea level has continued to rise during 1998–2012, at a rate only slightly and insignificantly lower than during 1993–2012"

if the "extra heat" was absorbed by the oceans during the period 1998-2012 then the ipcc contradict this by stating the rate of sea level rise has declined over that period - the sea level should have risen at a higher rate than the previous decade if the oceans absorbed that "extra heat" - they didn't.

I am not sure what ocean heat content has to do with sea levels. Also,

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm

Likely, this is another example of cherry-picking, i.e., looking at a small portion of the data set to show a flat or declining trend.

"In order for the post-1997 atmospheric/SST slowdown (pause) to be explained by ocean heat uptake the ocean uptake must have been HIGHER during this period. The data I have seen look like a steady uptake with maybe even a surface level (0-700m) slowdown in uptake post-1997. Just the opposite of what is required. The movement of heat into the deep ocean is then claimed but data do not allow this to be proved or refuted." - Craig Loehle

there is no reason to believe feedback is positive, there is reason to believe any feedback is negative - the lower climate sensitivity models are consistent with empirical measurements of no warming over the last 15-16 years

The point isn't that feedback is positive or negative, but that heat was absorbed by the oceans while models look at surface temps.

[MonkeyLove]

The science behind man-made Global Warming is faulty and politically driven.

What would happen if the IPCC admitted the truth?

They would be chased down the street!

FWIW, skeptics funded an independent study to prove that. Here are the results:

http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings

[Little Fish]

I am not sure what ocean heat content has to do with sea levels.

warm water expands.

Also,http://www.skeptical...-level-rise.htm

nothing to do with what i said.

from IPCC AR5, WG1

"global-mean sea level has continued to rise during 1998–2012, at a rate only slightly and insignificantly lower than during 1993–2012"

Likely, this is another example of cherry-picking, i.e., looking at a small portion of the data set to show a flat or declining trend.

you didn't understand what i said.

you argued that global warming has not stopped because the extra heat that would have continued the warming trend of the atmosphere has gone into the ocean, yet when we look at the ocean heat data it shows a linear trend, yet atmosphe temperatures increased from 1980s to 1998, then plateaued for 15 years. if the heat that should have been in the atmosphere (according to co2 hypothesis) has been absorbed into the oceans then the ocean heat content over that last 15 year period should have gone up at a steeper rate compared to the earlier period, the data shows the same linear trend for OHC over both periods, not an accelerating trend between the two periods. so your hypothesis that "the extra heat has been absorbed in the ocean" fails.

as the oceans warm they are expected to expand, so similarly a linear trend in sea level is not consistent with your hypothesis.

The point isn't that feedback is positive or negative, but that heat was absorbed by the oceans while models look at surface temps.

GCMs look at both oceans and surface temperature.

the argument you are putting forward is a case of speculating to protect your belief.

you need posiitive feedback to support your argument, the data doesn't support positive feedback.

Edited October 1, 2013 by Little Fish

[Zaphod222]

Indeed. Hence,

http://www.alternet....d-last-20-years

And your point in quoting an activist, political website is what, exactly? Why don´t you quote Al Gore`s party platform right away?

Jeeze...

[Zaphod222]

FWIW, skeptics funded an independent study to prove that. Here are the results:

http://berkeleyearth...ary-of-findings

I do not see any proof that "sceptics funded" this study. That is your claim.

But since you bring it up, here an interesting article about confirmation bias from the site that you refer to:

http://www.novim.org/images/pdf/wsjridley.pdf

"For constructive critics, this is the problem with modern climate science. They don't think it's a conspiracy theory, but a monopoly that clings to one hypothesis (that carbon dioxide will cause dangerous global warming) and brooks less and less dissent. Again and again, climate skeptics are told they should respect the consensus, an admonition wholly against the tradition of science"

Indeed.

[CyberKen]

FWIW, skeptics funded an independent study to prove that. Here are the results:

http://berkeleyearth...ary-of-findings

Nobody believes the IPCC reports anymore.

It's like reading the comics page in a newspaper.

Al Gore = Charlie Brown

[RavenHawk]

I will quote from another of our members because he says it better than I can;

There are probably dozens of cycles that affect climate. The Chandler Wobble, the Bond Cycle, the solar cycle. The NAO is cyclic; so is the PDO. There is an unidentified sixteen-year cycle. The Milankovitch cycles (There are three of them.) aren't the only ones the affect climate. And like you say, volcanos add a random element (non-cyclic decay curve).

All you have to do is find the amplitude, period and offset for each of them, then subtract them out of your data. Temperature rise is what is left over. It's pretty straight-forward stuff. These have all been quantified. If you can't do the math yourself and/or lack access to the data, you can read up on it in climatology publications.

Yeah, all you have to do is find the amplitude, period and offset and that is not always trivial. But if there is an unidentified sixteen-year cycle, that only gives you period. If there is one unidentified cycle then there are others. Given our level of climate understanding or lack thereof, there is a good chance that there are many more that we are not truly aware of. They are more than likely caused by combinations of cycles. I.e., we know what CO2 does in isolated laboratory experiments. We are not so certain when incorporated into a planetary system. To explain that, you throw in both, forcing *AND* feedback, just as long as it reflects the worst case scenario to fudge your wishes.

All climate change has an identifiable cause which can be subtracted to show any overall trend. The current change is dramatic because it happened so suddenly and has no natural forcing.

No, the current change is not dramatic. You’re being overly emotional. Again, Carter shows that the average rate of change in the Holocene is about 2.5° C per century using the data this is out there. He’s not pulling anything out of his sleeve. Today it is 1.5° C and this is using the lower trop temps. There is nothing usual about the temperature rising.

All the causes to climate change were created from the very beginning of the creation of the solar system. The amount of carbon in the system then is still the same amount today. Man is not creating or causing climate change. He probably is stirring the pot though. That’s still not a *cause* of climate change.

The reason I don't answer your questions is because they are meaningless,

Wrong again. You don’t answer because the answer would show your error from your own mouth. I wouldn’t call that meaningless. You don’t answer because you are afraid. And it’s not just from this thread.

you don't understand what constitutes a proof and what constitutes a refutation of a proof.

Whether or not you think I understand proof or not is not important. What is, is that Carter presents legitimate refutation of proof and of the simplest kind. Though science formally cannot establish absolute truth, it can provide overwhelming evidence in favor of certain ideas. And that’s the kicker right there. Proof constitutes a series of relationships that must meet the requirement of absoluteness. If any one relationship is shown to be less, then it constitutes refutation. That means going back to the drawing board. And that drawing board should be saying that we still have a long way to go to understand how climate changes on this planet.

Carters statements do not address the proof of climate change - simply stating that climate changed in the past is not a refutation of AGW theory

They most certainly are and it most certainly does. Stating that Man is a source of CO2 and that average temp is rising in a warming period and that there is only a correlation between rising CO2 levels and rising temp is not proof of AGW. Man may be affecting climate change but he is not the cause of it. If it would normally take four hundred years for the ice caps to melt without the existence of Man, then with Man, it may take only one hundred years but they will still melt.

- its a truism which everyone knows - but doesn't disprove the evidence for man made climate change.

Actually, it does. If climate changed in the past, one can assume that it is still changing today. If Man was not here in the distant past, then he could not be the cause back then. Since climate is still changing, Man therefore, cannot be the cause of climate change today. That’s pretty much Q.E.D.

Man made Climate change as it is currently happening is the residual after natural cycles have been calculated and accounted for. It has a set of characteristics which can be measured Empirically which are different to natural climate change (such as stratospheric cooling). The temperature record is only part of AGW, and until you can account for what it actually says about the climate you are just blustering.

No, there is no man made climate change. If it is residual, how can it be a cause? Man is impacting climate and I’m sure that can be measured empirically. One should be subtracting the residual effects of Man to understand how climate works. Man does not produce the energy needed to cause a change in climate, unless he sets off every single nuke at the same time. Then, I would agree that AGW exists.

You are just hand waving, and all your blather about Class One civilization is just gobledy gook SI-FI talk which is frankly insane. Man is very capable of changing his environment in profound ways and has been doing so since he began clear felling the primal forests of the planet. To imagine that he cannot change every aspect of the biosphere in profound ways is just a statement of your own ignorance of the history of humanity.

Really? You should look into Xeno or Astrobiology. Yes, for the time being, it is the realm of SciFi but climate isn’t the only predictive science Man has. It is far from fantasy. A few hundred years ago, the periodic table was fantasy. So was putting a man on the moon. From Metropolis to Minority Report, from Star Trek to Star Wars, and hundreds of other forms of media, predicting the future incorporates many disciplines. And the future usually begins in the works of science fiction. And that is why many scientists look to this genre to gain insight. Real scientists do real work in this field. It is mostly theoretical but that doesn’t invalidate it.

The reason that it is gobbledygook and insane to you is simply because the premise destroys AGW. As someone recently said, Man cannot change the climate by turning on the A/C. Man does not yet have that technology and it’s not just because he exists. We can pollute our environment and we can clean it up. But we can’t really totally clean it up, only time can clean up the system but by not cleaning it up fast enough does not cause climate change. CO2 is not a pollutant and it does not follow that an increase in CO2 is dangerous to life. In fact, there is indication that higher CO2 levels would be more beneficial to life. There is this concept that life on this planet has been stagnating and stagnation leads to extinction. The increase of CO2 could be recharging the spice of life?? But I admit that is just another theory just as AGW is.

Ocean levels have been higher and lower in the past. We find sunken cities and structures everywhere and by the same token, there are ancient cities and harbors that have been left high and dry. Rising sea levels are just a fact of life. Those in the Netherlands live with it. Do you really think that if Man did not exist that global warming would not happen and that the ice caps would not be melting?

[RavenHawk]

The hockey stick is robust

The hockey stick is meant to shock. It is to elicit an emotional response for a political agenda.

and includes the LIA and MWP in their proper global context (ie only major events in Northern Europe), it simply shows that last centuries and current warming is greater, more significant and more rapid. Those two events do nothing to disprove the hockey stick.

Hardly! The hockey stick merely tries to “zero out” the peaks and valleys in the proxy record but only going back so far. This is one of the points Carter makes. Then it takes poor predictions and tacks them on as the ‘head’ of the hockey stick for that shock value.

Nothing has been destroyed by the evidence for the LIA and MWP and again you are confusing what constitutes a refutation with your own opinion Ravenhawk.

Science formally cannot establish absolute truth but it can provide overwhelming evidence in favor of certain ideas. This provides a progression of supporting evidence to prove the theory. It must be constantly reevaluated and modeled to continue to predict. All it takes is one little gaff in the line to bring down the whole thing. This is what Carter has done. Do AGW apologists “go back to the drawing board” to figure out where they’ve gone wrong? No, they don’t. They just double down on the original premise. This is not science.

That premise is simply bad data. AGW does not exist. A better concept that I like is that Man impacts his environment and the climate, but climate still dominates Man. therefore, Man can not *change* climate. The AGW premise that temperature is going to exponentially rise without pause or stop until we are all dead in the next 50 years or so is just bogus.

By the way Judith Curry is not a climate scientist as such, she has carried out no original research in the field. She is a scientific commentator on Climate science. There is a big difference. She has shown herself to be consistently wrong and biased in her opinion on the subject.

Oh, so only people that have done only original research in the field can have a valid opinion? Well, isn’t that Carter?! His field is deep sea cores. Curry is only consistently wrong in your eyes. As a scientist, she is exercising her skepticism. I wish more scientists would do the same. The first tool in the scientist bag is skepticism. I use it all the time, maybe you should learn how to use it yourself??

I guess we are all still waiting for the IPCC report. At least I haven’t seen it. But I have heard things where the report covers how they acknowledge there was a stop (or pause) in temperature increase since 1998. Also how the oceans are absorbing heat and how cloud cover modifies the effects of CO2. And yet, the main piece of information that comes out of Sweden is that 95% of scientists contributing to the report agree that Man is the cause of climate change. This is unbelievable. This just shows the level of how the more intelligent someone is, the more susceptible to brainwashing they are. The notoriously inaccurate computer models show how heavily AGW apologists are into the political agenda. Even the local weather casters using computer models can’t accurately predict the weather 5 days out, for Christ’s Sake! How can one predict climate?!

What I am amazed at and what proves the non existence of AGW is that how come, based on the pause of temperature, that the IPCC hadn’t claimed victory in slowing AGW and that their efforts have proved successful and build on that? The reason is proof that AGW *IS* politically motivated.

[Little Fish]

I want to hear more from Ravenhawk

[MonkeyLove]

warm water expands.

OHC has an upward trend:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/comment-page-3/

If sea level is not being affected, then other factors are affecting it.

nothing to do with what i said.

from IPCC AR5, WG1

"global-mean sea level has continued to rise during 1998–2012, at a rate only slightly and insignificantly lower than during 1993–2012

Obviously not, as you are looking at a shorter period of time.

you didn't understand what i said.

you argued that global warming has not stopped because the extra heat that would have continued the warming trend of the atmosphere has gone into the ocean, yet when we look at the ocean heat data it shows a linear trend, yet atmosphe temperatures increased from 1980s to 1998, then plateaued for 15 years. if the heat that should have been in the atmosphere (according to co2 hypothesis) has been absorbed into the oceans then the ocean heat content over that last 15 year period should have gone up at a steeper rate compared to the earlier period, the data shows the same linear trend for OHC over both periods, not an accelerating trend between the two periods. so your hypothesis that "the extra heat has been absorbed in the ocean" fails.

as the oceans warm they are expected to expand, so similarly a linear trend in sea level is not consistent with your hypothesis.

I think Nuccitelli gives more details here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/no-warming-in-16-years.htm

Studies are linked at the end of the article.

GCMs look at both oceans and surface temperature.

the argument you are putting forward is a case of speculating to protect your belief.

you need posiitive feedback to support your argument, the data doesn't support positive feedback.

But you're referring to "atmosphere temperatures."

[MonkeyLove]

And your point in quoting an activist, political website is what, exactly? Why don´t you quote Al Gore`s party platform right away?

Jeeze...

Activist? It's commonly known that governments work for businesses. That's why conclusions made by science organizations which are backed by governments are generally conservative.

[MonkeyLove]

I do not see any proof that "sceptics funded" this study. That is your claim.

But since you bring it up, here an interesting article about confirmation bias from the site that you refer to:

http://www.novim.org...f/wsjridley.pdf

"For constructive critics, this is the problem with modern climate science. They don't think it's a conspiracy theory, but a monopoly that clings to one hypothesis (that carbon dioxide will cause dangerous global warming) and brooks less and less dissent. Again and again, climate skeptics are told they should respect the consensus, an admonition wholly against the tradition of science"

Indeed.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/28/602151/bombshell-koch-funded-study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-all-due-to-carbon-pollution/

Consensus? That's irrelevant given a fossil fuel-dependent global economy. That's why governments have not agreed on what to do with global warming, and why oil consumption continues to rise globally.

Nobody believes the IPCC reports anymore.

It's like reading the comics page in a newspaper.

Al Gore = Charlie Brown

That's why skeptics funded BEST.

[MonkeyLove]

What I am amazed at and what proves the non existence of AGW is that how come, based on the pause of temperature, that the IPCC hadn't claimed victory in slowing AGW and that their efforts have proved successful and build on that? The reason is proof that AGW *IS* politically motivated.

The reason for this is that the IPCC works for governments, which in turn works for big business:

http://www.alternet.org/environment/climate-risks-have-been-underestimated-last-20-years

That's why you don't see any agreement between governments on dealing with global warming: the economic cost of moving away from fossil fuels is too high. The catch is peak oil:

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/publications/weo-2010/

[acidhead]

Just curious...

Would any of you bet your paycheck on the weather tomorrow?

[Frank Merton]

Just curious...

Would any of you bet your paycheck on the weather tomorrow?

Sometimes you make an interesting or funny point, sometimes you don't.

[acidhead]

Sometimes you make an interesting or funny point, sometimes you don't.

Thank you Frank Merton.

[MonkeyLove]

Just curious...

Would any of you bet your paycheck on the weather tomorrow?

http://www.lloyds.com/news-and-insight/risk-insight/reports/climate-change/climate-change-and-security