Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
FurriesRock

Climate Change is a Hoax

724 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Doug1o29
14 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

Is the OP trying to be the next Comical Ali?

If so, I'm afraid (s)he'll have to do better. The lunar hoax (2) and flat earth (1) are much funnier. This climate hoax can get a 3rd place at best, although it is in hard competition with David Icke's reptilians.

The nice thing about science is that you don't have to be popular - only right.  What you think doesn't matter to the climate (or the science).

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Aaron2016

Our school told us that the East Coast would have flooded by 2010 and the West Coast would have suffered a catastrophic earthquake wiping out millions.  It was never a question of if, but when.  Since it was all hogwash I can understand why many are sceptic about the whole immediate doomsday theories.  Global warming (or whatever they label it to reel in public interest) is exactly the same.  Same old politicians and celebrities voicing the same old doomsday scenarios that have been repeated for decades that never actually happen.  For better or worse, nobody's buying it, and the more distrust the public gain, the harder it will be to convince the public that what mankind does is destroying the planet.  e.g.

If a scientific theory reports that an asteroid will destroy Earth in 100 years, then all theories regarding 'save the planet' will be considered a waste of time.  So there has to be a convincing argument that no asteroids will hit the Earth.  This also applies to major earthquakes, nuclear war, and all theoretical phenomena that could wipe out humanity.  Asking the nations of the world to literally 'buy into one theory' and invest their future generations economies on a 'theory' with no guarantee of actual change or safety is pretty much an impossible thing to expect.

What is worse is that the 'climate change correction and prevention party' rely heavily on one political party (or at least appear to) which means if they want to convince the majority of the people to invest in their schemes then they are already starting on the wrong foot because any arguments they make will be regarded as political propaganda by the opposition.  They should be neutral and entirely independent from any government (like health care), rather than an integrated nationalized system within the government.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
37 minutes ago, Aaron2016 said:

Our school told us that the East Coast would have flooded by 2010 and the West Coast would have suffered a catastrophic earthquake wiping out millions.  It was never a question of if, but when.  Since it was all hogwash I can understand why many are sceptic about the whole immediate doomsday theories.  Global warming (or whatever they label it to reel in public interest) is exactly the same.  Same old politicians and celebrities voicing the same old doomsday scenarios that have been repeated for decades that never actually happen.  For better or worse, nobody's buying it, and the more distrust the public gain, the harder it will be to convince the public that what mankind does is destroying the planet.

 

This is the problem. 

A sciencist says there is a chance X could happen in Y years, depending on Z

The media report X will happen - this becomes "common knowledge".

10 years later X still hasn't happened: Ergo the scientists were all wrong so why should we trust them?

Think about it ......  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
55 minutes ago, Aaron2016 said:

Our school told us that the East Coast would have flooded by 2010 and the West Coast would have suffered a catastrophic earthquake wiping out millions.  It was never a question of if, but when.  Since it was all hogwash I can understand why many are sceptic about the whole immediate doomsday theories.  Global warming (or whatever they label it to reel in public interest) is exactly the same.  Same old politicians and celebrities voicing the same old doomsday scenarios that have been repeated for decades that never actually happen.  For better or worse, nobody's buying it, and the more distrust the public gain, the harder it will be to convince the public that what mankind does is destroying the planet.  e.g.

The East Coast has flooded.  Since 2000, the sea level along the Atlantic seaboard has risen about 125mm (That's not quite 5 inches.).  It's not much of a flood (yet), but it is a flood.  In Manhattan and Miami Beach, water backs up in drains more often than it used to and low-lying areas get more flooding than they did in 2000.  Five inches is not as high as waves normally pile debris, but as the sea level rises, those wave piles rise and move inshore.  A few more inches of shoreline is eroded on the beach side - waves are always re-arranging beaches.  Most change in shorelines is the result of storms moving sand around.  Hurricanes often open new channels through barrier islands, piling the sand somewhere else.  I've been waiting for one to take out Mar-a-Lago, but it hasn't happened (yet).

Earthquakes aren't covered by climate science, but I'll risk an answer anyway -fools rush in....

Earthquake forecasts are couched in terms of probability.  If the USGS said there was a 30% chance of an earthquake on such-and-such a fault by 2010 and it didn't happen, then the result fell into the 70% side and the USGS was right either way.  After the time period has passed, probability no longer applies.  It happened or it didn't.  Probability forecasts are meaningless unless there's a time-limit on them.  That a particular fault will produce an earthquake is a 100% certainty.  But to be meaningful, one has to limit the time period and that reduces the probability.  There's a fault beneath Marshall, Colorado.  On one side there's a coal seam eight feet thick.  On the other side, that same coal seam is 12 feet thick.  Above the coal seam, there's no evidence of a fault - that fault hasn't moved since the Coal Age.  But it will move someday.  And that's the difference between a 1% chance that it will move in the next 1000 years and a certainty that it will move - someday.

People not conversant in science read the probability figures, don't understand them, and as a result, ignore them.  That seems to be what happened in your case.  The culprit may have been a textbook writer, the teacher, a newspaper writer - lots of candidates.  But somebody started the rumor and the rest just copied it, turning the original mistake into their own mistake.  Nobody did his homework and looked up the original paper.  That's how you avoid these mistakes:  go back to the original article - the one where the scientist reported his forecast.  Read it and see what he/she really said.  Don't rely on somebody else's (mis)understanding.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
1 hour ago, Aaron2016 said:

Asking the nations of the world to literally 'buy into one theory' and invest their future generations economies on a 'theory' with no guarantee of actual change or safety is pretty much an impossible thing to expect.What is worse is that the 'climate change correction and prevention party' rely heavily on one political party (or at least appear to) which means if they want to convince the majority of the people to invest in their schemes then they are already starting on the wrong foot because any arguments they make will be regarded as political propaganda by the opposition.  They should be neutral and entirely independent from any government (like health care), rather than an integrated nationalized system within the government.

That's in the United States.  Most of the rest of the world doesn't see it as a political issue.

That all got started here when Al Gore produced his "Inconvenient Truth."  If anybody other than a former political figure had done it, it wouldn't be political.  But he did, and that started a political fight that is still raging.  Al Gore just made the problem worse.

The other side is mostly the result of fossil-fuel-based industries trying to spread conflicts to keep governments from regulating them.  They say that conversion is going to cost a lot, but wind is a cheaper source of energy than coal or oil.  Convert to wind and we can save money (The US is doing it with or without Donald Trump).  We are already generating 20% of our power from wind and 30% is the immediate target.  Eventually, we could generate 50% or more from wind.  And in another five years, solar (perovskites) may put wind out of business by under-cutting its price.  An era of cheap, clean energy is upon us and the coal-and-oil people are getting desperate.

My daughter is one of them:  she works on gas wells.  She says that another 20 years will do in the drilling business and she plans to have another career ready to go by then.  Coal and oil will always be around, bumping along the bottom of the economy.  But their hayday is past and coal at least, is gradually being phased out.  No amount of Trumpian rhetoric will change the fact that coal is more expensive and in shorter supply and even "clean" coal is dirty and a hazard to health.

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
20 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

That is the difference between what the temperature curve would look like with AGW and without it.  Plot them both on the same coordinates and the difference stands out.

Doug

I wish you would show your work. I still don't think you've shown that CO2 vs. natural heat would be any different from each other. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
24 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

I wish you would show your work. I still don't think you've shown that CO2 vs. natural heat would be any different from each other. 

We're not talking about MY work.  I was simply telling you how to do it yourself.

Basically, you develop a model the uses [CO2] and time (year) to predict temperature:

Then you run your model again, but keep [CO2] constant at the starting value.

Yow now have two models:  one with CO2 and one without.  The change due to CO2 is the difference in those models.

These are just two averaged curves.  If you want to show how the no-CO2 curve would look using the actual record, take the difference between the CO2 estimate and the actual climate record (the one you based your CO2 curve on) and add it to the corresponding no CO2-value.  That will show all the ups and downs and wiggles in the temperature record without CO2 in the model.  Graph this dataset on the same coordinates as the original dataset and you have a direct comparison of with and without CO2.

 

First, build your dataset.  Use three variables, temperature, year and [CO2].  The Keeling curve will get you back to 1959.  Before that, use that ice-core data you posted.  You may have to model the CO2 curve and use it to fill in missing data.  When you've got that done, get back to me.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman

Doug, 

I've basically done that before. CO2 + year is basically meaningless as CO2 levels rise and years pass so that plot just looks like a straight line going up. If temps are rising and they have been, then it certainly looks like a correlation between all three, but that doesn't prove a causation. CO2_v_texas_temps.png.47ac43be8c62d9e365c5ab28e5949141.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman

Here is CO2+year+Texas temps.

CO2_v_Texas_temp.png.50ca79339b914094cac7e3cc3e479921.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
1 hour ago, lost_shaman said:

Doug, 

I've basically done that before. CO2 + year is basically meaningless as CO2 levels rise and years pass so that plot just looks like a straight line going up. If temps are rising and they have been, then it certainly looks like a correlation between all three, but that doesn't prove a causation. CO2_v_texas_temps.png.47ac43be8c62d9e365c5ab28e5949141.png

There's a problem here.  The idea is to predict temperature given [CO2] and time.  This model predicts [CO2].  Temperature isn't even in it.  Use [CO2] and time as your independent variables and temperature as the dependent variable.  Use all three at once.

It won't prove cause-and-effect.  All it will do is show the difference between rising [CO2] and steady-state [CO2].

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
1 hour ago, lost_shaman said:

Here is CO2+year+Texas temps.

CO2_v_Texas_temp.png.50ca79339b914094cac7e3cc3e479921.png

That's a start.  Now use [CO2] and time to predict temperature.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

That's a start.  Now use [CO2] and time to predict temperature.

Doug

How would I do that? There doesn't seem to be much of a correlation, but just looking at the raw numbers I certainly can see El Nino years. I see a gradual rise in temps too until after 2000 when Solar activity began to slow and now see temps slowly falling after the 2014/2015 El Nino, mean while C02 keeps rising along steadily. 

Edit: If there is a CO2 component in the raw data it looks like it's being dwarfed by Solar activity and El Nino's to me. 

Edited by lost_shaman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

Just curious here ... with the hole in the ozone gradually diminishing this past decade, wouldn't there also be a need to reflect the effects in processing the subsequently collected data ?

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
23 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Just curious here ... with the hole in the ozone gradually diminishing this past decade, wouldn't there also be a need to reflect the effects in processing the subsequently collected data ?

~

I'm sure. Ozone, like H2O, and CO2, is a molecule made up of three atoms and it also, as such, is a greenhouse gas that can trap heat by absorption of infrared radiation. It's a good question you asked that seems to be overlooked in large part. Since Ozone gathers above both poles it may explain some of the Polar heating we've seen in the last 30 years since restriction on CFC's have been put into place and naturally occurring Ozone has been slowly building back up in the Stratosphere. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
2 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Since Ozone gathers above both poles it may explain some of the Polar heating we've seen in the last 30 years since restriction on CFC's have been put into place and naturally occurring Ozone has been slowly building back up in the Stratosphere. 

I thought it was because of Ozone depletion that was causing all the problems.

~

 

Quote

 

When ultraviolet light waves (UV) strike CFC* (CFCl3) molecules in the upper atmosphere, a carbon-chlorine bond breaks, producing a chlorine (Cl) atom. The chlorine atom then reacts with an ozone (O3) molecule breaking it apart and so destroying the ozone. ... A single CFC molecule can destroy 100,000 ozone molecules.

 

~

 

 

Since the ozone hole has somewhat recovered or healed / closed (as documented and verified) due to restrictions on CFCs , wouldn't that effect have been positive in moving away from a gradual inclination towards a temperature rise ?

~

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
13 minutes ago, third_eye said:

I thought it was because of Ozone depletion that was causing all the problems.

~

 

 

Since the ozone hole has somewhat recovered or healed / closed (as documented and verified) due to restrictions on CFCs , wouldn't that effect have been positive in moving away from a gradual inclination towards a temperature rise ?

~

 

 

No. Ozone can trap infrared (IR) photons which is the way the Earth sheds heat into space, ultraviolet (UV) photons will give you sunburns and cause skin cancer. If you turn on a Heater of a burner on your stove you can feel the heat even at a distance, this is IR photons that are striking your skin, UV is something you can't feel but is much more energetic than IR and so it penetrates your skin deeply and causes damage to your cells. Ozone in the Stratosphere blocks UV light from the Sun and so you can spend more time outside without getting Sunburned but Ozone also can trap the outgoing IR photons the Earth sheds as heat and thus can contribute to some Atmospheric warming. 

Edited by lost_shaman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
32 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

No. Ozone can trap infrared (IR) photons which is the way the Earth sheds heat into space, ultraviolet (UV) photons will give you sunburns and cause skin cancer. If you turn on a Heater of a burner on your stove you can feel the heat even at a distance, this is IR photons that are striking your skin, UV is something you can't feel but is much more energetic than IR and so it penetrates your skin deeply and causes damage to your cells. Ozone in the Stratosphere blocks UV light from the Sun and so you can spend more time outside without getting Sunburned but Ozone also can trap the outgoing IR photons the Earth sheds as heat and thus can contribute to some Atmospheric warming. 

 

There are two sides to the layers ...

 

Quote

 

~

Jump to Does global warming have an impact on the stratospheric ozone layer? - This warming-cooling dynamic creates conditions that lead to ozone loss ...
 
~
 
It has been depleting for many years now. Scientists have said that currently over Antarctica the Ozone hole is three times the size of the United States and ...

 

~

Jun 30, 2016 - Scientists find evidence that the hole is finally shrinking, thanks to ... It gives us hope that we shouldn't be afraid to tackle large environmental problems. ... Scientists have long thought the ozone layer was recovering slowly, ...
 
~
 
Ozone depletion describes two related events observed since the late 1970s: a steady lowering ... The main cause of ozone depletion and the ozone hole is manufactured chemicals, especially manufactured ..... Public misconceptions and misunderstandings of complex issues like the ozone depletion are common.
 
~
 
Feb 6, 2018 - The greatest losses in ozone occurred over Antarctica but the hole there has been closing since the chemicals causing the problem were ...
 
~

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
5 minutes ago, third_eye said:

 

There are two sides to the layers ...

 

 

Ozone tends to gather at the Poles in the Stratosphere. So its not a surprise that it's not increasing over populated areas. It is interesting that most depletion occurred over Antarctica when most CFC's were released in the Northern Hemisphere. That said, I'm not sure what you want me to say about the five articles you posted. I don't have all the time in the world so is there something specific you would like to quote from one of them that you would like me to address?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
3 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

I don't have all the time in the world so is there something specific you would like to quote from one of them that you would like me to address?

Nahhhh ... don't go bending your schedule on my account. I was just wondering about where in the back and forth actually involves the Ozone Hole being there or not.

:tu:

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
1 minute ago, third_eye said:

Nahhhh ... don't go bending your schedule on my account. I was just wondering about where in the back and forth actually involves the Ozone Hole being there or not.

:tu:

~

I think it's a good question as to why the depletion occured  mostly over the Southern Pole when most of the CFC's were released in the Northern Hemisphere and I honestly don't know the answer to that question. Depletion occured over the North Pole too but it seems not to have been as bad or recovered more quickly. Maybe the tilt of the Earth along with the Coriolis effect played a role in dragging CFC's towards the South Pole. The Stratosphere where Ozone tends to reside naturally is roughly static so that plays a role I'm sure.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
On 10/19/2018 at 4:23 PM, lost_shaman said:

How would I do that? There doesn't seem to be much of a correlation, but just looking at the raw numbers I certainly can see El Nino years. I see a gradual rise in temps too until after 2000 when Solar activity began to slow and now see temps slowly falling after the 2014/2015 El Nino, mean while C02 keeps rising along steadily. 

Edit: If there is a CO2 component in the raw data it looks like it's being dwarfed by Solar activity and El Nino's to me. 

This is where statistics comes into play.  You can include a solar component in the model as I did once before on UM.  The problem with solar is that it is a decadal oscillation that returns to its starting point every few years.  As a result, it cancels itself out of a centennial- or millenial-scale dataset.  You can include it in the model for jollies if you like, or you can include it and hold it constant at, say, 1/4 cycle.  Not including it increases the variance of your model and makes it harder to find a model with an adequate fit.

First, write a general model (equation) that you think might reflect what is happening (In a general model the coefficients are replaced with values like b0, b1, b2, etc.), or look one up in a book or research paper.  Then fit the model to your dataset (regression analysis).  This is a statistical process.  There are computer programs to do it.  Some, like SPLUS, are relatively inexpensive, or if you have money to burn and want an extremely versatile program, use SAS.

Either way, this model needs to have both CO2 and time as X-variables and temp as a y-variable.

I have not specified my own model so that you write a model that supports your contention that solar is a major component of temperature rise.

If you like, I will present my own model and analysis, but it will have to wait until I have a little more time as that will require assembling the datasets before I can do the analysis.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
2 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

This is where statistics comes into play.  You can include a solar component in the model as I did once before on UM.  The problem with solar is that it is a decadal oscillation that returns to its starting point every few years.  As a result, it cancels itself out of a centennial- or millenial-scale dataset. 

I'm not sure that is truely accurate, the first half of the 20th century started with a weak Solar Cycle and then had average Solar activity until the second half of the century where we saw very high levels of Solar activity until just recently with the beginning of the 21st century Solar Cycles 23 and now 24 with very weak activity. So yes these periods have been multi-decadal but not equal over time. i.e. not returning to it starting point on a multi-decadal time scale. 

 

2 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

First, write a general model (equation) that you think might reflect what is happening (In a general model the coefficients are replaced with values like b0, b1, b2, etc.), or look one up in a book or research paper.  Then fit the model to your dataset (regression analysis).  This is a statistical process.  There are computer programs to do it.  Some, like SPLUS, are relatively inexpensive, or if you have money to burn and want an extremely versatile program, use SAS.

This simply is not an option for me at this time, using a Chromebook that doesn't have an internal hard drive. It would have to be a free program that runs in the Cloud or whatever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
41 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

I'm not sure that is truely accurate, the first half of the 20th century started with a weak Solar Cycle and then had average Solar activity until the second half of the century where we saw very high levels of Solar activity until just recently with the beginning of the 21st century Solar Cycles 23 and now 24 with very weak activity. So yes these periods have been multi-decadal but not equal over time. i.e. not returning to it starting point on a multi-decadal time scale. 

So include a solar variable, like sunspot count, in the model.  Then it won't matter how much gets canceled out.  In the model without a solar variable, if you don't start and stop at the same point in the solar cycle, there will be some residual error.  Including a solar variable eliminates that possibility.  At any rate, there is random error associated with any variable, so you won't get a perfect fit anyway.

You can run the calculation for a linear model on EXCEL.  More-recent editions have built-in programming for a straight line model.  For longer models, EXCEL is a pain.  You are always having to go back, find mistakes and fix them.  It can take a whole day to do a four-term regression this way and it will only find linear coefficients.

I'll set up a demo when I have a little more time.  I'm going home just now - my daughter - the geologist - is coming over for dinner.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman

Nice, hope you have a great time with your Daughter! I certainly enjoy mine when they get to come see me.

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

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

    • Doug1o29