marquee moon
Banhammer'd
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2011
- Messages
- 31,878
- Reaction score
- 2,087
Lectro was RIGHT--post1626--(climate related)
- Thread starter marquee moon
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
sigh
Deacon923
Scooter Banks
"lectro plays checkers" nominated for "Tags of the Week".
ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
Festivus Miracle?
Deacon923
Scooter Banks
i'm sure he'll be here soon to air some grievances and perform e-feats of rhetorical strength.
bym051d
I AM VERY IMPORTANT
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 40,568
- Reaction score
- 6,871
Seriously. This reminds me of Wile E. Coyote running off the cliff and hovering. Road Runner has a sign that says, "What about the law of gravity." Wile E. responds with "I never studied law."
I can smell a fight at the Almost Gold tailgate.
pourdeac
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2011
- Messages
- 2,405
- Reaction score
- 136
You'd rather just believe the lies in that article?
I can take each and every one of those supposed..rebuttals...down completely. I'll start with the first 2.
1. First off like almost every one of these "rebuttals", they frame the criticism incorrectly so it's all a canard from the start, but here goes. Water vapor is absolutely without a doubt undeniably the most potent and BY FAR more prevalent greenhouse gas...and by far THe driver the assumed change in temperature from atmospheric gases. The high priests of CO2 claim increases in CO2 increase water vapor and that is causing the increase in temperatures. Water vapor was...IMO fraudulently...hidden in the early IPCC reports as a greenhouse gas in their climate models. Go look for yourself. The entire contribution for water vapor was just placed under the effects of CO2 as a footnote....with NO proof of a connection let alone altered completely.
But the zealots have had to backtrack, and backtrack massively. When the sun cooled, so did the earth..instantaneously. That does not fit the theory. So they backtracked to saying SOME of the water vapor increases are due to CO2, the rest due to the sun. They in fact have now claimed that changes up to 1950 are solar but since it's all CO2 (which goes against the hockey stick beliefs BTW). With earth temps almost mirroring changes in solar output, they've since had to backtrack again. Early this year they actually said it was hard to determine the effects of ocean temps on water vapor changes. The cooling they claimed was partly due to cooler ocean temps and they actually don't understand how that works. They don't have a f'ing clue.
The irrefutable facts are..... We don't understand how water vapor is regulated WITHOUT changes in CO2. We don't understand the contributions from ocean temps, cloud formation, solar output, etc. We don't know at all if there is a link between changes in CO2 and water vapor. Not a shred of evidence. We know one thing...higher solar output increases water vapor. But somehow waving magic fairy dust they "knew" without a doubt "scientifically" that changes in water vapor was all from CO2? That's like believing in the flying spaghetti monster.
2. The authors are in fact lying about the connection between the hockey stick data and other temperature data. The hockey stick data was complete and utter fraud. The scientists made it up by cherry picking. It was actually done twice by two different groups using the same "methodology". It supposedly showed no change in temperature until man showed up burning stuff in the 1800s and then straight up it went like a hockey stick. Sure the actual data shows a current rise in temperature...like the hockey stick. But the rise in temperature started WAY before we started burning lots of stuff. The earth's temp changed quite a bit..contrary to the hockey stick. The earth was warmer during the "medieval warm period". The hockey stick BS was intended to wipe that out because the medieval warm period PROVES warming without CO2 changes. It was fraud. It does NOT correlate with any other measurement of earth temperature. If you believe it does, you believe in the flying spaghetti monster. And it's unbelievable that ANYONE can still back a group of people that are excusing out right fraud.
This entire CO2 theory is being gutted step by step. EVERY piece of physical evidence refutes the theory. EVERY one. It all backs changes in solar activity. Yet...you guys all believe the theory. It's amazing. Most scientists just assumed climate scientists were doing good science and went along with it, but eyes are being opened.
Last edited:
ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
oh my god there are two of these morons
ThinkingWithMyDeac
Well-known member
Pour has really been showing his intellectual prowess between here and the Evolution thread.
If we get BobStackFan in here, we can have a triumvirate of brilliance.
This cult is on wobbly legs. Appreciate a post with some facts in it...
Good start is Climate Depot. Basic primer but it will lead one to an ever expanding group of actual atmospheric and climate scientists who vigorously challenge the climate mafia and their stranglehold over the peer review process.
Start by watching the Danish production "Mystery of the Clouds" and the CERN - proven hypothesis of Henrik Svensmark. There are certainly many other scientists represented throughout the 47 minute documentary which has been aired throughout Europe. It is easy to youtube and is a first class production with a Phillip Glass-like soundtrack. I say that because it's not the work of some disgruntled hacks or industry shills. If this guys theory truly holds water, pardon, then he will surely become one of the titans of science...he has basically proven that we are not an isolated system by any means and that cosmic forces drive the earth's environment.
He will be seen as having been responsible for blowing the lid off so-called modern notions of climate science which are trapped in amber with a smidge of CO2.
Last edited:
ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
so, i decided to check with an actual climate scientist on today's version of this merry-go-round, specifically pour's response. Here's what I got back:
1. Water vapor is not considered a "driver" of climate change by scientists because the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere changes with temperature, so it is referred to as a "feedback." Water vapor increases as the Earth's atmosphere warms, but so does the possibility of clouds and precipitation. That's why as temperatures warm some areas are expected to have a greater amount of precipitation - such as New England where we've seen an increase in precipitation and in the frequency of extreme rain events in the last few decades (these are not modeled increases, actual measured increases at weather stations). An example of another feedback: ice on the surface of the Earth reflects more light than land or the ocean, so more ice = less heat. As the globe warms and ice melts, more heat is absorbed by surfaces on the Earth which will lead to more heat. Gases, like CO2 and methane, are long-lived and when added to the atmosphere they block heat from escaping (this is a matter of simple physics - light enters our atmosphere and due to the radiation balance of the earth it has to escape - additional green house gases will bounce around certain wavelengths of light and as a result trap heat near the earth).
To address your argument about the "sun cooling" - NOAA does it best:
It's reasonable to assume that changes in the sun's energy output would cause the climate to change, since the sun is the fundamental source of energy that drives our climate system.
Indeed, studies show that solar variability has played a role in past climate changes. For example, a decrease in solar activity is thought to have triggered the Little Ice Age between approximately 1650 and 1850, when Greenland was largely cut off by ice from 1410 to the 1720s and glaciers advanced in the Alps.
But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the sun:
Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly.
If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gasses are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.
Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases.
2. " The earth was warmer during the "medieval warm period". The hockey stick BS was intended to wipe that out because the medieval warm period PROVES warming without CO2 changes. It was fraud. It does NOT correlate with any other measurement of earth temperature. If you believe it does, you believe in the flying spaghetti monster. And it's unbelievable that ANYONE can still back a group of people that are excusing out right fraud."
Yikes, sir. You are certainly passionate about this subject. And as a person who studies environments back during the Medieval Warm Period (which many scientists use as an analog for what we can expect with continued additions of green house gases into the atmosphere), I'm excited that you brought that up. The earth was even warmer than the Medieval warm period much further in the past. But what historical records (the gas bubbles trapped in ice cores and records from the sediment taken from the ocean floor) show us is that throughout the Earth's history, as temperature changes so does CO2 - they are linked (for the physical reasons I described above).
3. "This entire CO2 theory is being gutted step by step. EVERY piece of physical evidence refutes the theory. EVERY one. It all backs changes in solar activity. Yet...you guys all believe the theory. It's amazing. Most scientists just assumed climate scientists were doing good science and went along with it, but eyes are being opened."
I'm sorry, but the only thing that scientists are still debating is by just how much the weather and feedback mechanisms will change as a result of this manipulation of our atmosphere. Independent collections of physical evidence from scientists from a variety of disciplines support that human contributions to green house gases are altering physical process in the atmosphere. Do you disagree that CFC's (Chlorofluorocarbons) - which make up even less of a % of our atmosphere than CO2 - did not have an effect on the ozone layer? Because these compounds are now regulated in production and release because of the international agreements that acknowledged their contribution to the depletion of the ozone layer.
Humans have modified the atmosphere of the Earth and it is leading to broad environmental effects we still do not completely understand. What we do know, is that all models projecting changes as a result of this modification are suggesting we need to do something NOW to stop additional green house gases from entering the atmosphere. Can I ask you - what would be the harm in reducing green house gas emissions? If 97% of scientists are wrong - what's the worst we've done, reduced pollution?
Not sure if temperatures have increased where you live? Check out the University of Maine's Climate Reanalyzer - http://www.cci-reanalyzer.org/
Enter your location and pick from different climate models or historical data developed or collected from all different scientists or agencies and map how much temperatures in the last decade are different from the 1950's for example. Here is a quick plot I made of just how different the average temperature from 1990 - 2012 is different from an average from 1950 - 1980. As you can see there are some places that are cooler in recent decades, but on a whole - the United States is warmer in the last decade. This is just a small comparison of what's been happening for centuries.
1. Water vapor is not considered a "driver" of climate change by scientists because the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere changes with temperature, so it is referred to as a "feedback." Water vapor increases as the Earth's atmosphere warms, but so does the possibility of clouds and precipitation. That's why as temperatures warm some areas are expected to have a greater amount of precipitation - such as New England where we've seen an increase in precipitation and in the frequency of extreme rain events in the last few decades (these are not modeled increases, actual measured increases at weather stations). An example of another feedback: ice on the surface of the Earth reflects more light than land or the ocean, so more ice = less heat. As the globe warms and ice melts, more heat is absorbed by surfaces on the Earth which will lead to more heat. Gases, like CO2 and methane, are long-lived and when added to the atmosphere they block heat from escaping (this is a matter of simple physics - light enters our atmosphere and due to the radiation balance of the earth it has to escape - additional green house gases will bounce around certain wavelengths of light and as a result trap heat near the earth).
To address your argument about the "sun cooling" - NOAA does it best:
It's reasonable to assume that changes in the sun's energy output would cause the climate to change, since the sun is the fundamental source of energy that drives our climate system.
Indeed, studies show that solar variability has played a role in past climate changes. For example, a decrease in solar activity is thought to have triggered the Little Ice Age between approximately 1650 and 1850, when Greenland was largely cut off by ice from 1410 to the 1720s and glaciers advanced in the Alps.
But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the sun:
Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly.
If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gasses are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.
Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases.
2. " The earth was warmer during the "medieval warm period". The hockey stick BS was intended to wipe that out because the medieval warm period PROVES warming without CO2 changes. It was fraud. It does NOT correlate with any other measurement of earth temperature. If you believe it does, you believe in the flying spaghetti monster. And it's unbelievable that ANYONE can still back a group of people that are excusing out right fraud."
Yikes, sir. You are certainly passionate about this subject. And as a person who studies environments back during the Medieval Warm Period (which many scientists use as an analog for what we can expect with continued additions of green house gases into the atmosphere), I'm excited that you brought that up. The earth was even warmer than the Medieval warm period much further in the past. But what historical records (the gas bubbles trapped in ice cores and records from the sediment taken from the ocean floor) show us is that throughout the Earth's history, as temperature changes so does CO2 - they are linked (for the physical reasons I described above).
3. "This entire CO2 theory is being gutted step by step. EVERY piece of physical evidence refutes the theory. EVERY one. It all backs changes in solar activity. Yet...you guys all believe the theory. It's amazing. Most scientists just assumed climate scientists were doing good science and went along with it, but eyes are being opened."
I'm sorry, but the only thing that scientists are still debating is by just how much the weather and feedback mechanisms will change as a result of this manipulation of our atmosphere. Independent collections of physical evidence from scientists from a variety of disciplines support that human contributions to green house gases are altering physical process in the atmosphere. Do you disagree that CFC's (Chlorofluorocarbons) - which make up even less of a % of our atmosphere than CO2 - did not have an effect on the ozone layer? Because these compounds are now regulated in production and release because of the international agreements that acknowledged their contribution to the depletion of the ozone layer.
Humans have modified the atmosphere of the Earth and it is leading to broad environmental effects we still do not completely understand. What we do know, is that all models projecting changes as a result of this modification are suggesting we need to do something NOW to stop additional green house gases from entering the atmosphere. Can I ask you - what would be the harm in reducing green house gas emissions? If 97% of scientists are wrong - what's the worst we've done, reduced pollution?
Not sure if temperatures have increased where you live? Check out the University of Maine's Climate Reanalyzer - http://www.cci-reanalyzer.org/
Enter your location and pick from different climate models or historical data developed or collected from all different scientists or agencies and map how much temperatures in the last decade are different from the 1950's for example. Here is a quick plot I made of just how different the average temperature from 1990 - 2012 is different from an average from 1950 - 1980. As you can see there are some places that are cooler in recent decades, but on a whole - the United States is warmer in the last decade. This is just a small comparison of what's been happening for centuries.
bigdoublezero
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 9,512
- Reaction score
- 680
pft, new england liberal climate "scientist"? 
I stopped reading there.
I stopped reading there.
ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
NE climate mafia 4lyfe
ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
Also this to add: My only other contribution will be to the "climate mafia" comment. Then I have to return to actually doing science... Scientists are encouraged (whether this is good or bad) to actually REFUTE commonly held beliefs - it's easier to publish than just saying "yep, my data agrees with everyone else." So if there was some major data source out there that could refute green house gas contributions to global warming, trust me you would know it. And can I remind you that global warming was not a popular idea when it came out in the 1980's for the very reason that it was new and the only way you could project future effects was with models (which are difficult to get right). Scientists like James Hansen often suffered as a result of speaking out about global warming. The projections scientists made in the 1980's were surprisingly (and scarily) accurate. The science community is not trying to trick you - there is nothing else I can say.
so, i decided to check with an actual climate scientist on today's version of this merry-go-round, specifically pour's response. Here's what I got back:
1. Water vapor is not considered a "driver" of climate change by scientists because the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere changes with temperature, so it is referred to as a "feedback." Water vapor increases as the Earth's atmosphere warms, but so does the possibility of clouds and precipitation. That's why as temperatures warm some areas are expected to have a greater amount of precipitation - such as New England where we've seen an increase in precipitation and in the frequency of extreme rain events in the last few decades (these are not modeled increases, actual measured increases at weather stations). An example of another feedback: ice on the surface of the Earth reflects more light than land or the ocean, so more ice = less heat. As the globe warms and ice melts, more heat is absorbed by surfaces on the Earth which will lead to more heat. Gases, like CO2 and methane, are long-lived and when added to the atmosphere they block heat from escaping (this is a matter of simple physics - light enters our atmosphere and due to the radiation balance of the earth it has to escape - additional green house gases will bounce around certain wavelengths of light and as a result trap heat near the earth).
To address your argument about the "sun cooling" - NOAA does it best:
It's reasonable to assume that changes in the sun's energy output would cause the climate to change, since the sun is the fundamental source of energy that drives our climate system.
Indeed, studies show that solar variability has played a role in past climate changes. For example, a decrease in solar activity is thought to have triggered the Little Ice Age between approximately 1650 and 1850, when Greenland was largely cut off by ice from 1410 to the 1720s and glaciers advanced in the Alps.
But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the sun:
Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly.
If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gasses are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.
Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases.
2. " The earth was warmer during the "medieval warm period". The hockey stick BS was intended to wipe that out because the medieval warm period PROVES warming without CO2 changes. It was fraud. It does NOT correlate with any other measurement of earth temperature. If you believe it does, you believe in the flying spaghetti monster. And it's unbelievable that ANYONE can still back a group of people that are excusing out right fraud."
Yikes, sir. You are certainly passionate about this subject. And as a person who studies environments back during the Medieval Warm Period (which many scientists use as an analog for what we can expect with continued additions of green house gases into the atmosphere), I'm excited that you brought that up. The earth was even warmer than the Medieval warm period much further in the past. But what historical records (the gas bubbles trapped in ice cores and records from the sediment taken from the ocean floor) show us is that throughout the Earth's history, as temperature changes so does CO2 - they are linked (for the physical reasons I described above).
3. "This entire CO2 theory is being gutted step by step. EVERY piece of physical evidence refutes the theory. EVERY one. It all backs changes in solar activity. Yet...you guys all believe the theory. It's amazing. Most scientists just assumed climate scientists were doing good science and went along with it, but eyes are being opened."
I'm sorry, but the only thing that scientists are still debating is by just how much the weather and feedback mechanisms will change as a result of this manipulation of our atmosphere. Independent collections of physical evidence from scientists from a variety of disciplines support that human contributions to green house gases are altering physical process in the atmosphere. Do you disagree that CFC's (Chlorofluorocarbons) - which make up even less of a % of our atmosphere than CO2 - did not have an effect on the ozone layer? Because these compounds are now regulated in production and release because of the international agreements that acknowledged their contribution to the depletion of the ozone layer.
Humans have modified the atmosphere of the Earth and it is leading to broad environmental effects we still do not completely understand. What we do know, is that all models projecting changes as a result of this modification are suggesting we need to do something NOW to stop additional green house gases from entering the atmosphere. Can I ask you - what would be the harm in reducing green house gas emissions? If 97% of scientists are wrong - what's the worst we've done, reduced pollution?
Not sure if temperatures have increased where you live? Check out the University of Maine's Climate Reanalyzer - http://www.cci-reanalyzer.org/
Enter your location and pick from different climate models or historical data developed or collected from all different scientists or agencies and map how much temperatures in the last decade are different from the 1950's for example. Here is a quick plot I made of just how different the average temperature from 1990 - 2012 is different from an average from 1950 - 1980. As you can see there are some places that are cooler in recent decades, but on a whole - the United States is warmer in the last decade. This is just a small comparison of what's been happening for centuries.
Oh, look. Someone that actually knows what they are talking about.
ONW
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2011
- Messages
- 19,177
- Reaction score
- 658
A good soundtrack makes any bullshit more watchable.
ONW
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2011
- Messages
- 19,177
- Reaction score
- 658
I don't think you understand how science works. Theories don't "basically prove" anything especially when no one is claiming we are an isolated system, which has been well known since around forever.