Top 10 Global Warming Lies That May Shock You

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Josephwalker, Aug 27, 2018.

  1. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No offense but anyone who claims they know what Earth's climate would be if man wasn't here is a bit delusional
     
  2. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No offense taken. But this isn't delusional. Inferences are made in all disciplines of science via state equations. A state equation is one in which you can solve for the unknown variable if you know the others. The ideal gas law PV=nRT is perhaps one of the better known equations of state. There would be one for climate influences as well. It would ΔQ=RF(N)+RF(A) where Q is the heat uptake and RF is the radiative forcing of either naturally modulated processes N or anthroprogenically modulated processes A. Even if we had no idea what N was would could solve the equation for RF(N) where RF(N) = RF(A) - ΔQ. We know the radiative forcing of the various gases and aerosols released into the atmosphere via laboratory experiments and we know the total heat uptake Q of the oceans and atmosphere so it follows that RF(N) must be the difference of the two. The cool thing is that we already have pretty good estimates of RF(N) and it matches what the equation of state says it should be based on the other two within a reasonable margin of error. It also happens to match another equation of state which says ΔQ = Qin - Qout. We've measured both Qin and Qout via satellites and yet we see no significant discrepancies.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2018
  3. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What your test tube analysis leaves out is the great unknown as in we don't know what we don't know. The Earth is a complex and dynamic environment and once again anyone who pretends to know all and see all is delusional. Your assertion that predicting climate is oh so simple while predicting weather is oh so complicated is laughable.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2018
  4. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Unfortunately, the world, the planet and the Nature do not follow the leadership of your wishes, wants and beliefs.

    There are no visuals you want.

    There are only visuals of people screwing people and the Nature screwing people.
     
  5. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course there are unknowns. The problem is that after 100+ years of searching for some mysterious unknown physical process that can replace the GHG effect scientist can't identify anything. Furthermore, there's really no indication that there should be a large unidentified physical process that we should be searching for anyway. And even if there were we'd still have to explain away 1) quantum mechanics which absolutely predicts that polyatomic molecules convert photon energy into thermal energy and 2) the cooling stratosphere which is considered the smoking gun signal GHG warming.
     
  6. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Scientist still debate the cause of the LIA not to mention the cause of the dramatic climate event that made dinos go extinct or multiple ice ages. They identify several things that may have triggered the LIA but have no idea what proportions each trigger may have played in the event yet you want us to believe scientist can with absolute certainty postdict what our climate would be without man's C02? You are married to the idea that man is the primary driver in todays climate and seem to be willing to go to any level of absurdity to protect your beliefs. Out here in the real world though we just look at you and laugh.
     
  7. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I totally understand that we don't have perfect knowledge about what caused the LIA. But, it's not like we are completely in the dark here. And in regards to today we have orders of magnitude more knowledge about what's going than we do regarding the LIA. So if your point is that our knowledge of what's going on today is only as good as our knowledge of what happened during the LIA, past ice ages, Permian extinction, or whatever then I definitely take issue with that. Our understanding of contemporary climate change is vastly superior to our understanding of climate change in the past. That means the unknowns and uncertainties are much higher in the past than they are today. That's pretty typical of any Earth sciences field. And we don't need perfect explanations for every climate change event in the past to be able to conclude with reasonable confidence that greenhouse gases are warming the planet today. I'm married to the idea that GHGs (of which some molecules are man made) is the primary driver of climate change today because that's the simplest explanation and it's supported by a huge amount of evidence that span many scientific disciplines. And it just so happens that this GHG explanation is consistent with past climate change as well. If you exclude GHG from consideration then you can longer explain past climate changes, the faint young Sun problem, etc. It also requires you to tear down the foundations of quantum mechanics, find outlandish explanations for the cooling stratosphere, and a bunch of other really preposterous ideas. A theory of climate change without GHGs just simply doesn't work. That's why people who ignore it (like Easterbrook and the like) are really terrible at predicting the global mean surface temperature. But, scientists that do considers it's effects along with all of the other know climate forcing processes actually do a pretty good (though admittedly not perfect) job at predicting the global mean surface temperature. That's reality.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2018
  8. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not sure how you can admit failure to understand past climate events but absolute certainty about present day climate but in your own mind you somehow manage to do so. Doesn't impress me though.
     
  9. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I never said our understanding of past climate events is a failure though. And I'm not claiming that we know what's happening today with "absolute certainty". I'm saying that our confidence in what happens today is far superior than our confidence regarding what happened in the distant past. That doesn't mean we have perfect knowledge today nor does it mean we are completely ignorant of the past. The fact is that we have a pretty good understanding of what's happening today because we have so much information to go on. And our understanding of today's climate is consistent with our understanding of past climate.

    And I'm not trying to be unreasonable here. I'll gladly entertain a non greenhouse gas explanation of the warming we observe today as long as you or anyone can present a narrative that is as simple and as explanatory and predictive as our current greenhouse gas based theory and which doesn't require a complete dismantling of science. As of right now no one is able to provide an alternate theory that even comes remotely close to matching the current scientific consensus in terms of usefulness. So why should I abandon a theory that works pretty well when there's no suitable alternative to replace it?
     
  10. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As I have previously stated most if not all of the glaciers melting today were either entirely formed during the LIA or vastly increased in size during that era. I don't see any reason to get excited about them returning to pre LIA conditions. The LIA just ended in geological time and when you can answer with absolute certainty why the LIA ended you will have also answered why our climate is currently warming. The current AGW hypothesis is basicslly saying the LIA ended when the industrial revolution began because the two events are very close together in time. Then we have come back to the root of the so called evidence of AGW which is correlation is causation.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2018
  11. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That doesn't prove that the Earth isn't warming and it certainly doesn't provide an explanation for the warming though.

    We already know why the LIA ended. It ended because volcanism waned and the solar grand cycle moved from a trough to a peak. Do we know with absolutely certainty each contributing factor down the 1/100th of percent. Of course not.

    Then you've either misunderstood what modern climate science theory is saying or you just weren't listening. The LIA ended mostly due to volcanism and solar grand cycles. Most of the warming prior to WWII can be explained with just these two factors. Notice that I said most and not all. There were certainly other factors involved. But, after WWII these factors don't even come close to explaining the temperature changes. AGW isn't built around any one correlation. It's built around many different lines of evidence the least of which are correlations. Correlations (or the lack thereof) are certainly supporting lines of evidence, but they definitely aren't the smoking gun. The entire concept of AGW was born out of the observation that CO2 converts photon energy into thermal energy. That's how Arrhenius and Callendar were able to predict the warming before it was observed.
     
  12. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Before it was observed? It's been observed since the LIA ended and people breathed a sigh of relief at the warmer temperatures.

    By the way the age of volcanoes has not ended.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large_volcanic_eruptions_in_the_21st_century
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2018
  13. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As far as I'm aware no one was observing the global mean temperature until around the WWII. It was only after WWII that we even knew the Earth had been warming for the past 150+ years. And these scientists weren't hindcasting what occurred in the past. They were forecasting what would happen in the future. That means the necessarily were making predictions before they were observed and with little or no knowledge of the past.

    I know. Did you know there have been more than 15 VEI 4+ eruptions since 2000 not including the VEI 6 Pinatubo eruption on top of the huge amount of Earth cooling aerosols humans pump into the atmosphere and yet the planet continues to warm even in a regime where incoming solar radiation has declined significantly since WWII.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2018
  14. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is how your mind works and it's really pretty interesting. For you nobody observed the climate getting warmer after the LIA ended until some official scientific report "observed" it and postcasted it.. I guarantee you farmers and people with gardens observed it which in that era was most everyone.
    On volcanoes im glad we agree the age of volcanic activity never ended and volcanoes didn't stop erupting as the LIA ended so something else made it end and again you are attempting to correlate that with the industrial revolution so we are back once again to the fundamental argument for AGW. Correlation is causation.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2018
  15. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm sure they did. But, were they capable of discriminating between cooling/warming in their locale with global scale trends?

    What I'm saying is that early pioneers of climate science didn't know the Earth had been warming. So their predictions of future warming were based on fundamental physics as opposed to persistence (which is an officially recognized type of forecasting that says the future will be like the past).

    Volcanic activity isn't binary. It's not just either on or off. There is a spectrum of activity. And we know activity picked up in the years leading up to the LIA and waned in the years following it. And we know volcanic ash cools the planet. But, if you disagree that volcanic activity was not a contributing factor then what factor(s) do you think explains the LIA?
     
  16. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    People around the world observed the climate was warming as crops started to grow again and glaciers receded. They really didn't need scientist a hundred years later to postcast that, it was common knowledge to people in the real world.
    I never said volcanic activity wasn't a contributing factor to the LIA. What I said was volcanic activity was still going on and still is going on as the LIA ended. As you yourself have said we really have no idea what percentage said activity played in the LIA or in the LIA ending.
    Just for fun though let's persue your AGW hypothesis in this area. If as you say multiple natural events such as very active current volcanic activity coupled with a low solar period means we should be getting cooler instead of warmer and if as you claim man's C02 is causing this, wouldn't this be a good thing? Would we want to be returning to the LIA? I'm sure your response would be yeah but we are warming too much too fast so I would ask if their would be a sweet spot for our C02 contribution? A Goldilocks amount of C02 that would keep us from getting too warm or too cold. You seem to think we control the climate so get out your slide rule and dive into all your charts and graphs and computer models and tell me what that amount might be. You seem to think we know everything about climate and man's influence on it so this should be a simple task for you.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2018

Share This Page