What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled

Discussion in 'Global Issues' started by Hoosier8, Oct 16, 2015.

  1. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is from someone of the Democrat political persuasion, an environmentalist, someone that actually has some curiosity and has, like many of us, looked at what is actually going on counter to the hype.

    What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled

    There is much more at the link. This will be heresy for those immersed and taken in by the AGW PR effort.

     
  2. dgrichards

    dgrichards Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2020
    Messages:
    1,279
    Likes Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why does this keep coming up? Thousands of climate scientists and their support staff have conducted hundreds of field studies, all rigidly peer reviewed, in the course of which they have accumulated warehouses full of data which has been carefully scrutinized and have formulated conclusions which all reasonable people accept as true.
    Inevitably on these types of forums some mental midget will declare that it is all wrong, and cites as proofs, if he has any, from some biased web site or talking head or blogger and then claim certain and superior knowledge hidden from the thousands of climate scientists, etc. Now don't mis-understand me. I do not dispute their superior knowledge. I just want to know where they got it. Did God speak to them? Did some other supernatural event imbue them with this knowledge? Or are they, regardless of their age, or level of education, mental adolescents striving to be noticed, to somehow be relevant absent the requisite work.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2021
  3. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I will ask the question no true believer has ever answered.

    Do you know what all the hysteria is based on?
     
  4. Capt Nice

    Capt Nice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    9,998
    Likes Received:
    10,217
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Most of us realize you can search and find someone who will support your thoughts and opinions. Because some crack pot might agree with you doesn't mean they're right.
     
  5. Mircea

    Mircea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because we all know a political and social agenda when we see it.

    ...Who are biased in support of their agenda....

    The studies, the data and the methodology are inherently flawed.

    The location of temperature sensors can skew the data.

    The measured temperature in an urban area will be higher than the temperature in non-urban area 5 miles away.

    Who on this forum would like to know why?

    It's because urban areas are heat sinks. Urban areas retain more heat than non-urban areas.

    That's due to the square meters of road surface, the surface area in square meters of buildings and things like tar roofs.

    Both asphalt and concrete absorb heat, but asphalt absorbs at a high rate, plus retains the heat longer, and radiates more heat than concrete. The age of the asphalt also has a bearing. Fresh asphalt is black, while older asphalt has a gray appearance. Yes, I'm talking about albedo.

    Reputable ethical scientists would never use temperature data from an urban area to avoid skewing the results/conclusions.

    Let us review the words of the Imperial Grand Kleagle Wizard James Hansen, the Concocter-in-Chief of the Global Warming Myth:

    In his book Storms of my Grandchildren, noted climate scientist James Hansen issued the following warning: "f we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty."

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...se-global-warming-venus-ocean-climate-science

    For the first 2 Billion years of Earth's history, CO2 levels were 26,000 ppm (Earth's atmosphere was 72% Nitrogen, 26% CO2 and 2% trace Nobel and other gases.)

    So....where's this "runaway greenhouse" (snicker)?

    I suspect you will provide the patented standard Liberal fantasy that the Sun's energy output was less than present.

    Really? CO2 is like a light-switch?

    CO2 is turned off until Sun's energy output reaches a certain level and then :Leprechauns riding Unicorns fly through the atmosphere turning the CO2 molecules on so they cause Global Warming.

    Is that your story? Because, that's preposterous.

    If CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" then it is so 100% of the time, so, again, I ask, where's the Global Warming?

    For the next 500,000 years, Earth's atmosphere was in a state of flux due to the Great Oxygenation Event.

    Again, I ask, where's this runaway greenhouse Global Warming?

    For the next 2 Billion years until 23 Million years ago when Earth entered the current Ice Age -- how embarrassing is that? -- CO2 levels ranged from 8,000 ppm to 16,000 ppm.

    And still no runaway greenhouse global warming anywhere.

    The story so far....

    4.5 Billion years of CO2 levels between 8,000 ppm and 26,000 ppm and no runaway greenhouse effect....

    .....but 400 years of 400 ppm to 1,000 ppm is catastrophic.

    I would hope you can see the absurdity of Hansen's false and disingenuous claims.

    CO2 has no bearing on climate.

    That should be obvious from the fact that when CO2 was 26,000 ppm there were two --- count 'em -- two Snowball Earths.

    Sure, scientists dispute the extent, meaning that some scientists hold the region between the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn was ice free, while other claim it was filled with pack-ice and still others hold it was completely frozen over, but that's not the point.

    The point is, in NOVA's documentary Earth's Rocky Start that in both instances, volcanic eruptions spewed CO2 in the atmosphere and caused Global Warming to end the two Snowball Earths.

    So, 26,000 ppm CO2 doesn't cause global warming, but 26,100 ppm does.

    You can see how pathetic the global warming nutters really are.
     
  6. Mircea

    Mircea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is where I got it:

    Palaeo data suggest that Greenland must have been largely ice free during Marine Isotope Stage 11 (MIS-11). The globally averaged MIS-11 sea level is estimated to have reached between 6–13 m above that of today.

    [emphasis mine]

    https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms16008

    “Even though the warm Eemian period was a period when the oceans were four to eight meters higher than today, the ice sheet in northwest Greenland was only a few hundred meters lower than the current level, which indicates that the contribution from the Greenland ice sheet was less than half the total sea-level rise during that period,” says Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Professor at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, and leader of the NEEM-project.

    [emphasis mine]

    https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/news/n...e-of-the-past/

    Prove to us you're a person of honesty and integrity, and high moral character by not running away, flouncing, or deflecting and answer the following:

    1) Which of those two sources -- the Danish Government and the highly regarded periodical Nature who are also a proponent of Global Warming -- is a "biased web site" or a "talking head blogger"?

    2) Why do you refuse to acknowledge the undisputed science from those two sources, who are supported by literally hundreds of studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals since the 1970s?

    3) Given that every study published since the 1970s proves irrefutably that present sea levels are 4 meters to 14 meters lower than past Inter-Glacial Periods, why do you insist on lying by maintaining the claim that a 3 meter rise in sea levels is the result of global warming?

    4) Given that the reason sea levels in prior Inter-Glacial Periods were 4 meters to 14 meters higher than present is due to the fact that average global temperatures were 7.5°F to 15.3°F warmer than present, why do you insist on lying by maintaining that any rise in global temperatures must be the result of man-made global warming?
     
  7. dgrichards

    dgrichards Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2020
    Messages:
    1,279
    Likes Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    When this aspect or that aspect or in this case, your aspect does not prove out as expected, it is investigated with hopefully better tools and better methodology. The mere fact that this aspect or that aspect or, as in this case your aspect does not prove out as expected des not invalidate the whole. What it does is tell us that the work needs fine tuning, and given the complexity of climate and all of the variables, the study will be ongoing and continually tweaked for the foreseeable future. For you to say that the hundreds of field studies and the ongoing work by NOAA, NASA and others are somehow totally invalid or terminally flawed is just, well, silly.
     
  8. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is quite a timely thread. The orthodox AGW paradigm has taken another body blow.
    New Research: “CO2 Influence On Global Temperature Development Since1860 Only Half As Large As IPCC Estimate!
    By P Gosselin on 14. December 2021

    Share this...
    A remarkable publication on solar influence on climate goes unnoticed
    By Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt (Die kalte Sonne)
    (Text translated/edited by P. Gosselin)

    On November 3, 2021, the renowned scientific journal Climate published a paper on solar influence on climate. The paper by the renowned solar researcher Dr. Frank Stefani from the Helmholtz Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf is entitled: “Solar and Anthropogenic Influences on Climate: A Regression Analysis and Tentative Predictions” and concludes that the influence of CO2 on the development of global temperatures from 1860 until today was only about half as large as the last report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assumed.

    As a reminder, the IPCC concludes that 98% of the warming ( 1.07 degrees out of 1.09 degrees) is human-induced. According to Stefani’s analysis, the solar influence accounts for 30-70%.

    Stefani examined the course of the geomagnetic aa – index, which reflects the strength of the earth’s magnetic field. This index has been measured in Cambridge and Melbourne since 1844 and reflects the influence of solar activity. In earlier publications, Stefani had already been able to prove that the 11-year solar cycle is triggered by the gravitational forces of Venus, Earth and Jupiter, which are in orbital resonance every 11.07 years (here, here and here).

    Since the Sun – influenced by all the planets (especially Jupiter and Saturn) – also moves around the center of gravity of the solar system, solar cycles arise that have become known in temperature history as the 193-year Suess-de Vries cycle and the 90-year Gleissberg cycle.

    Only 1°C warming by 2100 . . . .
     
  9. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  10. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Professor Judith Curry offers some insight.

    Year in review

    Posted on December 30, 2021 by curryja | 125 comments
    by Judith Curry

    A year ago, who would have thought that 2021 would be crazier than 2020?

    Continue reading →
    ". . . .‘Fact checks’ in the media have been shown to be (mostly) partisan/political enforcement of dogma.

    Scientists playing politics and politicians misusing science for political ends has become endemic. . . .

    A few weeks ago I spotted this quote:

    ” “Climate change” is just a mental tattoo — a phrase we invoke with an air of scientific sophistication to give some sense of knowledgeability about the unknowable.”

    That statement pretty much sums up the whole thing. Climate ‘science’ has become boring, mostly dotting i’s and crossing t’s (or worse yet, crossing i’s and dotting t’s). Even if we assume the science is ‘settled’, the policy discussion is even more boring – infeasible solutions that even if successfully implemented would very possibly leave us worse off than doing nothing (such has having inadequate electricity and fuel for heating during the winter). . . . "
     
  11. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

Share This Page