What Do We Think About Climate Change

The point is that 'peer review' and the prestige level of the publication means ******. As was pointed out a long ago in the thread, several of these SAME very prestigious journals bought into the peer reviewed 'race science' crap of the NAZI party only few decades ago. Major errors routinely slip by as long as the authors are well-liked and their positions in vogue at the time of publication. Science does not happen in a vacuum.

Your belief in the attribution of CO2 is an example of dogmatism as there is no corroborating scientific evidence to support this claim. It is believed simply because persons with authority assert that it is so, and the 'faithful' are expected to believe without question, which they do.

If it's such a no-brainer, why don't the very reliable isotopic mass balance tests back it up? Instead they don't even come close! Nascent CO2 looks almost completely natural! Why does the IPCC assert the ridiculous claim that CO2 lasts 200 years in the atmosphere? Where is THEIR study that supports this claim? Why can't they find the other half of the CO2 that should be there, if their accounting is correct?

There were 35 studies on the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere done over several decades by different teams in different countries. All were in general agreement that the half-life is less than 10 years. When you use a more realistic number for the half life when you do the accounting, there is no missing CO2. This would seem to make false the claim that CO2 lasts 200 years. If this falls, then the rest of this attribution 'house of cards' must necessarily fall, too because all these points are inter-related. The 'oceans as a current CO2 sink' fallacy is also tied into this, as this is why the IPCC asserts the oceans are sinking rather than emitting CO2; they need a sink to cover their accounting error resulting from the simple fact that CO2 does not last 200 years but less than 10. They need the 200 year half-life CO2 to justify the high attribution, which is itself not supported by ANY data.

You see Billy, I REALLY understand this stuff; I'm no pretender like you-know-who, who thought that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas by itself, or YOU, who thought that the (planetary) greenhouse effect was about differential reflectivity.

This should give YOU the greatest pause, as everything the UN has ever touched is a ****** up mess of bureaucratic manipulations and power/money grabs driven by the big bank financiers who pull their strings behind the scene.

Also the bit about methods and replication: Did you not follow the whole MBH-98 debacle? With the statements you just made, I would guess not. The AGW crowd should hang their heads in shame on the issue of open sharing of algorithms. And we haven't even touched on Hansen, yet.

On the next point, it is the AGW hypothesis that lacks coherence, which I've pointed out numerous times. Did you see my recent review of the major holes in the AGW case? They are all still there and you can still drive a truck through them. These are not little details, either. Rather, they are big, glaring discrepancies that people just gloss over, like the lack of ANY alarming warming trend . Do you really think .6-.7C in 130 years is worrisome?? Why do you think that?? Because some green wacko told you to worry over it?

I've given you data sourced by the University of Alabama at Huntsville, The University of Norway in Oslo, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Ottawa and many, many others, yet you routinely reject these, so I think you are full of ****; you simply reject anything that disagrees with you invested position, no matter the weight of evidence, or the lack of evidence from the AGW alarmists. TO THIS DAY, all the alarmists have is a completely circumstantial case that CO2 is anthropogenic. This is routinely taken for granted as if it were a proven fact, when actually this is easily disproved by at least two independent
methods.

It's not really that complex; the AGW alarm side tries to make it seem more complex than it really is, sort of like the clergy used to do before the reformation. Now our clergy are scientists and the universities the temples. If you would actually abide by your own word and follow the logic (which you do not) then the holes in the AGW case would suddenly become obvious to you. Your mind really is not open, so this will never happen as long as that's true. When has there ever been a theory where the key piece of evidence AT EVERY IMPORTANT JUNCTURE is missing, yet people are still expected to put credence in it?

Why did you judge a reputable scientist's work as 'bad' Who the hell are you? Just some old fart that is a true believer!

We already know that nascent atmospheric CO2 is mostly natural because the isotopic fingerprint tells us so. Don't you believe the tests? These test were done in the 1950's, 60's 70's and the last one in 1989. Different teams, different countries all working independently, yet all came to the same conclusion; atmospheric CO2 is not in any significant way sourced from fossil fuels. If you can't even prove this, then the AGW hypothesis is out of gas.


Jimbo

 

TTT,

The mass balance data in the study you posted has already been posted (by both me and you) and analyzed and it makes MY case, not yours. This is also the source of the year-by-year accounting of anthropogenic emissions which I posted way back when to show that our emissions were too small to account for the 19th century CO2 rise. Note that this does not stop some people from making this claim.

This author makes the purely circumstantial case that rising CO2 levels must be attributed to anthropogenic emissions, since those emissions were rising at the same time. The obvious flaw in this reasoning is again the threshold of significance.

When you get down to the mass-balance data, his circumstantial case does not hold up. Even accounting for 'biotic changes' and cement production, the mass-balance data can only reliably attribute less than 20% to anthropogenic emissions; if you only count fossil fuels, it's even less. Look at the graph about 2/3 down the page and you'll see what I mean. The big cluster of data points is right around the -7-8 per mil area, which is basically the 'natural' (rather than fossil fuel) carbon fingerprint. For there to be even 20% attribution, the data points would need to cluster around -11. For the really high attribution numbers (all or nearly all fossil fuel/anthropogenic attribution) it would have to be around -25 or -26 per mil, which as you can clearly see, is not even on the graph!

Thomas,
I know you sincerely believe the high attribution, but at some point you are going to have to recognize that there is no data to support this belief.

Jimbo

 

Looks like the audio portion of the Tom Segalstad presentation is finally available. So here's the PowerPoint that goes with it. Now we can all download the Ppt and listen to the audio and get on the same page together.

Jimbo

 

Boston, TTT, Thomas, Billydoc, Guillo,

Everybody has to have a look at this Ppt and audio presentation by Ross McKitrick, "Truth Based Cap and Trade".

This is a framework for climate change legislation I think we can all get behind, especially Boston, but not for the reason you might think.

Watch the show.


Jimbo

 

It is not my opinion Guillermo.

The long standing well understood body of scientific knowledge on this topic concludes that the increases in atmospheric Carbon are the result of human activities.
My statement is "true".
You may disagree with the scientists but this is THE conclusion they have arrived at.

I learned how to do a literature review some 30 years ago:

http://library.ucsc.edu/ref/howto/literaturereview.html

"The purpose of a literature review is to analyze critically a segment of a published body of knowledge through summary, classification, and comparison of prior research studies, reviews of literature, and theoretical articles."

I quite agree with you: posting and re-posting single studies with no appreciation for how they relate to the broader body of research is "tiring and useless".

 

So why not PROVE IT with something OTHER than a scientist's opinion based on his 'feeling' or 'personal philosophy', something tangible and objective? There are such probative tests, as you know.

You know why you don't present proof: You Can't

Thomas,

You only want this to be about the science as long as the science agrees with your position. As soon as it disagrees with AGW, you want to revert back to philosophy and politics.

You still have not addressed the more basic question of whether we even have something unusual about climate to discuss in the first place. I still don't see anything about 20th century warming that is at all worrisome or unusual compared with past warming, and I'm not alone in this belief. Again, apart from the political/philosophical considerations, the science does not support 'alarm' as the default position.

Jimbo

 

my efforts in pointing out the obviously agnotystic sources of the deniers is in the realization that there is one simple flaw in trying to explain science to them ( the deniers )

they dont care what the science actually says
or better yet
how science works has been explained and ignored over and over
they dont care

because none of what science is or how it works supports there industry spin
what I see is some people desperately ignoring that many of the sources used by the deniers are perfect examples of industry disinformation ( agnotism )
and without the fortitude to defend that fact

why, because they already know it, they just dont care

it obviously doesnt mater what the science says
and they dont like the idea that it means they would have to change
deniers and industry have made it a point to dream up its own version of pseudo-science and its a fraud
its not based on any form ethical research or the standard of science
but instead begins with a conclusion and seeks evidence to "prove" it
hiring credentialed and uncredentialed stooges along that way to twist pseudo-science to there advantage and using it to confuse the public

need I go into more sources commonly used by the deniers

although I could repost the previous ignored posts 2543 2564 or 2567

did you ignore em because they exposed your sources for the industry stooges they are
or did you ignore them because its against the denier credo to admit any error no mater how small and blindly insist
the earth is flat

address the issue of why the majority of your sources are industry paid industry published and industry spin stooges if your views are such good old fashioned wholesome independence

 

This is a key graph offered in the PowerPoint presentation by Syun-Ichi Akasofu, the audio portion here.

View attachment IPCC vs Reality.doc

His presentation shows how and why the IPCC can't make useful climate predictions based on a CO2 driven climate system, and what is really driving recent warming, which is the natural recovery from the Little Ice Age coupled with the perturbations of the Mutidecadal Oscillation. The proof is in the skill of the predictions, of course.

He also has a lot to say about glacial retreat as well as sea ice extent. All in all, a very informative presentation, though his English is a bit difficult to understand.

His organization, International Arctic Research Center, founded in 1999, was partially funded by one of Big Al's foundations, (presumably he thought they would back his climate alarm claims willy-nilly. Doh! ) with the US and Japanese governments the main financial partners.


Jimbo

 

Here is the formal scientific paper in pdf on which Dr Akasofu's presentation, posted above, is based.

Excerpted:

"Abstract:

Two natural components of the presently progressing climate change are identified.
The first one is an almost linear global temperature increase of about 0.5°C/100 years (~1°F/100
years), which seems to have started at least one hundred years before 1946 when manmade CO2
in the atmosphere began to increase rapidly. This value of 0.5°C/100 years may be compared
with what the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists consider to be the
manmade greenhouse effect of 0.6°C/100 years. This 100-year long linear warming trend is
likely to be a natural change. One possible cause of this linear increase may be Earth’s
continuing recovery from the Little Ice Age (1400-1800). This trend (0.5°C/100 years) should be
subtracted from the temperature data during the last 100 years when estimating the manmade
contribution to the present global warming trend. As a result, there is a possibility that only a
small fraction of the present warming trend is attributable to the greenhouse effect resulting from
human activities. Note that both glaciers in many places in the world and sea ice in the Arctic
Ocean that had developed during the Little Ice Age began to recede after 1800 and are still
receding; their recession is thus not a recent phenomenon.

The second one is the multi-decadal oscillation, which is superposed on the linear change. One
of them is the “multi-decadal oscillation,” which is a natural change. This particular change has
a positive rate of change of about 0.15°C/10 years from about 1975, and is thought to be a sure
sign of the greenhouse effect by the IPCC. But, this positive trend stopped after 2000 and now
has a negative slope. As a result, the global warming trend stopped in about 2000-2001.

Therefore, it appears that the two natural changes have a greater effect on temperature changes
than the greenhouse effects of CO2. These facts are contrary to the IPCC Report (2007, p.10),
which states that “most” of the present warming is due “very likely” to be the manmade
greenhouse effect. They predict that the warming trend continues after 2000. Contrary to their
prediction, the warming halted after 2000."





Jimbo

 

way to ignore the point that a huge percentage of the sources you use are clearly industry stooges writing pseudo-science funded by industry and printed in industry rags

need I go into more sources commonly used by the deniers

although I could repost the previous ignored posts 2543 2564 or 2567

did you ignore em because they exposed your sources for the industry stooges they are
or did you ignore them because its against the denier credo to admit any error no mater how small and blindly insist
the earth is flat

address the issue of why the huge percentage of your sources are industry paid industry published and industry spin stooges if your views are such good old fashioned wholesome independence and science

or ignore the point because you have no possible rebuttal

nor are you acknowledging simple scientific practice with your continues denials of the importance o consensus
if 97% of the science says one thing and 3% says something inconclusive
and you just manage to stumble onto that 3%
congratulations
your still way wrong
and clearly clinging with a death grip to ignorance

 

So Boston,
Are you now saying that the International Arctic Research Center, partially funded buy one of Al Gore's foundations, is a group of "industry stooges"? I guess your idiocy has reached new depths. They say that's a key difference between intelligence and stupidity: Intelligence has its limits

Jimbo

 

Little Ice Age instead of Global Warming?

http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm

Fig. 4: Close correlation between surface land air temperature in the Northern Hemisphere (thick curve) and the changing length of the 11-year sunspot cycle (thin curve), indicating the varying intensity of the sun's eruptional activity (From Friis-Christensen and Lassen, 1991). Contrary to the curve in Fig. 3, representing the steadily increasing amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the thin solar curve covaries with the undulations of observed temperature.

 

well precisely what I said was this

and its accurate

I think to the readers its obvious what your up to

and still you will not admit the obvious
are you paid by the oil and gas industry to infect the internet with the industry spin

 

You have a remarkable talent for self description when you attempt to challenge others.

 

ok so on another note we have a unlabeled graph

and remember
science admits there is no firm consensus on this issue
although the majority of data points to no more than a +/- ~.1 % variance in the solar cycles



what I did discover is that not only was he alone twenty years ago in his theory
but his ideas based on his work were proved wrong when In 1989, he predicted incorrectly

this clearly didnt happen as can be seen in virtually every climate record since 1990
his reconstruction of the solar data was not subsequently accepted ( although Ill keep looking for references and citations )
Landscheidt was wrong and time has proven it so

the quoted article is heavily edited, bordering on fraud since it was edited extensively before publication and without review by the pseudo-science skeptics rag
the jounal energy and environment
just months before DR Landscheidt's death

it was modified extensively from the original resulting in a tacky opinion piece and not peer reviewed
the DR's only peer reviewed work is as follows

the phony rag that edited the DR's work and published it just months before his death is described as follows

nother lovely review the rag got

did you seriously expect to fool us
please
I think the public deserves a little better than this kind of obvious spin

just to stay on track a little
anyone want to talk about the fine science done over at the heartland institute
( ah sarcasm ) cause its one of the deniers favorites sites