Mod+ 234. GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE CHANGE AND OUR ILLUSION OF CONTROL

I'm sure that we affect the system... there is evidence in other systems that I have researched, but do not have full access to the raw data, such as CO2 uptake and others. My main problem is that the AGW proponents use temperatures as their data to prove the thesis, but it doesn't show up in our largest, most complete database, the satellite data. Their data comes from surface observations (obs), which are a small subset, with inherent problems. Among these are improperly designed obs stations, untrained observers, sites placed on the outskirts of major metropolitan areas where they were once relatively unaffected by the heat island effect of the concrete, asphalt, exhaust, etc. of the city, but weren't moved as the sprawl overtook the wx (weather) site. These data are then "massaged" to correct for these flaws, typically by people without the training to do it correctly (if even possible; this assumes you know precisely why it is suspect, and all of the causes), and most often with agendas. I'm not at all convinced that it isn't a blip in the data that has happened many, MANY times before.

I utterly agree about this - and all these flaws in the temperature data have been extensively documented by Anthony Watts, who seems to have forced some corrections to the official temperature data!

To me this saga is also an example of a growing trend to try to squeeze a 'signal' out of data which is obviously too noisy. People (i.e. some scientists) seem to have a naive idea that given enough signal processing they can always get what they want from the data!

David
 
Accept that the age of the Earth is 4.5 Billion Years Old. Our database is really only about a hundred years old. (The NCDC database includes much older obs, including a few sent in by Ben Franklin in the mid 1700s. However, these are the exception, aren't standardized, nor do we have enough old obs to add value to a global database). That means our data spans 0.0000022% of the full data, and is statistically insignificant relative to the temp trends/cycles of the planet.

I wonder if you would like to comment about another piece of evidence against CAGW - Venus. As I posted earlier, the Magellan spacecraft actually measured the temperature profile of that planet's atmosphere. People get told that the enormous temperature at the surface is caused by the CO2 green house effect, but at the point in the atmosphere where the pressure is 1 atmosphere, the temperature is only modestly higher than here on earth - and of course, Venusis much closer to the sun.

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm

David
 
Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support life on Earth.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic

[Editor’s Note: Patrick Moore, Ph.D., has been a leader in international environmentalism for more than 40 years. He cofounded Greenpeace
...
In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization.
...
Climate change has become a powerful political force for many reasons. First, it is universal; we are told everything on Earth is threatened. Second, it invokes the two most powerful human motivators: fear and guilt. We fear driving our car will kill our grandchildren, and we feel guilty for doing it.

Third, there is a powerful convergence of interests among key elites that support the climate “narrative.” Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; science institutions raise billions in grants, create whole new departments, and stoke a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; business wants to look green, and get huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as wind farms and solar arrays. Fourth, the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy.

So we are told carbon dioxide is a “toxic” “pollutant” that must be curtailed, when in fact it is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, gas and the most important food for life on earth. Without carbon dioxide above 150 parts per million, all plants would die.

Human Emissions Saved Planet

Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth back to 400 parts per million today.

At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising.

We have no proof increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the earth’s slight warming over the past 300 years. There has been no significant warming for 18 years while we have emitted 25 per cent of all the carbon dioxide ever emitted. Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasize to our children?​
 
I utterly agree about this - and all these flaws in the temperature data have been extensively documented by Anthony Watts, who seems to have forced some corrections to the official temperature data!

To me this saga is also an example of a growing trend to try to squeeze a 'signal' out of data which is obviously too noisy. People (i.e. some scientists) seem to have a naive idea that given enough signal processing they can always get what they want from the data!

David

What I especially like on Watts Up With That is this list:

List of excuses for the pause in the global of warming

It is truly hilarious. Excuses range from evasive spin to flat denial. I wonder how severely must both academia and public was trained into the unquestioning acceptance of (manufactured) "consensus" if they accept all these explanations-away as face value. Do they remember that the constant failure of predictions, combined with the ever-growing list of smart-looking rationalizations to dismiss such failures, is the red flag sign of bad (if not outright junk) science?!
 

1min 32 sec: "And part of to love human beings means to love their capacity to transform the planet around them and make it better. So you talk about hatred of planet - well, it's love of the planet's potential, but it is a sort of hatred. It's hatred of life when we don't transform the planet - the kind of life where we strive to minimize our impact, because that kind of life is death." Ouch, talk about a turn-off. I stopped the video there. Jackson 5, you'll have to do much better to make a case for this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red
Nothing, but nothing, is 100% pure with no downside. Energy, whatever its source, always carries a cost. Coal and oil have costs, but look what they've done and continue to do for you as you sit at your computer engaging in this debate. Think of the peasant in rural India and what it can do for him and his family, and whether the good will outweigh the bad. India has a lot of coal, and wants to use it just as we did to get where we are now. Until and unless some other practical power source eventuates (and solar power/windmills simply ain't it), they are going to go for coal in their energy mix. Coal that has saved an enormous number of lives through enabling the development of infrastructure, including sewerage systems, which are the single most important factor in saving lives since the dawn of humanity. Forget modern medicine: adequate human waste disposal systems dwarf it in terms of improving the human lot.

India is going to stick up two fingers at the West, and good luck to them. Especially when CO2 is actually a beneficial gas that we could probably do with more rather than less of. Ask any plant what it thinks about it, and why the planet is actually greening and becoming more productive:


I have heard BBC announcers in the UK refer to CO2 as pollution, as well as a greenhouse gas. Perhaps they should remind us that it is an essential part of the carbon cycle, without which no life to speak of would exist on this planet
 
A lot of entertaining climate meat being posted over at WUWT recently...


In the comments section beneath the video below somebody wrote the following, which I think nicely sums up all of this climate hocus:

"This is a good example of how the racket works. The climatologists provide a rationale for more government power. The government then pays the climatologists, who dutifully toe the ideological line. The government then, when called on to justify its power grab, appeals to the alleged authority of the scientists who are cloaked in the authority of the clerisy."

 
1min 32 sec: "And part of to love human beings means to love their capacity to transform the planet around them and make it better. So you talk about hatred of planet - well, it's love of the planet's potential, but it is a sort of hatred. It's hatred of life when we don't transform the planet - the kind of life where we strive to minimize our impact, because that kind of life is death." Ouch, talk about a turn-off. I stopped the video there.

So you're saying that you're a stupid little crybaby?
 
A lot of entertaining climate meat being posted over at WUWT recently...


In the comments section beneath the video below somebody wrote the following, which I think nicely sums up all of this climate hocus:

"This is a good example of how the racket works. The climatologists provide a rationale for more government power. The government then pays the climatologists, who dutifully toe the ideological line. The government then, when called on to justify its power grab, appeals to the alleged authority of the scientists who are cloaked in the authority of the clerisy."

It's a good racket at that. It was a smart move changing it from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change". That way, anything and everything goes. Record snowfall/rainfall/flooding? Climate change. Record drought? Climate change. Record highs? Climate change. Record lows? Climate change. Too many tornadoes? Climate change. Too few tornadoes? Climate change. No hurricanes? Climate change. Record hurricanes? Climate change. Al Roker gains 5 lbs.? Climate change. Donald Trump buys a new toupe? Climate change.

It's a rigged game for sure. Especially with the coined "denier" perjorative for anyone who dare question the authority of the mighty IPCC.

The biggest bullshit of all is the term "Climate Change^TM". Of course the climate changes. If climate science is to be accepted, and by that I mean ALL climate science, not just the cherry picking of the last 150 years, you'd have to be very special indeed to claim the global climate doesn't change. Of course it does. No one in their right mind denies that. But they conflate AGW with climate change, and your average nincompoop can't determine the difference.
 
I really detest the youtube climate change debate; especially the deniers.
The only debate that really matters anyway is the one going on in Paris.
 
Back
Top