SivCorp SivCorp

Global warming hoax!?! - UPDATED -

▼

Global warming hoax!?! - UPDATED -

Scientists no longer in it for the science...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html
from Sins Forums

So, the truth has finially come out...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html

 

Man created global warming has been politicized to the point that scientists have been rigging the results of tests to get the desired result.  This is not science, and all those "scientists" should lose their grants, teaching licenses, and be barred from ever touching a beaker ;)

 

Seriously, has science died?  What has the world come to that the nations of the world were getting close to passing greatly limiting, taxing and controling treaties all based on false information?  What should be done with the whole "green" agenda that has now been proven to be based on lies?

 

Thoughts?

--- Over 1000 replies makes this a very hot topic ---

 

Therefore I will continue to update with the unraveling of the IPCC and politicized science. (new articles will be placed first)

Please keep the topics a little more on point from here on out, thanks.

 - Glacer calculation show to be false, and scientist refuses to apologize...

 - More errors in report?

 - Opinion paper - Rigging climate 'consensus'

 

off-topic
3,778,094 views 1,250 replies
Reply #526 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Quoting Daiwa, reply 525
The universal escape clause: No matter what the climate does, it's all easily explained by AGW.
End of Daiwa's quote

Wow, it's *almost* as if the climate were a large scale system composed of many interacting components. There might even be positive and negative feedback loops that, despite the rising *average* global temperature, cause climactic extremes to go, in some regions in . . . (Dum dum DUM!!!) the OPPOSITE DIRECTION!!!!

Daiwa Barbie says "Climatology is *hard*"

O:)

Reply #527 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Jonnan001, reply 520



Quoting Timmaigh,
reply 493
So i read the rebuttal of Easterbrook´s work and still same question comes to mind....how do i know whom to believe? For example the part about ocean cycles - PDO...Easterbrook says they are important regarding climate change, this guy - Chris - says it is not true....

My whole point is there are both arguments pro and contra AGW....i really do not know what the truth is and i am not going to make decision about this myself...and because it is the pro-AGW side, who is crying for actions before its too late (cap CO2 - slow down economy), i think it is up to them to convince people like me to support them. I ask for bulletproof evidence (int he mould of "Earth is not flat" evidence), until then i am against any actions.


"How do I know whom to Believe?" is an interesting question.

Do you accept the basic assumption that Peer Review of data/experiments helps hedge against personal bias and mistakes?

If not, then you don't know whom to believe - in virtually *any* field of study. Including whether the Earth is Flat.

If you do accept it, do you have evidence of particular corruption of this concept (Systemic corruption, not, say, 20 emails evincing frustration from a hacked database containing gigabytes of data.) in the climate change field.

At the end of the day, no one has managed to successfully level such a charge. Since I accept Peer Review, and I see no evidence of corruption of that process, and actual review of the experiments reveals no issues with the data, then the next step is - does the hypothesis presented successfully predict (Within some margin for error x%) the results of new experiments. And it has.

The next step is - has an alternative hypothesis with testable predictions to distinguish it from the AGW hypothesis been presented. Alternate Hypothesis? Oh plenty of those. But those that give testable predictions have not hewn to the data, and the rest have not given predictions you can test.

So, you ask for "bulletproof evidence (int he mould of "Earth is not flat" evidence)" - but the fact is the counter-arguments are remarkably similar to the "Flat-Earth" Arguments. You should read them - they argue that there are these ways in which science has misunderstood the data, the data is more complex than it first appears, and that there are massive conspiracies of government and private organizations that are economically entrenched in the false "Spherical Earth" Paradigm.

Bluntly, if you don't accept the Anthropomorphic Global Warming Hypothesis as 'bullet-proof', I don't see that you have any grounds on the terms you are judging it for saying the argument is closed on the "Flat Earth Hypothesis".

The logic is identical. You can choose to accept the principles of science, or you can choose not to, or you can choose to be inconsistent and accept them when it suits you and ignore them when it turns out you don't like the results. Frankly I respect the first, have a a degree of humor towards the second, and neither for the third. But you need to decide which you are going with.

Jonnan
End of Jonnan001's quote

The thing is all those peer reviews are not the ultimate bulletproof evidence to me...definitely not on the level of the non flat Earth evidence. I do not want to question the work of people who unlike me are educated in climate science, but when i see other scientists do this, i ask myself: If AGW is 100 percent sure and proven to be happening, why are these people questioning it? Indeed you may claim they have vested interest, are paid by oil companies etc...but the same can be said about the AGW apologists, so it is not very helpful, right?.

Anyway talking about nonflat Earth, are there any scientists out there who question it? No, because there is bulletproof evidence for this. There is no such evidence for AGW - surely all those *homogenized* temperature graphs, ignoring the ocean cycles in the models and the fact they cant explain the cooling in the recent years {they said it, not me} is good reason to think this way.

WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #528 from Elemental Forums Top

Im certainly a skeptic to AGW, but the most ignorant and annoying thing to say to disprove climate change is 'its cold now so global warming isnt happening'. Climate change is not a uniform increase in temperatures, its a rapid(much faster than average) change in climate, which is not weather!

Reply #529 from JoeUser Forums Top

they cant explain the cooling in the recent years {they said it, not me}
End of quote
You mean they can't explain the cooling that hasn't in fact occured?

Currently the rate of warming has slowed down (0.29C/decade) but it's still an *increase* and the idea that there has been no warming in recent years has been debunked literally dozens of times in this thread alone.

If you claim black is white, up is down and warming is cooling then there is no thing that anyone can explain to you.

Reply #530 from JoeUser Forums Top

Daiwa Barbie says "Climatology is *hard*"
End of quote

Sorry, Jonnan, you got that wrong.  AGW makes everything *easy* - all you gotta do is believe.

Reply #531 from JoeUser Forums Top

change in climate, which is not weather!
End of quote

Bingo.  Can't predict either worth a damn.

Reply #532 from Sins Forums Top

You mean they can't explain the cooling that hasn't in fact occured?

Currently the rate of warming has slowed down (0.29C/decade) but it's still an *increase* and the idea that there has been no warming in recent years has been debunked literally dozens of times in this thread alone.

If you claim black is white, up is down and warming is cooling then there is no thing that anyone can explain to you.

End of quote

 

This has already been stated and referenced previously, on multiple occasions.  Your blessed, incorruptible, government funded, intergovernmental panel of climatologists are the ones saying they can't explain it.

 

This is what the Surface monitoring change between 1998 and 2008 really looks like.  That's right, only the polar regions show warming, and most of the planet isn't even being monitored.  The way they make those maps that almost look reasonable is by smoothing a 1200km(the didn't skip two bleeding zeroes version) radius, you know, a few states width in temperature variation...

Reply #533 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

smoothing a 12km radius
End of quote

I really hope you lost a couple zeroes there, 12 km would be an implausibly tight monitoring net. I can bet there isn't an official weather station within 12 km of my parents' house, or the high school I went to (over 12km from the house). The only reason there is one within 12km of where I'm sitting is the airport.

Reply #534 from JoeUser Forums Top

Here's another "Crock of the Week" video that deals with the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) which has been brought up as "proof" that AGW doesn't exist at least a dozen times in this thread alone. 

Reply #535 from Sins Forums Top

 And you claim the sceptics come again and again with the same arguments...cause hockeystick is the latest and the ultimate evidence of AGW, never used before...

Reply #536 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Mumblefratz, reply 529

they cant explain the cooling in the recent years {they said it, not me}You mean they can't explain the cooling that hasn't in fact occured?


Currently the rate of warming has slowed down (0.29C/decade) but it's still an *increase* and the idea that there has been no warming in recent years has been debunked literally dozens of times in this thread alone.

If you claim black is white, up is down and warming is cooling then there is no thing that anyone can explain to you.
End of Mumblefratz's quote

But my point is not whether it is cooling or not. Important thing is they cannot explain something related to climate and in the same time make any predictions....

Just think of current scientists as of Columbus. They just landed on some coast, thinking it is India. It make sense after all - the world is round so they have to reach India by going both east and west. But later it turns out they landed at America. Now i ask: do have climate scientists enough info to prove they landed at India? Can they prove it with a strong enough proof - something in the mould of satellite image for the Columbus analogy?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reply #537 from Sins Forums Top

Mumbles, take all the bullshit you're spreading, and apply it to the current information sets.  You know, so they'll grow better.

 

The only reason the average temperature changes are so drastic is because...  The poles are the only things warming significantly.

 

Who was taking temperatures at the north pole 200 years ago?  No one.  The datasets that show that nice, even temperature, debunking the medieval warming period(I don't really give a shit either way on whether it existed or not) are from sources that still show a nice, even temperature.  The tree rings in the northern hemisphere show no drastic warming, remember?  Vostok, last time I checked, still showed no historical warming as well, actually having been colder by .4C compared to the core records during the 55-88 time span.

 

You really should stop debunking stupidity from other people and debunk your own debunker first.  He seems to be a few cards short of a full deck.

Reply #538 from Sins Forums Top

The poles are the only things warming significantly.
End of quote

 

...um, that makes me paranoid...

Reply #539 from Elemental Forums Top

Why?  Warming from -30 to -28 in the middle of the summer isn't exactly catastrophic news.  It's the change in ice sheet coverage.  The temperatures at Vostok haven't shown any remarkable changes to match that two degree shift we've got going in the region around the continent, they're stable, just like the ice core sample the so called scientists are basing this warming trend from.

Reply #540 from JoeUser Forums Top

Here's another "Crock of the Week" video that deals with the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) which has been brought up as "proof" that AGW doesn't exist at least a dozen times in this thread alone.
End of quote

Once again you make up things out of whole cloth.  Nothing I've read in any of the replies in this thread has claimed the MWP is 'proof' that AGW doesn't exist.  Coulda missed a couple.

It is fair to say that consensus scientific opinion for many years held that there was a medieval warm period as well as a 'mini ice age.'  Now you're saying 'their' consensus was wrong but 'our' consensus is right?

Reply #541 from JoeUser Forums Top

It is fair to say that consensus scientific opinion for many years held that there was a medieval warm period as well as a 'mini ice age.' Now you're saying 'their' consensus was wrong but 'our' consensus is right?
End of quote
There most certainly was a MWP as well as a LIA but both of these are in fact *regional* variations of *weather* as opposed to significant changes in mean global temperature or in other words, climate.

The MWP has in fact been displayed in graphs in many replies in this thread and typically has been used as some sort of disproof of the "hockey stick" and by extension AGW. If you haven't noticed this then you must have missed way more than a few posts. Again this is simply confusing the difference between regional weather and climate. Yes the MWP and LIA periods did exist but neither disproves the hockey stick.

Reply #542 from JoeUser Forums Top

The poles are the only things warming significantly.
End of quote
So? All this indicates is that the poles are a large thermal mass that needs to warm before the rest of the globe can continue warming further.

Just like a glass of water stays at 0C as long as there is any ice in the glass. It's only once the ice melts that the water in the glass can warm further.

Just because recent warming has been primarily in the polar regions does not mean there has been no warming. Warming is warming.

 

Reply #543 from Sins Forums Top

Could you pick a worse method of putting your own foot in your mouth?

 

First, a glass of water does not stay at 0C until all the ice melts.  If it did, the ice would never melt under the surface, major duh here since it melts faster.  Aren't you an engineer?

 

Ice is exactly why the relevancy of the warming shift in the poles is even less relevant than it would be if you went purely by surface coverage.  The difference between the air temperature above open water and ice pack is massive.  A minor shift in seasonal ice cover makes for a significant change in the surface and lower troposphere temperatures.  You should be able to figure this out by measuring the temperature of the air above your glass of ice water.  Instead of all that sunlight reflecting off ice, and going back out into space through the thinner, ozone depleted polar atmosphere, it's hitting water, being absorbed, and that obviously warmer ocean is carrying warmth from other regions to the affected area to begin with.  Since it's no longer an ice sheet, moisture carried up off the ocean thickens the atmosphere as well, aiding in heat retention.  No signs of a catastrophic green house event in a two degree shift, just a few miles difference in the radius of the ice sheet expansion.

 

Now that the sun is back in a relatively dormant cycle, if the process reverses and the ice sheets expand outward and cut off the shipping lines again, you'll look like a real dumbass for having bought the farm over it.

Reply #544 from Stardock Forums Top

Now that the sun is back in a relatively dormant cycle, if the process reverses and the ice sheets expand outward and cut off the shipping lines again, you'll look like a real dumbass for having bought the farm over it.
End of quote

Correct me if I'm wrong but Mumblefratz is probably the only poster in these 22 pages who has actually said that a specific set of circumstances would change his mind on AGW.  Add to that he has stated that he is against the current financial redistribution schemes and has promoted an energy source that is beneficial in either AGW or not scenarios.

Not exactly buying the farm, maybe a barn but definitely not the whole farm :)

 

Reply #546 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

There most certainly was a MWP as well as a LIA but both of these are in fact *regional* variations of *weather* as opposed to significant changes in mean global temperature or in other words, climate.

 

The MWP has in fact been displayed in graphs in many replies in this thread and typically has been used as some sort of disproof of the "hockey stick" and by extension AGW. If you haven't noticed this then you must have missed way more than a few posts. Again this is simply confusing the difference between regional weather and climate. Yes the MWP and LIA periods did exist but neither disproves the hockey stick.

End of quote

Sorry, no. If a fairly large temperature swing persists for several *hundred* years (both MWP and LIA lasted ceturies), it's climate. You might argue that those two climate shifts were regional rather than global, but you can't call them weather. If you are blowing off major century-scale temperature shifts as "weather", anything the AGW people are arguing needs to also be considered weather for the next couple hundred years, then maybe we can discuss whether it's climate or weather - but I guess at that time scale neither of us will be around to discuss it, will we?

Also, if they are arguing that those two events were regional and disappear when averaged globally, it means there were regions with statistically similar patterns in the reversed order, right? If 500 years of above-average heat followed by 500 years of cold can be smoothed to basically noise, there should be an equally large area that experienced a medival cold snap followed by a significant heat wave. Where was it, and how well do the dates and degree of warming/cooling match? I'm not expecting a 1 to 1 matchup here, but they should be able to produce *something* to fit the bill. It would be a better argument against the significance of the MWP/LIA, compared to "well, it just averages away if you weight the data right."

Reply #547 from Stardock Forums Top

I would be more inclined to accept the ipcc 'hockey stick' graph if it included the original English data as at least one of the data sets.  I haven't seen any evidence that his data is less reliable then Mann's data and would speculate that English records should at least compromise one set of data.  Since there's no tree rings to check in Greenland and the ice cores would not be coastal, that's another site with anecdotal evidence of enhanced warmth versus current that is not shown.  And that is accepting the 'its a northern Atlantic localized warm/cold condition argument.

I also like the weather climate distinction.  Climate is the average of weather over time over area.  You can't disregard long term weather conditions in the analysis of climate as without weather there would be no climate.  Obviously if this was localized it would be at least somewhat averaged out but the data set should be there.

Reply #548 from JoeUser Forums Top

First, a glass of water does not stay at 0C until all the ice melts. If it did, the ice would never melt under the surface, major duh here since it melts faster. Aren't you an engineer?
End of quote
Yes I am and yes it does. Sure there will be very minor incremental temperature differences throughout the liquid but basically the water stays at a *relatively* constant temperature and the energy of added heat to the system is taken up by the energy (80 cal/g) of the solid to liquid phase change.

you'll look like a real dumbass for having bought the farm over it.
End of quote
And if 2010 is the new warmest year on record?

You might argue that those two climate shifts were regional rather than global,
End of quote
I thought that *was* what I argued.

If you are blowing off major century-scale temperature shifts as "weather",
End of quote
I'm not "blowing off" century-scale temperature shifts major or otherwise. Perhaps the weather/climate distinction is not the best terminology for this precise circumstance but if in fact the MWP was simply a redistribution of heat from one part of the globe to another part of the globe due to some change in the thermal transport system then it's clear that the effect of the global mean temperature would not be all that great.

The bottom line is that regardless of being able to grow grapes in England during the MWP they can grow grapes in England right now.

I made no argument that the MWP and LIA should be averaged out over time only that they should be averaged out over the area of the globe. This is merely a restatement of the fact that if it's 50C in the sahara and -10C in Boston that neither proves nor disproves AGW.

Also, if they are arguing that those two events were regional and disappear when averaged globally, it means there were regions with statistically similar patterns in the reversed order, right?
End of quote
Correct assuming that the global temperature stayed totally flat which no one is doing. Only that the temperature increase that existed over a limited area, say the north atlantic ocean as a rough guess, needs to be averaged over the area of the planet. Even granting that this area encompasses 1/4th of the globe (a gross over estimate) that implies that the affect of any temp increase is 1/4th of what actually occured locally.

The bottom line is that I do not find it incredulous to believe that global mean temperatures today exceed *global mean temperatures* of the MWP, even though temps in the region then may in fact be exceeding temps in the region now. That's all the hocky stick is really saying.

I would be more inclined to accept the ipcc 'hockey stick' graph if it included the original English data as at least one of the data sets.
End of quote
They effectively were. We've seen the effect of the MWP and LIA in the GISP2 ice core record and that was most certainly a part of the data set.

Reply #550 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Is there any comparison of temps that only include comparable data over that time period?

 

I mean, we have temp sensors in many more places now than compared to back then. If we only sample the data from the same areas that were recorded back then, what does it show?