Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience.

[RandomGuy]

A theory about the levels of 13C vs 12C?

I don't know what you're looking for. There are studies that show that CO2 from fossil fuels remain in the atmosphere more than natural CO2, and there are studies that shows that theory has no merit. There are no definitive answers here, that's why I don't look care.

Not all theories are created equal.

To wit:

I have a theory that pink unicorns in the back of my local s station make my breakfast tacos.

My wife has a theory that somebody's grandma, named "Eva" makes them most mornings, with her grandson picking up the slack on her days off.

Are both theories equally valid?

Why or why not?

You can't dismiss a theory, simply because there may be competing theories or some conflicting data.

That is not good science.

[DarrinS]

Meh.

Conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories.

If you don't like being lumped in with other conspira s, quit acting like them.

If you want to be a ing crybaby about it, here is your official victim card:




To be clear:

Holocaust deniers are a whole other level of crazy racist s.

AGW deniers are just, in general, idiots. IMO.

Meh, call me whatever you want. I no longer care.

Thread should've ended after this post, tbh.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...8267&postcount

But, hey, you've got your logical fallacy scoreboard.

[MannyIsGod]

You're still ignoring my post.

I'm shocked, Darrin.

[MannyIsGod]

Darrin still ignoring questions. Not that anyone is shocked.

Anway, I noticed this on youtube and thought I would pass it on. Its a Climate Change course that is not for science majors at The University Of Chicago. I watched a couple of the lectures and its extremely accessible. David Archer is excellent at presenting the information in a very plain way the way he does in his books (The Long Thaw is an excellent book).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHXpk...D9207E84E91643

[MannyIsGod]

Darrin still ignoring questions. Not that anyone is shocked.

Anway, I noticed this on youtube and thought I would pass it on. Its a Climate Change course that is not for science majors at The University Of Chicago. I watched a couple of the lectures and its extremely accessible. David Archer is excellent at presenting the information in a very plain way the way he does in his books (The Long Thaw is an excellent book).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHXpk...D9207E84E91643

[Poptech]

Here is an excellent lecture by Climatology Professor John Christy,




John R. Christy, B.A. Mathematics, California State University (1973); M.S. Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois (1984); Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois (1987); NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991); American Meteorological Society's Special Award (1996); Member, Committee on Earth Studies, Space Studies Board (1998-2001); Alabama State Climatologist (2000-Present); Fellow, American Meteorological Society (2002); Panel Member, Official Statement on Climate Change, American Geophysical Union (2003); Member, Committee on Environmental Satellite Data Utilization, Space Studies Board (2003-2004); Member, Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the last 2,000 years, National Research Council (2006); Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville (1991-Present); Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2000-Present); Contributor, IPCC (1992, 1994, 1996, 2007); Lead Author, IPCC (2001)

[RandomGuy]

Here is an excellent lecture by Climatology Professor John Christy,




John R. Christy, B.A. Mathematics, California State University (1973); M.S. Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois (1984); Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois (1987); NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991); American Meteorological Society's Special Award (1996); Member, Committee on Earth Studies, Space Studies Board (1998-2001); Alabama State Climatologist (2000-Present); Fellow, American Meteorological Society (2002); Panel Member, Official Statement on Climate Change, American Geophysical Union (2003); Member, Committee on Environmental Satellite Data Utilization, Space Studies Board (2003-2004); Member, Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the last 2,000 years, National Research Council (2006); Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville (1991-Present); Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2000-Present); Contributor, IPCC (1992, 1994, 1996, 2007); Lead Author, IPCC (2001)

Not going to watch it.

Does he explain CO2 isotope ratios?

[RandomGuy]

I'm just trying to get to a working theory about where all this extra Co2 is coming from.

Wild Cobra says humans aren't doing it.

It must be coming from somewhere.

[Poptech]

So how is is possible that you on one hand hold this list as an example of how peer reviewed science is out there to support skeptic views and then in the other hand proclaim that skeptics are being silenced by some kind of conspiracy?

Things can be much more difficult for one side without being impossible,

A Climatology Conspiracy? (David H. Douglass, Ph.D. Professor of Physics; John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science)

Circling the Bandwagons: My Adventures Correcting the IPCC (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics)

The Double Standard in Environmental Science (PDF) (Stanley W. Trimble, Ph.D. Professor of Geography)


"If you think that Saiers [GRL Editor] is in the greenhouse skeptics camp ...we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." - Tom Wigley, Former Director, Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

"I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board..." - Michael Mann, Lead Author, IPCC (2001)

"I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" - Phil Jones, Director, Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

[Wild Cobra]

I'm just trying to get to a working theory about where all this extra Co2 is coming from.

Wild Cobra says humans aren't doing it.

It must be coming from somewhere.

Liar.

I did not say were weren't doing it. i said the increase would happen anyway. Our part is small since around 98% of our CO2 would be absorbed into the ocean if everything else remained the same.

I explained it. You are either too dense, or biased to understand my explanation.

How about telling me what you didn't understand about my explanation.

[Yonivore]

Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?

An already relentless melting of the Arctic greatly accelerated this summer—a sign that some scientists worry could mean global warming has passed an ominous tipping point.

One scientist even speculated that summer sea ice could be gone in five years.
...
This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."

That's right...it's a 2007 prediction.

This summer? the summer of 2012? Well, the Arctic has average amounts of ice hanging around.

Someone tell me this Jay Zwally is one of the "consensus" scientists upon which the AGCC crowd is dependent.

Fools.

[CosmicCowboy]

http://notrickszone.com/2012/05/21/s...1980s-level/0/

Scientists Of The Russian Academy Of Science: “Global Warming Is Coming To An End – Return To Early 1980s Level”

By P Gosselin on 21. Mai 2012

The German langauge Voice of Russia here reports a news item you’ll never hear from the mainstream media. Top scientists of Russia’s most prestigious academy say global warming is ending.

Russian Academy of Sciences: temperatures will drop half a degree by 2015.



Here’s the Voice of Russia report I’ve translated in English:

Global warming is coming to an end: In the coming years the temperature over the entire planet will fall and the cooling will provide a character of relief. This is the conclusion reached by Russian scientists from the Physics University of the Russian Academy of Science.

The process of a general temperature decrease has already begun, according to the research. After having peaked in 2005, the average temperature on Earth is now returning to the level of the 1996-1997 years, 0.3°C lower.

According to the scientists, global temperatures will fall another 0.15°C by 2015, which corresponds to the climate of the early 1980s.”

[RandomGuy]

Liar.

I did not say were weren't doing it.

(shrugs)

I believe mankind has only contributed at most, an added 10 ppm to the atmosphere.

You also said that the oceans are a net sink for CO2.

So if it isn't coming out of the oceans, but rather going into them, and mankind isn't adding but a small portion of the added CO2 that we have seen in the last 100 years or so,

where is it coming from?

[RandomGuy]

Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?


That's right...it's a 2007 prediction.

This summer? the summer of 2012? Well, the Arctic has average amounts of ice hanging around.

Someone tell me this Jay Zwally is one of the "consensus" scientists upon which the AGCC crowd is dependent.

Fools.

At this rate,

The rate changed.

Short term variability. Shocking.

You would note that he was talking about ice in the ocean, not the cap itself, right?

Meh. You will see what you want to see and continue to cherry pick what you believe or don't believe, based on your own biased reality filters.

As we go along, if the AGW crowd is right, it will get harder and harder to find those cherries. We will see how irrational you are, by when you figure out that the "skeptics" were lying to you.

[boutons_deux]

Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?

This summer? the summer of 2012? Well, the Arctic has average amounts of ice hanging around.

Study finds thickest parts of Arctic ice cap melting faster

A new NASA study revealed that the oldest and thickest Arctic sea ice is disappearing at a faster rate than the younger and thinner ice at the edges of the Arctic Ocean's floating ice cap.

http://phys.org/news/2012-02-thickes...ap-faster.html

When the conservatives sheepfully take one side in a scientific question, rest assured it's NOT ABOUT THE SCIENCE.

[Wild Cobra]

(shrugs)



You also said that the oceans are a net sink for CO2.

So if it isn't coming out of the oceans, but rather going into them, and mankind isn't adding but a small portion of the added CO2 that we have seen in the last 100 years or so,

where is it coming from?

My God.

How hard is this to understand?

*IF* the ocean was not heating, it would absorb arounf 98% of the lecvels we output. Since the oceans are warming, the levels for balance have changed. Therefore they are not absorbing as much. The balance between the ocean and atmosphere may have changed from like 98:2 to maybe 97:3, in round numbers.

Don't you see the ramifications? If we added nothing, the ocean would be a net source, to achieve the balance. Since we are outputting CO2, both the atmosphere are increasing, but strive to achieve what ever the new balance is.

[TeyshaBlue]

Everytime you use the phrase "My God" (which is alot), I hear it in William Shatner/James Kirk voice. Please, for my (relative) sanity, stop it.

[Wild Cobra]

Everytime you use the phrase "My God" (which is alot), I hear it in William Shatner/James Kirk voice. Please, for my (relative) sanity, stop it.

Shouldn't it be McCoy's?

"My God Jim... I'm not a..."

[TeyshaBlue]

[RandomGuy]

My God.

How hard is this to understand?

*IF* the ocean was not heating, it would absorb arounf 98% of the lecvels we output. Since the oceans are warming, the levels for balance have changed. Therefore they are not absorbing as much. The balance between the ocean and atmosphere may have changed from like 98:2 to maybe 97:3, in round numbers.

Don't you see the ramifications? If we added nothing, the ocean would be a net source, to achieve the balance. Since we are outputting CO2, both the atmosphere are increasing, but strive to achieve what ever the new balance is.

So, we are adding more than 10ppm to the overall concentration then, and your earlier statement is in error.

I believe mankind has only contributed at most, an added 10 ppm to the atmosphere.

What I see here, is circular reasoning. When I have time to flesh that out, I will.

A beer to anyone in San Antonio who can see the circular reasoning and get to it first.

[Wild Cobra]

So, we are adding more than 10ppm to the overall concentration then, and your earlier statement is in error.

Not under the conditions I laid out.

I'm saying our "net" addition to the atmospheric content is probably about 10ppm. When we added to the atmosphere, the balance needed between the ocean and the atmosphere required that the ocean becomes a net sink. That in the end, our part is probably around 10 ppm even though we added about double the increase we see in the atmosphere. I'm saying that due to ocean warming, the CO2 in the atmosphere would have increased if we never had industry anyway. I'm saying it would have increased to about 10 ppm less than we see today, because without our atmospheric sourcing, the ocean would have become a net source rather than net sink.

[RandomGuy]

Not under the conditions I laid out.

I'm saying our "net" addition to the atmospheric content is probably about 10ppm. When we added to the atmosphere, the balance needed between the ocean and the atmosphere required that the ocean becomes a net sink. That in the end, our part is probably around 10 ppm even though we added about double the increase we see in the atmosphere. I'm saying that due to ocean warming, the CO2 in the atmosphere would have increased if we never had industry anyway. I'm saying it would have increased to about 10 ppm less than we see today, because without our atmospheric sourcing, the ocean would have become a net source rather than net sink.

um, ok.

Humans are not emitting enough CO2 to appreciably raise atmospheric concentrations.

Atmospheric concentrations are rising, so it must be coming from the warming oceans.

Since it is coming from the oceans, the oceans must be absorbing our extra emissions.

Therefore humans are not emitting enough CO2 to appreciably raise atmospheric concentrations.

Does that about sum it up?

[MannyIsGod]

This graphic shows the CO2 concentrations over the past 1 million years or so as derived from an ice core from Antarctica. There are bubbles trapped in the ice that capture the atmosphere at the time those bubbles were enclosed by the ice which allows us to find out with good accuracy what the CO2 concentrations were. These results have been reproduced via other proxies but the ice core recorders are the best.

In any event, you can see that CO2 concentrations have oscillated between 290 and 190 PPM fairly cyclically due to the glacial - interglacial cycles which are driven by Milkanovitch orbital cycles.

Today's concentration is 395 PPM which is far above the peaks in the previous cycles. Over a 100 ppm difference that was never experienced in the past 1 million years even though ocean temps have been warmer during that time. Direct observations show that the ocean is still gaining CO2 as well.

Also, the X axis of that graph is time but it is time on a very large interval. In other words, the CO2 in the atmosphere changed very slowly in the past when it rose. It fell relatively quickly when compared to the rise but those drop are still far slower than the rise we have seen in the past 100+ years (especially the past half century).

If someone wants to come up with a theory that gain we have seen in atmospheric CO2 concentrations is not due to human emissions they must explain several things in relation to the record:

1. How an ocean that is still taking up CO2 today would not be taking it up if humans were not emitting CO2
2. The timescale difference - Why is this increase so fast?
3. Why did CO2 concentrations not rise in the past 1 million years to levels we have seen today?

Someone who could come up with a theory that did answered those questions without violating any other chemical or physical property of the natural world would likely be in a position to shake up the earth sciences quite a bit.

[MannyIsGod]

Dupe.

[RandomGuy]

Things can be much more difficult for one side without being impossible,

A Climatology Conspiracy? (David H. Douglass, Ph.D. Professor of Physics; John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science)

Circling the Bandwagons: My Adventures Correcting the IPCC (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics)

The Double Standard in Environmental Science (PDF) (Stanley W. Trimble, Ph.D. Professor of Geography)


"If you think that Saiers [GRL Editor] is in the greenhouse skeptics camp ...we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." - Tom Wigley, Former Director, Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

"I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board..." - Michael Mann, Lead Author, IPCC (2001)

"I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" - Phil Jones, Director, Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

When the balance of evidence is against a theory, that is what one might expect.

You don't see a lot of credible scientists getting very far with ID, either.

If the "no harm" theory really explains observed phenomenon better, it will win out in the end, despite the pseudoscientists supporting this theory. As CO2 concentrations continue their climb, and the body of knowledge ac ulates, the ultimate effects will become clearer, either way.