Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910
Results 226 to 233 of 233
Like Tree16Likes

Thread: The Great Global Warming Swindle

  1. #226
    BobRussell is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    2

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by BobRussell View Post
    baylee i've took some time to read up on this crowd sourcing study.

    You complained about the errors and the data collection points. I hope you understand that these are largely accounted for and that they are looking more at the change in temperature over time.

    Eg if one data point is showing a +1 degree over the actual temperature than a few degree change over the years is still going to show the same increase as the errors cancel each other out.

    A climate deinale group claimed that several stations were in error due to heat islands or other items.

    Scientists inturn removed those stations and produced the graph again. The change in temperature was almost the exact same.



    Also the study was designed to check random factors, and a wide range of variables to see what the results would cause. Eg. what would happen if they increased the solar panels output, or on set of data was wrong. etc.



    As to equal scrutiny. I couldn't agree more.
    Sadly that is not the case. Climate denile groups feel that misquoting/lying about studies and people. , ignoring a hundred years of scientific principals, and insinuating massive world wide conspiracies is acceptable practice.
    Afterall just look at ED.... No one in this forum had to do indepth review to prove ED wrong. We just checked his sources. It's the same with most denier cliams.

    Meanwhile climate deniers will jump all over the declare everything false if they find one typo, one wrong source, or a hair out of place on anything. I once saw the heartland institute try to dismiss climate change over the difference of 0.01m. Ignoring the other 0.99m.

    In short I think there should be equal scrutiny. However, the scientists that are being held to an almost impossible standard while the deniers have little to no standards at all.

    There should be strict laws to check rising earth temperature.. Green ways of generating energy must be implemented all around the world along with cutting down of fossil fuel usage
    Anybody else using solar panels for energy generation.

  2. #227
    Beacon is offline Antiauthoritarian skeptic
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Is Eireannach mise
    Posts
    1,234

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by BobRussell View Post
    Anybody else using solar panels for energy generation.
    I use them to recharge batteries. On another note I am going to critique myself here. The problem with the "global warming is a conspiracy" element is that they are fairly much linked to the neoconservative or libertarian elements in the US and as such linked to specific political and economic and in some cases moral theories. But there is a valid case to critique climate modelling as it is based on just that "models" . Yes as I have pointed out one can use indirect methods to estimate temperatures centuries ago but that isnt a direct measurement.
    Even using direct measurement there is a difficulty in standardisation and management on an international basis but I would think there is a strong argument that the readings made are both valid and reliable. But they in turn are inputted into models. and human beings put values on what is considered "standard"

    For example when that famous volcano in Iceland blew ( not caused by gobal warming AFAIK) ALL air craft ere grounded. So ther was no direct measurement of the dust from the couds just models of it. When I say no measurement I mean taken daily at several altitudes etc. This might have been done by baloon but im not aware it was . Most probably this was because such projects require budgets and preparation neither of which was available or given any priority.
    Im not saying no dust was there nor am I saying no heating up exists. IIR four Swedish military SaaB jets did fly from Iceland through the dust cloud and two were badly damaged and nearly crashed due to dust in the engines.
    Anyway after a week or so the estimates of parts per million was still too high for aviation so the "authorities" increased the "standard" by a factor of a THOUSAND e.g. it want from say 7 parts per million to 7,000 parts being the minimum!
    All this goes to show that science doesnt really know wher the "tipping point" is.
    I ll also say there is a strong correlation between production of human made CO2 and warming but correlations isnt causality.

    I recently read Superfreakonomics and I recall some other good critique ther . Illget back on that.

  3. #228
    Spector567 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    52

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by Beacon View Post
    I use them to recharge batteries. On another note I am going to critique myself here. The problem with the "global warming is a conspiracy" element is that they are fairly much linked to the neoconservative or libertarian elements in the US and as such linked to specific political and economic and in some cases moral theories. But there is a valid case to critique climate modelling as it is based on just that "models" . Yes as I have pointed out one can use indirect methods to estimate temperatures centuries ago but that isnt a direct measurement.
    Even using direct measurement there is a difficulty in standardisation and management on an international basis but I would think there is a strong argument that the readings made are both valid and reliable. But they in turn are inputted into models. and human beings put values on what is considered "standard"

    For example when that famous volcano in Iceland blew ( not caused by gobal warming AFAIK) ALL air craft ere grounded. So ther was no direct measurement of the dust from the couds just models of it. When I say no measurement I mean taken daily at several altitudes etc. This might have been done by baloon but im not aware it was . Most probably this was because such projects require budgets and preparation neither of which was available or given any priority.
    Im not saying no dust was there nor am I saying no heating up exists. IIR four Swedish military SaaB jets did fly from Iceland through the dust cloud and two were badly damaged and nearly crashed due to dust in the engines.
    Anyway after a week or so the estimates of parts per million was still too high for aviation so the "authorities" increased the "standard" by a factor of a THOUSAND e.g. it want from say 7 parts per million to 7,000 parts being the minimum!
    All this goes to show that science doesnt really know wher the "tipping point" is.
    I ll also say there is a strong correlation between production of human made CO2 and warming but correlations isnt causality.

    I recently read Superfreakonomics and I recall some other good critique ther . Illget back on that.
    Beacon you know the reasoning is more robust than that. =)

    The atmospheric elevation heat pattern as well as the hot nights show that the cause is atmospheric green house gas vs any external factor.

    As well the atmospheric isotopes in Co2 show that the vast majority of new Co2 in the atmosphere is the result of combustion as opposed to of gassing or volcanic sources.

    Correlation isn't causation but this isn't merely correlation the conclusions are based on much much more than that.


    The models merely predict the level and rate of effect. While this is an important thing to know when considering risk factors it doesn't change the fact that the recent global temperature increase is man made green house gas.

    Just like it doesn't matter if Volcanic ash creates dangerous conditions at 7ppm or 7,000ppm. The reality is that volcanic ash does do damage to planes.

    The only thing that has changed is your level of risk.


    So while it is within the realm of possibility that global warming will stall out indefinably, that it will create a paradise jungle world or Aliens will land and begin singing the YMCA. so while we would all love to see this happen, these are just possibilities.


    I once read that as human beings we judge someones fitness based on there ability to predict the future. There ability to use the best available information they have available and plan for the likely outcomes based upon there risk and reward. You do this in your personal life and in your professional life. We make choices based upon the best available information.

    Currently the best available information says that human affects are causing the warming of our planet and we must take steps to slow or reduce this in order to avoid a wide variety of negative consequences.

  4. #229
    Beacon is offline Antiauthoritarian skeptic
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Is Eireannach mise
    Posts
    1,234

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by Spector567 View Post
    Beacon you know the reasoning is more robust than that. =)

    The atmospheric elevation heat pattern as well as the hot nights show that the cause is atmospheric green house gas vs any external factor.
    Dont think i argued that it wasnt. I just pointed out that the actual levels do require more measurement and exactly wher the tippping point is nobody knows. thst isnt to say we arent approaching a tipping point or should not reduce our human caused output.
    But Ill draw a parallel. Tonight I say a TV show about surrogate mothers. In India woman are paid $5000 (about ten years wages) to have babies. this is about 20% of what the "parents" pay ( $25,000). the point made was about this being an exploitation of women. But another way of looking at it is you are giving the ten years wages. If you really want to stop exploiting Indian young women than why dont you invest in theor country and pay them better? Similar arguments can be made about prostution. In fact the Freakonomics guy shows how feminism and womens rights directly caused the lowering of standards in education by lowering the standards of primary teaching because the teachers - almost all womes- went on to better jobs.


    As well the atmospheric isotopes in Co2 show that the vast majority of new Co2 in the atmosphere is the result of combustion as opposed to of gassing or volcanic sources.
    ?
    Okay how much of this is power plants how much cars and how much forest fires?
    Correlation isn't causation but this isn't merely correlation the conclusions are based on much much more than that.
    Ill accept gasses are of huam origin but how much and what percentage and at what level will irreversable warming occur?
    The models merely predict the level and rate of effect. While this is an important thing to know when considering risk factors it doesn't change the fact that the recent global temperature increase is man made green house gas.
    Yes - see mu last comment. Is ther an acceptable level of road traffic deaths if not we should ban all motor cars.
    Givren you wont ban all fossil fuels what do you think is acceptable?

    Just like it doesn't matter if Volcanic ash creates dangerous conditions at 7ppm or 7,000ppm. The reality is that volcanic ash does do damage to planes.
    Yes but you ban all flights and have no damage at all. similarly you can ban cigarettes and alcohol. So given you wont ban petrol and gas and cows how are you going to stop CO2 production?
    The only thing that has changed is your level of risk.
    Yes. so what is an unacceptable level of CO2 producion and how will you stop it increasing beyond that?
    So while it is within the realm of possibility that global warming will stall out indefinably, that it will create a paradise jungle world or Aliens will land and begin singing the YMCA. so while we would all love to see this happen, these are just possibilities.
    My personal view is that humans are possibly creating a huge problem. But it isnt only in global warming. But as Im not going t suggest genocide I dont have any ready solution to over consumption and over population
    I once read that as human beings we judge someones fitness based on there ability to predict the future. There ability to use the best available information they have available and plan for the likely outcomes based upon there risk and reward. You do this in your personal life and in your professional life. We make choices based upon the best available information.
    In the modern world people only care about THEIR welfare and not about things outside themselves and maybe their family country etc. How do you change that?
    Currently the best available information says that human affects are causing the warming of our planet and we must take steps to slow or reduce this in order to avoid a wide variety of negative consequences.
    Exactly what consequences will occur ar exactly what levels of CO2? And what steps can we take?

  5. #230
    Beacon is offline Antiauthoritarian skeptic
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Is Eireannach mise
    Posts
    1,234

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    From the horses mouth Freakonomics » Global Warming in SuperFreakonomics: The Anatomy of a Smear
    We discuss how it’s a very hard problem to solve since pollution is an externality – that is, the people who generate pollution generally don’t pay the cost of their actions and therefore don’t have strong incentives to pollute less. We discuss how even the most sophisticated climate models are limited in their ability to predict the future, and we discuss the large measure of uncertainty in this realm, given that global climate is such a complex and dynamic system. We discuss some of the commonly held misperceptions about climate and energy, including the fact that the historic relationship between global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide is more complicated than is generally thought.

    The real purpose of the chapter is figuring out how to cool the Earth if indeed it becomes catastrophically warmer. (That is the “global cooling” in our subtitle. If someone interprets our brief mention of the global-cooling scare of the 1970′s as an assertion of “a scientific consensus that the planet was cooling,” that feels like a willful misreading.) To think we are “deniers,” would obviate the chapter’s central point: if we weren’t convinced that global warming was worth worrying about, we wouldn’t have written a chapter about proposed solutions.

  6. #231
    Beacon is offline Antiauthoritarian skeptic
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Is Eireannach mise
    Posts
    1,234

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Some clarifications. the title of this thread (and the arguments introduced) are based on a Channel 4 (UK) Documentary from March 2007 of the same name.
    The Great Global Warming Swindle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmund129 View Post
    The Documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" clearly proves the mass fraud and deception of "Man Made Global Warming" is dressed up as science, but is actually propoganda. --- Dr. Riener (Former member of the IPCC).



    1) All the Proxie Measured data clearly shows the Temperature rising first and CO2 rises 800 years to 4000 years later.
    Edmund is fairly correct here.

    HERE IS THE MODEL:
    Temperature leads CO2 levels. something (periodic) causes temperature to rise e.g. a "wobble "
    in the Earths axis. Temperature has a slow effect of CO2 and a while later Co2 begins to rise. Then CO2 which has a much greater effect on temperature causes temperature to rise and this continues until temperature starts to fall ( due to the change in orbit or "wobble" or whatever astronomical reason. then the temperature FALL has a slight effect on CO2 but Co2 is still rising. A while later CO2 begins to flatten and eventually fall and that has a greater effect on temperature and the two begin to drop until Temperature eventually begins to increase again.

    They are like two sine waves one behind the other with CO2 having a slight lag.

    I would think the lag is closer to 100 and not 800 years.

    So if Edmund is correct there is no Global Warming?
    Most scientists agree to all of the above and that Co2 lags temperature in a natural cycle but It has nothing to do with "global warming".

    "Global warming" or "climate change" is about changes OUTSIDE OF this natural cycle. Specifically changes caused by human activity interfering with the accepted natural cycle of warming and cooling. That point is not usually made clear.

    Climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Let us look at the rest of Edmunds original points
    2) We are told that it is warmer than it has ever been in 640,000 years, yet the Midieval warm period 1000 years ago was 1.5 degrees warmer than now.
    I disagree but let us assume it is true. So what? Global warming does not say the Earth has never been hotter than now just that human interference with a natural cycle is causing it to be hotter than it should be if that cycle was left alone.

    3) The Holocene Maximum was 6 to 8 degrees warmer than now, and was like that for 7,000 years. Yet the Polar bears didn't go extinct.
    Again we have argued that this isn't true either but again so what if it is true? The problem is that we know for a fact that Temperature rise causes CO2 increase and CO2 causes even bigger temperature rises. Eventually something else like a "wobble" in the Earths Axis causes Temperature to drop and this affects CO" by slowing the increase and eventually CO2 begins to stop and drop which in turn makes Tempoerature drop even faster.

    So assume we are in a cycle (like a sine wave~or two one following right behind the other ) either mid way up or midway down. If we add additional CO2 we will slow the cooling or increase the warming depending of whether we are on the down slide or upswing. We wont see the immediate effects until the cycle begins to turn back up or back down but it is easy to model . The eventual effect is that the average of the whole cycle will have moved up in temperature!
    the answer to so what is The temperature might even be lower than a prior maximum ever before and may even be going down if we are on the downward slope of the cycle BUT:

    A: The peaks will eventually be higher and the troughs will be higher and the average will be higher.

    B: Maybe the whole system could break down but at the very least the average temperature will be higher.

    That's one of the problems the maybe might only just change most of the agriculture or it might WIPE US OUT!
    Okay so maybe it wont cause the total destruction of life on earth or even the extinction of mankind. Maybe it might only cause the US to become a desert and majority Muslim countries in the Middle East China and Russia to become exceedingly fertile but that would suddenly become important because it is a political concern and not just a mathematical model. The point is we just don't know what destroying the current natural cycle WHICH WE ALREADY ACCEPT GOES UP AND DOWN might do.

    4) The previous interglacial warm period about 100,000 years was many 10's of degrees warmer than the Holocene Maximum and it was like that for 36,000 years. And yet the Polar bears didn't go extinct then; any more than now. (See Warm Period # 4)
    Again not true but suppose it is true. We also don't believe that launching all the nukes in the world will destroy all life on Earth or even destroy all civilization or even extinct the Polar Bears but that isn't a good reason to keep building them so we can launch all of them at once is it?

    5) We are told that Man Made Global Warming will bring about global environmental destruction. Yet when anyone looks at these warm periods, it has brought about great wealth and prosperity for both humans and nature.
    Global Warming IS "Man Made Global Warming" ~ see above. We are not talking about the natural cycle of heating and cooling but about where mankind causes that cycle to change! No warm periods EVER in the past were "man made" with the possible exception of cutting down all the worlds forests in antiquity and the middle ages .

    So if we are changing the climate don't you think this should be a concern?

    Sahara Desert Was Once Lush and Populated | LiveScience
    Drought Conditions Worsen in Parts of U.S. | LiveScience
    Deserts Might Grow as Tropics Expand | LiveScience
    6) The greates greenhouse gas is Water Vapor, it is 270 times the greenhouse gas compared to CO2. H2O makes up 40,000ppm (4%) of the Earth's atmosphere. CO2 is only 380ppm (0.038%). And human contribution is less than 1ppm per year.
    It isn't the percentage by amount we should worry about it is the percentage of warming it causes!

    Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect; carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26%; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9%; and ozone (O3), which causes 3–7%.

    That means Non Water Vapour causes from 30% to 64% of the warming. If the Water is "natural" should we not be concerned about the majority contribution of non natural warming caused by people?

    concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since 1750.[75] These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 800,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores.


    And as one can easily see:

    1) Temperature is always rising first (see the rectangles of time blocks).
    Dealt with above
    Correct and so what?
    2) The 4 previous interglacial warm periods were all warmer than the current warm period (Holocene Maximum)
    Ditto
    3) Notice how the CO2 levels are rising near the end (now time) yet temperature is trending downward. Clearly proving that rising CO2 levels do not cause a rise in temprature.
    Wrong. when the peak is reached Temperature starts to drop but CO2 which lags this still increasing. eventually CO2 drops and causes temperature to drop more. This is well understood and accepted.
    See above. CO2 levels lag temperature and both go up and down in a natural cycle
    Global warming = interference by humans in this natural cycle.
    Last edited by Beacon; 02-13-2014 at 06:07 AM. Reason: typos

  7. #232
    Blue Wolf's Avatar
    Blue Wolf is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    282

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Last week, Live Science came out with this article about the West Antarctic Ice Sheet:

    Hidden Volcanoes Melt Antarctic Glaciers from Below

    But I think somebody like Edmund would prefer the article below, which came out a few days later from The Daily Caller (a politically conservative news and opinion website).

    Antarctic Glacier Melt Due To Volcanoes, Not Global Warming | The Daily Caller

    A new study by researchers at the University of Texas, Austin found that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is collapsing due to geothermal heat, not man-made global warming.

    Researchers from the UTA’s Institute for Geophysics found that the Thwaites Glacier in western Antarctica is being eroded by the ocean as well as geothermal heat from magma and subaerial volcanoes. Thwaites is considered a key glacier for understanding future sea level rise.

    UTA researchers used radar techniques to map water flows under ice sheets and estimate the rate of ice melt in the glacier. As it turns out, geothermal heat from magma and volcanoes under the glacier is much hotter and covers a much wider area than was previously thought.

  8. #233
    Blue Wolf's Avatar
    Blue Wolf is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    282

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    I suppose we're all going to have to start drinking more water from now on . . .

    From yahoo:

    Here’s Another Side Effect of Climate Change: Painful Kidney Stones

    Sun, 13 Jul 2014 14:15:48 PDT

    We know that climate change is bad. Because of warmer temps panicked polar bears stand on melting icebergs with nowhere to go, and the Statue of Liberty might not even survive for future generations to see. Now it’s getting personal: A new study links a warmer climate with a greater chance of developing kidney stones, an agonizing affliction.

    “We found that as daily temperatures rise, there is a rapid increase in probability of patients presenting over the next 20 days with kidney stones,” said author Gregory E. Tasian of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, according to CityLab.

    The researchers, who published their paper in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, examined 60,433 patients in Los Angeles, Atlanta, Chicago, and other U.S. cities. They concluded that experiencing more hot days—when temperatures hit 81 degrees or higher—could lead to an increased risk of growing a kidney stone.

    Though the exact relationship between temperature and kidney stones remains unclear, the researchers wrote that heat causes “water loss, urinary concentration, and low urine volume and pH”—all of which promote the accumulation of lithogenic minerals in urine.

    “Kidney stone prevalence has already been on the rise over the last 30 years, and we can expect this trend to continue, both in greater numbers and over a broader geographic area, as daily temperatures increase,” wrote Tasian. “With some experts predicting that extreme temperatures will become the norm in 30 years, children will bear the brunt of climate change.”

Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed on this website are solely those of their respective authors.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42