Climate Change (nee Global Warming) Strkes Again!!

by slipnslidemaster 108 Replies latest jw friends

BurnTheShips

Zombie Myth 1 - It's the sun whats doing it.
Your chart references TSI. Total Solar Irradiance. This incorporates light (not just visible) emissions only, and not magnetic activity. Henrik Svensmark has done important work linking the 11 year solar cycle to climate. The solar cycle has a large effect on the sun's magnetic field, which in turn affects how much cosmic ray radiation strikes the planet. This in turn affects cloud cover, because the ionizing radiation creates condensation nuclei for water vapor. Incidentally, global temperatures lag solar activity by about 10 years. The oceans are a big heat sink.
Where is the evidence for your claim.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
And so on.
BTS
besty

Moving swiftly on in the dance between the carcasses of never dying junk to Zombie Denier Myth 5 - Its cosmic rays what are doing it to us!
Answer - no its not.
Evidence - Kriova and Solanki 2003 and in pictures:
Lockwood 2007 concluded "the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."
besty

The National Geographic article you posted all but laughs hysterically at the contrarian claims made by Abdussamatov.
"Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.
He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars."
Did you even tread the article BTS - if you did I'm surprised you posted the link.
Do you share his views on the denial of CO2 as playing the major role in earth's climate?
slipnslidemaster

besty, where are these people getting their temperature readings for those graphs?
It seems to me that all temperature collections, readings and studies are called into question now because of the pollution of the assholes in East Anglia.
I feel that all needs to be redone, reproven or unpolluted by an unbiased study.
SixofNine

.NONE of the Earth's natural geologic processes takes 160 years. They are all measure in epochs, eras and ages! What am I missing?,
Indeed, what are you missing?
Here you admit that you realize that the global changes you seem so flippant and cavalier about only occur "naturally" over epochs, eras, and ages. But you want to now accelerate those changes in a wild, unsound, untested experiment the likes of which planet earth has never seen - on a population number the earth has never even been close to in the past, and do this experiment on our childrens future? What am I missing?
besty

the 1st graph has the temperature anomaly source printed on it - GISS - you can read from their website the details of where GISS get their data from
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
the second graph Kriova and Solanki 2003 uses CRU temperature data - you would have to have opened the link and waded through 6 pages to find that out :-) serious stuff this....
To your point that all temperature data needs to be redone because of Climategate I respectfully disagree for the following reasons:
1 - No evidence has been forthcoming that CRU temperature data has been manipulated to fit an agenda
2 - The other temperature datasets correlate strongly with the CRU data, including data from satellites, radiosondes, ships and buoys
3 - The mass of empirical evidence that confirms the temperature data
4 - If there is a dirty little secret in the climate science community it is the well known fact that CRU actually underestimates global mean temperature. The Met Office in the UK have issued a new independent analysis of the CRU data with input from many other data sources that confirms this architectural underestimation - in other words the world is actually warmer than the CRU have been telling us. Which kinda blows Climategate away from a scientific point of view - the Independent Review will address the data and the science ethics etc in the next few months.
I thought this snippet from skepticalscience.com might be helpful to you:
"Cognitive dissonance is the uncomfortable feeling you get when confronted with two contradictory ideas. For example, how can one be skeptical about man-made global warming when there is so much empirical evidence? Climategate has provided a way for some to resolve this issue - simply discredit all the evidence for global warming. By focusing on suggestive quotes from a handful of emails by a small number of climate scientists, it allows one to write off the entire field of climate science as a vast conspiracy. This line of reasoning allows Senator James Inhofe to conclude "This whole idea of global warming, I'm glad that's over. It's gone. It's done. We won. You lost. Get a life!"...
Climategate narrowly focuses on the behaviour of a handful of scientists and suggestive inferences about a few pieces of climate data. Somehow this allows skeptics to ignore the entire body of scientific evidence, meticulously accumulated by scientists all over the world."
aniron

Personally this is what I read and hear about climate change.
1) I can watch a program or read about the Earth, geology, formation of valleys etc
Some geologist is going about how 10,000 yrears ago, the glaciers of the last ice age carved these valleys etc.
Then they slip in "We are now only just coming to the end of that Ice Age."
So are they saying the ice caps melting is just the end of an Ice Age?
2) I watch a program like "Life" or "Blue Planet" by David Attenborough.
He goes on about this animal, fish, plant has evolved.
Then he will say something along the lines of "tens of thousands of years ago the Earth was one vast greenhouse."
Does that mean that with £global warming" just going back to our original world?
3) Again I read that 3% of CO2 per year is by mankinds industries and fuel consumption.
Yet one volcano giving just a minor eruption puts tens times that much out.
Are we going to plug the volcanoes?
4) Again I read that 3% CO2 per year is by mankinds industries and fuel consumption.
But 16% is caused by deforestation, turning peatland and wetlands, over to agriculture or for building on.
So lets cut down on food production and homes to save 16%.
5) As stated above 90% of greenhouse gas is WATER VAPOUR. So stop boling water, lets all switch to cold drinks.
Stop the sun evaporating the oceans and rivers.
You know what that last one reminds me of.
When a JW the Watchtower teaches that when Jehovah created the Earth he put a "water canopy" around it.
Which kept Earth at a greenhouse temprature. So the whole Earth was fertile with no deserts etc.
Later on this was one of the sources for the waters of Noahs Flood.
Maybe God is just replacing the canopy?
So I get scientists telling me we are causing "global warming",
just like in the 1970's we were told by "scientists" that by now we were heading for an Ice Age.
Then what I get is that in off hand comments by other scientists,
in which I get told in a sort of roundabout way that "global warming" is a "natural event".
From what I hear from people I meet and know.
They are becoming very cynical about the whole thing.
They see politics is using it for their own ends.
They are beginning to see "global warming" being used to increase or introduce more forms of taxation.

I'm just waiting for it to be announced that its all a conspiracy by the "New World Order" ; "Freemasons"; Illuminati"; "Jews" etc etc.
Of have they all ready?
besty

Moving swiftly on to Zombie Denier Myth 6 - It is/isn't the volcanoes what are doing it to us.
Answer - No its not.
Evidence - Volcanoes emit around 0.3 Gigatonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 26.4 Gigatonnes per year.
Keep up keep up - here come another one....
Zombie Denier Myth 7 - its water vapor thats doing it...
Answer - classic half truth. Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. This positive feedback is why climate is so sensitive to CO2 warming.A warming planet causes more evaporation, more evaporation = more water vapor, which causes more heat retention and therefore more evaporation....
Next up ......surely not....deforestation is a good idea?
But 16% is caused by deforestation, turning peatland and wetlands, over to agriculture or for building on.
So lets cut down on food production and homes to save 16%.
This appears to be an attempted variant of Zombie Denier Myth 4 - 'Our' CO2 is proportionately insignificant compared to natural CO2, so it's not our fault.
See top of this page for answer.
Next we have Zombie Denier Myth 8 - it was hot before and we had high CO2 before and it was all good.
Answer - total rubbish
"To claim that "higher CO2 in the past disproves CO2 warming" is essentially a straw man argument. If climate scientists were claiming CO2 is the only driver of climate, then yes, high CO2 during glacial periods would be problematic. But any climate scientist will tell you CO2 is not the only driver of climate. Climatologist Dana Royer says it best: "the geologic record contains a treasure trove of 'alternative Earths' that allow scientists to study how the various components of the Earth system respond to a range of climatic forcings." Past periods of higher CO2 do not contradict the notion that CO2 warms global temperatures. On the contrary, they confirm the close coupling between CO2 and climate."
Now for a classic that everyone knows and loves - Zombie Denier Myth 9 - The scientists told us in the 1970's we were heading for an ice age.
Answer - no they didn't - and in pictures:
So in fact, the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than climate science predicting cooling, the opposite is the case. Most interesting about Peterson's paper is not the debunking of an already well debunked skeptic argument but a succinct history of climate science over the 20th century, describing how scientists from different fields gradually pieced together their diverse findings into a more unified picture of how climate operates.
Read the Connelly Petersen Fleck paper for yourself to see an analysis of the science from the 1970's. Only 13 pages. http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
And finishing with an old favorite - Zombie Denier Myth 10 - Its all natural.
Answer - No its not. Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate's sensitivity to CO2.
besty

I'm just waiting for it to be announced that its all a conspiracy by the "New World Order" ; "Freemasons"; Illuminati"; "Jews" etc etc. Of have they all ready?
Yes if you hang on a moment our in-house Club of Rome representative Ninja will be along shortly to describe the global conspiracy to end the human race with global warming as the pretext.
By all accounts They have screwed up the Copenhagen Conference - not a very well organized conspiracy it seems.....
chapstick

There truly is a simple answer to this whole scenerio ........ $$$$$
chapstick

Climate Change (nee Global Warming) Strkes Again!!

Share this