Is global warming even real?

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Ilikeponies579, Dec 16, 2014.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,273
    That guy you posted before,

    - the one who proved the Maunder Minimum never existed

    he's no longer operational?

    Half the stuff you've been posting contradicts the other half. Is that what you mean by no absolutes - no evidence of anything in particular? Everything contradicted by everything else and we agree to know nothing?

    Sure. Although the reference to relativity theory is a symptom of whack status, and the similarity is obviously distant, it's pretty well accepted that there is an upper bound to greenhouse heating via the gases at issue so far. So?

    That's almost irrelevant, unless he can show the upper bound is within some range of interest for human civilization - which he can't - or that the inability to run away to infinity means the warming rate cannot be accelerated by positive feedback over a temperature range of great significance to human life on this planet, which it doesn't.

    And so forth. As always: what is the argument?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,273
    Damn, I wish I had saved a link to the page on this forum where I predicted this - every couple of years the sewage fountain emits another one of these lists of scientists supposedly in conflict with AGW. What is this, the sixth or seventh? And every single frigging time their target audience of amnesiacs takes up the list and waves it around like it's a work of great significance and proves something, and somebody has to wade through the damn thing and toss out the garbage and lies and misrepresentations and misappropriations and invalid attributions and quotes taken out of context and paid shills and dishonest credentials and it takes too long - I did it once, here, paid my dues, I'm not doing it any more.
     
    Schneibster and zgmc like this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,485
    Perspective matters!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. zgmc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    759
    It's probably pointless anyway. I looked up one of them. Maybe he is a physicist? But his last job was assistant professor of philosophy. Now he works for heartland institute, and bases his denial on the work of a guy who couldn't hack it at NASA.
     
    Schneibster likes this.
  8. zgmc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    759
    You have the proper perspective I presume?
     
  9. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,485
    One down
    49 to go
    don't stop now
     
  10. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,485
    that's momentary

    the goal is objectivity
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,273
    Mine is of someone who actually went through a couple of those lists, and paid my dues, and did not forget the lesson learned.

    It's full of shit. So were the last half dozen. Furthermore, it is impossible that such a list can have been compiled by accident or in ignorance. Find your source, note it for future reference, and cease spamming science forums with anything from that source. It has proven itself a worthless purveyor of the lowest of unethical and cynically exploitative propaganda, and the penalty should be banishment.
     
    Schneibster and zgmc like this.
  12. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    If you had any integrity you would examine the names on the list critically, not clasp it to your bosom as vindication of your distorted beliefs. A cursory glance at two or three of them reveals that iceaura's characterisation of them is likely sound. And even if the list was valid - shock horror! Fifty individuals don't agree with thousands of their peers. Who would have thunk it?
     
    Schneibster likes this.
  13. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,485
    No one who was/is in the agw camp would compose such an anti ipcc list.
    I had thought that so obvious as to not be worthy of mention.

    Meanwhile zgmc has a problem with one of them = 2% objectionable= 98% are ok?
    and Ophiolite has a problem with another 2 or 3 of them = 4%-6% objectionable = 94% to 96% are ok?

    meanwhile, let us consider:
    13. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen:The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”

    Just how much do you trust(or distrust) this guy? Is/was he lying? Is/was he accurate in that assessment?
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2016
  14. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,485
    The question at hand is roughly: Do opposing viewpoints enrich the science?
    My answer would be an obvious "YES".
    Yours?
     
  15. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Once again you are either being deliberately obtuse, or ....... I stated that a cursory glance at 2 or 3 had the same kind of problem noted for the one that was analysed. That's 100% of the instances examined. It does not mean that 94% or 96% are OK. That only works if you are trying to delude yourself or others.
     
  16. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,485
    "cursory glance"
    hmm......................
    Does that represent a different branch of science:
    Wherein cursory glances set the tone and nature of the discipline?

    Is that the best I should expect from you?

    .............................................
    meanwhile, let us consider "Unrest on the sun - storms on the Earth. The magnetic connection" by Friis-Christensen
    Who in opposition to a video stated:
    "Do not exclude"
    yes--------------broaden that out to the entirety of the sciences.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2016
  17. zgmc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    759
    Let's have a link to where you found that statement.
     
  18. zgmc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    759
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,273
    Yet another link that conflicts with earlier links, yet another rabbit hole to chase the bunny down. I suppose if it's only going to take a few seconds:
    The "Gish Gallop" was named for a creationist, but it's not patented - anyone can employ it. Why would they?
     
    Schneibster likes this.
  20. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,485
    copy and paste and search the heading:
    Voici 50 citations d’experts qui ont travaillé pour le GIEC. Le GIEC utilise des experts pour reviser leur documents, mais souvent ingnorent les recommandations de ces experts quand ça ne correspond pas à ce qu’ils veulent entendre.

    or
    here's a shortcut:
    https://crioux.wordpress.com/2015/08/19/citations-dexperts-du-giec/

    Most likely a reprint -----? Of a reprint? of a reprint?
    Your: http://m.climaterealists.com/?id=8355 is also most likely a reprint?

    as/re:
    What statement?
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,273
    Wingnut spam cannot be converted into high class posting by translating it into French.

    post 1116 involved a retraction by one of those 50, btw.

    Here's the info on another of them, chosen at random from the first dozen or so, who informs us that ocean acidification is not a problem from the CO2 boost: http://www.oceanassoc.com/Bio_Dr_John_T_Everett_Resume_All/_resumeJohn_T_Everett2012.pdf

    No comment.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2016
    Schneibster likes this.
  22. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,485
    Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen wrote: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”
    see post 1091
    "out the other end pops agw and only agw"

    When science gets in bed with politics, they create bastard children.

    Unless, of course Eigil Friis-Christensen is wrong.
    Is he?
     
  23. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Well all I can say is that if you search for "Solar Forcing" among the IPCC publications you get 787 results. This was the first one I picked:

    The estimates of long-term solar irradiance changes used in the TAR (e.g., Hoyt and Schatten, 1993; Lean et al., 1995) have been revised downwards, based on new studies indicating that bright solar faculae likely contributed a smaller irradiance increase since the Maunder Minimum than was originally suggested by the range of brightness in Sun-like stars (Hall and Lockwood, 2004; M. Wang et al., 2005). However, empirical results since the TAR have strengthened the evidence for solar forcing of climate change by identifying detectable tropospheric changes associated with solar variability, including during the solar cycle (Section 9.2; van Loon and Shea, 2000; Douglass and Clader, 2002; Gleisner and Thejll, 2003; Haigh, 2003; Stott et al., 2003; Whiteet al., 2003; Coughlin and Tung, 2004; Labitzke, 2004; Crooks and Gray, 2005). The most likely mechanism is considered to be some combination of direct forcing by changes in total solar irradiance, and indirect effects of ultraviolet (UV) radiation on the stratosphere. Least certain, and under ongoing debate as discussed in the TAR, are indirect effects induced by galactic cosmic rays (e.g., Marsh and Svensmark, 2000a,b; Kristjánsson et al., 2002; Sun and Bradley, 2002)

    Here is a portion of result 70ish.

    TS.2.4 Radiative Forcing Due to Solar Activity and Volcanic Eruptions
    >
    Continuous monitoring of total solar irradiance now covers the last 28 years. The data show a well-established 11-year cycle in irradiance that varies by 0.08% from solar cycle minima to maxima, with no significant long-term trend. New data have more accurately quantified changes in solar spectral fluxes over a broad range of wavelengths in association with changing solar activity. Improved calibrations using high-quality overlapping measurements have also contributed to a better understanding. Current understanding of solar physics and the known sources of irradiance variability suggest comparable irradiance levels during the past two solar cycles, including at solar minima. The primary known cause of contemporary irradiance variability is the presence on the Sun’s disk of sunspots (compact, dark features where radiation is locally depleted) and faculae (extended bright features where radiation is locally enhanced). {2.7}

    The estimated direct radiative forcing due to changes in the solar output since 1750 is +0.12 [+0.06 to +0.3] W m–2, which is less than half of the estimate given in the TAR, with a low level of scientific understanding. The reduced radiative forcing estimate comes from a re-evaluation of the long-term change in solar irradiance since 1610 (the Maunder Minimum) based upon: a new reconstruction using a model of solar magnetic flux variations that does not invoke geomagnetic, cosmogenic or stellar proxies; improved understanding of recent solar variations and their relationship to physical processes; and re-evaluation of the variations of Sun-like stars. While this leads to an elevation in the level of scientific understanding from very low in the TAR to low in this assessment, uncertainties remain large because of the lack of direct observations and incomplete understanding of solar variability mechanisms over long time scales. {2.7, 6.6}



    Given that they devote so much attention to sun's effect on climate it looks as if the good doctor may be overstating the case. When you've worked your way through the other 785 items perhaps you can report back.
     
    Schneibster likes this.

Share This Page