Criticism of Climate Change theory

Politics and religion.

Moderator: JasonNC

User avatar
AJ Research Dept
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:14 am
PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:05 pm
Heli wrote:I don't know who'll be next, but I have no doubt that the US will be dead last, kicking and screaming.


As far as I know, the USA never joined Kyoto, so that's good.
Quote
User avatar
AJ Research Dept
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:14 am
PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:12 pm


I'll pick away at these when I have time. With Christmas and work and stuff, it'll take some doing. Still, by sampling some of the headlines, I already see that a lot of these have been countered as soon as they appeared in media.

The big problem with debating climate science is that it's a ridiculous game of flawed logic, reduced to citing different magical authority institutions. When experts examine these institutions and their data -- if they're lucky as to get their raw data -- they often find the data and methodology to be flawed/incomplete. Perhaps even totally fabricated.

The UN's data comes from 4 main sources. University of East Anglia (leaked email land) was one of the 4. Unfortunately "all" their original raw data was curiously "lost." Oh darn, what a fluke.
Quote

Snarky!
Posts: 13692
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:01 pm
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:34 am
Dorm wrote:
Heli wrote:I don't know who'll be next, but I have no doubt that the US will be dead last, kicking and screaming.


As far as I know, the USA never joined Kyoto, so that's good.


D'oh; that's right. How could I forget Bush being berated for not joining?
Quote

Snarky!
Posts: 13692
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:01 pm
PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 9:13 am
Dorm wrote:Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper just torpedoed the internationalist carbon cult!


Russia says "way to go:"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... o-protocol
Quote
User avatar
AJ Research Dept
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:14 am
PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 3:01 pm
Like I said, I'll do this in quick episodes. I'll post the links that have made me look at the global warming alarmism with a critical eye.

We are bombarded with doom and gloom simplistic media stories that say the following: Human industrial activity and even the existence of humans and their domesticated animals are rapidly increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. We are told CO2 is a dangerous 'greenhouse' gas that traps heat and thus warms the atmosphere. The heat can't dissipate, therefore we're in for nothing less than a doomsday countdown to frying the planet and melting all the ice.

Is any of this true according to facts? We are told the evidence is abundant and solid, but is it really?
Quote
User avatar
AJ Research Dept
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:14 am
PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 3:09 pm
1) New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
By James Taylor | Forbes – Wed, Jul 27, 2011
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-ga ... 34971.html

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much").


CO2 is nothing, in terms of a greenhouse gas, compared to water vapour! More on that later. But should we be scared of water vapour, the real culprit!?

However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.



The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.


So even if you think CO2 is a deadly greenhouse gas, which it isn't, the heat caused by all our supposed dangerous CO2-ing is generally dissipating anyway.
Quote
User avatar
AJ Research Dept
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:14 am
PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 3:54 pm
2) The Ice Core Samples speak -- Warming First, CO2 rise later

Summary of Actual Science Paper:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5613/1728

The Alarmists had to go into full blown defense mode when the truth about the ice core samples finally got out. Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" had little hard science in it beyond studies regarding the ice core samples taken from Greenland and Antarctica. Gore said that, according to the data over hundreds of thousands of years, a rise in global CO2 equated to a corresponding rise in global air temperature.

But the truth is more complex. When warming occurs, obviously ice ages slowly reverse and we go into "interglacial periods" like the one we are in today. No one is quite sure why the warming starts. But one thing is proven by the ice core samples: the warming comes first, then up to 800 years later, the carbon dioxide rises.

So there's a proven carbon "lag". Heat eventually liberates carbon dioxide from the Earth. But alarmists downplay that, and say the CO2 coming out compounds the heating, and causes a positive feedback loop. Basically that's speculation, right or wrong. But the proof is undeniable. Heat first, then carbon.
Quote
User avatar
AJ Research Dept
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:14 am
PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 4:02 pm
3) More on the Ice Core Samples

Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations

Summary of Actual Science Report (emphasis is mine):
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/283/5 ... 2.abstract

Air trapped in bubbles in polar ice cores constitutes an archive for the reconstruction of the global carbon cycle and the relation between greenhouse gases and climate in the past. High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during glaciations; the size of this phase lag is probably connected to the duration of the preceding warm period, which controls the change in land ice coverage and the buildup of the terrestrial biosphere.


Okay, based on the ice core data, this paper says heat rise first, CO2 rise later -- 400 to 600 yrs later. Last I checked, the Industrial Revolution started less than 200 yrs ago. And it really didn't get major and widespread until 100 years ago.

More importantly, the data says that CO2 can be "high" even though temperatures "strongly" plunge. If CO2 is the greenhouse bogeyman of climate, and it's high, wouldn't the planet remain warm? The answer: CO2 is NOT the be-all end-all of climatology.
Quote
User avatar
AJ Research Dept
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:14 am
PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 4:45 pm
4) Warmest Period ever in a million years?

Alarmists compete to publish the most sensational papers to ram through their warming theories. For instance, this one published in 2006:
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14288

It claims we've had over 25 years of solid global warming since 1980, with an avg rise of 0.2C in temperature per year. Next, the paper "suggests" that we're living in a period warmer than any other in the last million years!

Even if any of this is remotely accurate, any stats college student would be able to dissect the data and discover that only a few years of those 25 yrs were warmer than normal. For instance 1998, 2001, and 2005 were quite warm. Therefore, these infrequent bursts of warmth affect the overall average. For most of those 25 years, it really wasn't that noticeably warmer than normal.

Next point, warming has recorded cycles:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... -here.html
However, according to Prof Latif and his colleagues, this in turn relates to much longer-term shifts – what are known as the Pacific and Atlantic ‘multi-decadal oscillations’ (MDOs).

For Europe, the crucial factor here is the temperature of the water in the middle of the North Atlantic, now several degrees below its average when the world was still warming.

But the effects are not confined to the Northern Hemisphere. Prof Anastasios Tsonis, head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group, has recently shown that these MDOs move together in a synchronised way across the globe, abruptly flipping the world’s climate from a ‘warm mode’ to a ‘cold mode’ and back again in 20 to 30-year cycles.

'They amount to massive rearrangements in the dominant patterns of the weather,’ he said yesterday, ‘and their shifts explain all the major changes in world temperatures during the 20th and 21st Centuries.

'We have such a change now and can therefore expect 20 or 30 years of cooler temperatures.’

Prof Tsonis said that the period from 1915 to 1940 saw a strong warm mode, reflected in rising temperatures.

But from 1940 until the late Seventies, the last MDO cold-mode era, the world cooled, despite the fact that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere continued to rise.

Many of the consequences of the recent warm mode were also observed 90 years ago.
Quote
User avatar
AJ Research Dept
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:14 am
PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 5:07 pm
5) Proof that we're not living in the Warmest period ever

Alarmists have gone crazy saying that 1998 was hottest year ever recorded. They also claim that 2001, 2005, 2007, etc. were all unnaturally hot -- far hotter than normal.

This is false and the warmists have been forced to update their claims.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... -meltdown/
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383
http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/08/a-ne ... e-us-open/
http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stor ... 5546&EDATE
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... year-1934/

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as recordbreaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.

The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the U.S. global warming propaganda machine could be huge.


Critics say that because the stats only pertain to the USA, they are irrelevant. The USA is a massive country that is more than capable of acting as an excellent thermometer for the planet.

It was warmer in 1921 than it was in 2006. Fact. It was warmer in 1934 than 1998. Fact.
Quote
PreviousNext

Return to It matters!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron