Inconvenient Truth for Gore as Arctic Ice Claims Don't Add Up

[rambone]

I think America should bow down to global government and let it dictate how long my house can be lit up and what temperature I can keep it at. It would be beneficial to our economy because we would have to hire so many "green-police" to crack down on all the law-breakers emitting CO2, that our unemployment would be sure to drop. And if that weren't enough, the earth would be saved from certain doom. YES WE CAN!

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

You made me blow soda through my nose!

Well that's what you get for drinking soda through your nose !

 

[trnsplntfrmohio]

I'm so sick of hearing both sides of the argument. The truth is that we are less than pond scum in the big picture. When the Earth wants us gone, we will be gone in a matter of months. It's just that simple.

 

[antsi]

to paraphrase: "I'll never marginalize differing views by calling them 'deniers'... I'll just call them communists."

very nice.

I didn't call them communists.

I simply pointed out a similarity between the argumentative style of "Soviet man" believers and the argumentative style of global warming believers.

I did not imply that the two groups are identical, or even that there is a single member of the group 'communists' who is also a member of the group 'global warming believers.' I merely pointed out that the two groups - the two distinct, different, non-identical groups - share a similar response to disagreement.

And my basic point, that the response to disagreement of global warming believers is entirely dissimilar to the scientific discourses I am experienced with, stands unrefuted.

And, PS, I wasn't even referring to communism, the poltical/economic ideology espoused by the Soviets. I was referring to the distortions of science under the soviet system. I didn't even use the word 'communist.' You seem to have a special sensitivity to this word for some reason.

 

[BloodEclipse]

I didn't call them communists.

I simply pointed out a similarity between the argumentative style of "Soviet man" believers and the argumentative style of global warming believers.

I did not imply that the two groups are identical, or even that there is a single member of the group 'communists' who is also a member of the group 'global warming believers.' I merely pointed out that the two groups - the two distinct, different, non-identical groups - share a similar response to disagreement.

And my basic point, that the response to disagreement of global warming believers is entirely dissimilar to the scientific discourses I am experienced with, stands unrefuted.

I'll call them communists for you. You have to ask what is the goal? Save the planet or control the populace?
All you who profess to believe in Rights and Liberty, are too easily taken in by this bogus cause. It is a tool to let you willingly surrender your freedoms. I'll find the proof later but most all the Environmental groups are run by Communists.

 

[bigus_D]

The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is likely attributable to human influence has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.

What scientific organization are YOU a member of that disputes climate change?

p.s. I understand Venn diagrams... apparently YOU don't... p.s. what a great burn!

 

[5.56'aholic]

i am still absolutely amazed by how many people can actually believe CO2 causes Warming on the scale the "scientific community" claims. I believe in simple conservation, but the current meeting of the greenies is a joke, so far from conservation it might as well be considered anti-humanity. To tell the truth, when I heard the poor countries were blocking the conference saying the U.S. should do more than they should have to, it told me all i needed to know about what this climate B.S. really is; stealing the wealth of America to redistribute it, just like we were all promised in the presidential election.

 

[bigus_D]

i am still absolutely amazed by how many people can actually believe CO2 causes Warming on the scale the "scientific community" claims.

WHY??? Do you have some scientific evidence to the contrary?

I believe in simple conservation, but the current meeting of the greenies is a joke, so far from conservation it might as well be considered anti-humanity. To tell the truth, when I heard the poor countries were blocking the conference saying the U.S. should do more than they should have to, it told me all i needed to know about what this climate B.S. really is; stealing the wealth of America to redistribute it, just like we were all promised in the presidential election.

I won't argue with you there.

 

[dburkhead]

What scientific organization are YOU a member of that disputes climate change?

Ah, yes, the old "science by consensus" argument. We've dealt with that already.

When "scientific organizations"--such as the Hadley Climate Research Institute--are caught in scientific fraud (and once you've shot the sheriff, it doesn't matter how many deputies you didn't shoot) then having political organizations that happen to have "science" in their name endorse something is next to meaningless.

You see, in science--real science, not politics masquerading as same--questions aren't settled by appeals to organizations but by reviewing the data. When someone gets 2000 or so signatures on a "statement" and calls that a "consensus" (even though the American Meteorological Society--to name just one--has five times as many active members as that, never mind the number of other fields that relate to climate, its causes, and its effects) they are not doing science, they are doing politics.

Take, for example, that time chart Gore made a big deal about in his infamous docu-fantasy. It shows two charts, one of temperature and the other of CO2 over time. And it is clearly seen that changes in temperature "follow" (in that they are more rightward) changes in CO2. Conclusive, wouldn't you say? Well, the problem is that the chart starts with the the present at the left and the past to the right. That means that temperature changes first and CO2 follows. If there's a causal relationship, it's that changes in temperature cause changes in CO2.

Likewise, in that same chart there's a line for "average" temperature. However, the chart is logarithmic in time so that the areas in the past are actually far longer than a similar space on the chart closer to the present. IOW, the more distant past is underrepresented compared to the more recent past in that chart.

Then there's Hansen's famed "Hockey Stick." I've looked at the actual data. Have you? If the graph is to be believed, the little ice age, the medieval warm period, and the late 19th century were all about the same temperature. So I guess those viking settlements that are just now being unearthed under hundreds of feet of ice don't really exist, and Leif must have just been confusing grapes with apples in naming Newfoundland "Vinland."

Then there's the simple fact that your post is another straw man. Nobody disputes that climate changes. What is disputed is:

- How much is the change?
- What is the cause of the change?
- What will the effects be of the change?
- How much influence can humans have on the change? (Note, for instance, that the most significant greenhouse gas by far is water vapor of which humans have very little, if any, effect)

Consider: Per current theories on stellar evolution, main sequence stars, like the sun, get gradually warmer over the millenia. The sun is now somewhere between 20 and 40% brighter than when life first evolved. That's enough to account for a difference (all other things being equal) to between 12 and 24 C mean temperature difference between then and now. We do not see such a temperature difference based on what we find in the geological record. Ask yourself why not.

In addition the sun is variable. The effect of changes in the sun--largely ignored by most climate models--is complex and not well understood. Consider: one of the things that changes over the sun's approximately (and variable) 11 year cycle is its magnetic field. When the sun is more active, it's magnetic field is stronger. This couples with the Earth's magnetic field to produce stronger van-Allen belts. And stronger van-Allen belts mean less cosmic rays reaching the upper atmosphere. One of the effects cosmic rays have is ionizing particles in the upper atmosphere forming nucleation sites for water condensation--high altitude clouds, altering the albedo of the Earth and amplifying the effect of increases and decreases in solar activity. I have yet to see a climate model that includes this effect.

Then there's the question of what other effects, aside from any "greenhouse properties" CO2 has. Well, in the Soviet space program, they did a lot of experimenting with closed and semi-closed cycle ecologies. One of the things they learned was that small changes in CO2 level lead to dramatic changes in plant growth rates. This information was borrowed by NASA in a technical paper on future space colonies. I had the advantage that the library at the college I attended was a repository library for the Federal Government and I read that paper. CO2 leads to increased plant growth (including aquatic plants such as plankton). I have yet to see a climate model that includes this effect.

One of the first classes I took was physical geology (didn't want to get stuck on physics without some grounding in the fields it affects). My instructor was someone who specialized in sedimentary processes, in particular carbonate processes. One of those processes is the direct precipitation of carbonates--using dissolved CO2 and various cations--in seawater. Driving factors include CO2 concentration (which follows atmospheric concentration) and temperature. I have yet to see a climate model that includes this effect.

One way to test a model is to compare the output with the real world--using data other than was used to create the model in the first place. For instance, if one builds a model based on 20th century data, one should be able to set the initial conditions equal to 1800 and be able to run the model and have it produce what we actually saw in the 19th century. I have yet to see a climate model for which this test has been done.

So, want to talk about the science--or rather the lack thereof--any more?

 

[dburkhead]

What scientific organization are YOU a member of that disputes climate change?

p.s. I understand Venn diagrams... apparently YOU don't... p.s. what a great burn!

Your confidence is not backed up by the content of your posts on this forum.

 

[dburkhead]

WHY??? Do you have some scientific evidence to the contrary?

Exactly backwards. It's up to those proposing the phenomenon--that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause for changes in climate that fall within the range of values we've already seen occurring naturally--to provide the evidence to back up their claim.

That whole "proving a negative" thing. For instance, I could claim that you are actually an invisible pink martian. Prove that wrong.

 

[bigus_D]

Ah, yes, the old "science by consensus" argument. We've dealt with that already.

When "scientific organizations"--such as the Hadley Climate Research Institute--are caught in scientific fraud (and once you've shot the sheriff, it doesn't matter how many deputies you didn't shoot) then having political organizations that happen to have "science" in their name endorse something is next to meaningless.

You see, in science--real science, not politics masquerading as same--questions aren't settled by appeals to organizations but by reviewing the data. When someone gets 2000 or so signatures on a "statement" and calls that a "consensus" (even though the American Meteorological Society--to name just one--has five times as many active members as that, never mind the number of other fields that relate to climate, its causes, and its effects) they are not doing science, they are doing politics.

Take, for example, that time chart Gore made a big deal about in his infamous docu-fantasy. It shows two charts, one of temperature and the other of CO2 over time. And it is clearly seen that changes in temperature "follow" (in that they are more rightward) changes in CO2. Conclusive, wouldn't you say? Well, the problem is that the chart starts with the the present at the left and the past to the right. That means that temperature changes first and CO2 follows. If there's a causal relationship, it's that changes in temperature cause changes in CO2.

Likewise, in that same chart there's a line for "average" temperature. However, the chart is logarithmic in time so that the areas in the past are actually far longer than a similar space on the chart closer to the present. IOW, the more distant past is underrepresented compared to the more recent past in that chart.

Then there's Hansen's famed "Hockey Stick." I've looked at the actual data. Have you? If the graph is to be believed, the little ice age, the medieval warm period, and the late 19th century were all about the same temperature. So I guess those viking settlements that are just now being unearthed under hundreds of feet of ice don't really exist, and Leif must have just been confusing grapes with apples in naming Newfoundland "Vinland."

Then there's the simple fact that your post is another straw man. Nobody disputes that climate changes. What is disputed is:

- How much is the change?
- What is the cause of the change?
- What will the effects be of the change?
- How much influence can humans have on the change? (Note, for instance, that the most significant greenhouse gas by far is water vapor of which humans have very little, if any, effect)

Consider: Per current theories on stellar evolution, main sequence stars, like the sun, get gradually warmer over the millenia. The sun is now somewhere between 20 and 40% brighter than when life first evolved. That's enough to account for a difference (all other things being equal) to between 12 and 24 C mean temperature difference between then and now. We do not see such a temperature difference based on what we find in the geological record. Ask yourself why not.

In addition the sun is variable. The effect of changes in the sun--largely ignored by most climate models--is complex and not well understood. Consider: one of the things that changes over the sun's approximately (and variable) 11 year cycle is its magnetic field. When the sun is more active, it's magnetic field is stronger. This couples with the Earth's magnetic field to produce stronger van-Allen belts. And stronger van-Allen belts mean less cosmic rays reaching the upper atmosphere. One of the effects cosmic rays have is ionizing particles in the upper atmosphere forming nucleation sites for water condensation--high altitude clouds, altering the albedo of the Earth and amplifying the effect of increases and decreases in solar activity. I have yet to see a climate model that includes this effect.

Then there's the question of what other effects, aside from any "greenhouse properties" CO2 has. Well, in the Soviet space program, they did a lot of experimenting with closed and semi-closed cycle ecologies. One of the things they learned was that small changes in CO2 level lead to dramatic changes in plant growth rates. This information was borrowed by NASA in a technical paper on future space colonies. I had the advantage that the library at the college I attended was a repository library for the Federal Government and I read that paper. CO2 leads to increased plant growth (including aquatic plants such as plankton). I have yet to see a climate model that includes this effect.

One of the first classes I took was physical geology (didn't want to get stuck on physics without some grounding in the fields it affects). My instructor was someone who specialized in sedimentary processes, in particular carbonate processes. One of those processes is the direct precipitation of carbonates--using dissolved CO2 and various cations--in seawater. Driving factors include CO2 concentration (which follows atmospheric concentration) and temperature. I have yet to see a climate model that includes this effect.

One way to test a model is to compare the output with the real world--using data other than was used to create the model in the first place. For instance, if one builds a model based on 20th century data, one should be able to set the initial conditions equal to 1800 and be able to run the model and have it produce what we actually saw in the 19th century. I have yet to see a climate model for which this test has been done.

So, want to talk about the science--or rather the lack thereof--any more?

So, you disagree with all of the actual scientific organizations in the world... unless my small brain simply doesn't understand the big words your huge brain spews about...

Oh... did you happen to mention a credible scientific source for your rant? nope? At least we agree on that.

Cheers.

 

[dburkhead]

So, you disagree with all of the actual scientific organizations in the world... unless my small brain simply doesn't understand the big words your huge brain spews about...

Argument ad populem
Argument ad hominem

Those are the logical fallacies in which you just engaged, BTW.

Oh... did you happen to mention a credible scientific source for your rant? nope? At least we agree on that.

Cheers.

So you've got nothing and can't actually deal with the content? Thought not.

 

[SavageEagle]

*throws popcorn at the two kids fighting*

Are you guys done yet? I'm trying to watch the icecaps melt.

 

[printcraft]

There was a consensus of scientific opinion at another time in the past as well......

*throws popcorn at the two kids fighting*

Are you guys done yet? I'm trying to watch the icecaps melt.

Hey, chip me some off - my beer need chillin'

 

[bigus_D]

Argument ad populem
Argument ad hominem

Those are the logical fallacies in which you just engaged, BTW.

So you've got nothing and can't actually deal with the content? Thought not.

Yep... your big words are too much for me. I don't understand.

So... you DO disagree with all of the scientific organization of the world (not a single one of which agree with your rant about climate change)? I thought my question was pretty simple, yet you failed to address it in any way...

You're right, I've got nothing (except every single scientific organization in the world) backing me up... in that much, you "sir" are correct. Sure, "Argument ad populem" me all you want. But I'm actually not trying to "argue" the facts about climate change. I'm simply stating facts.

I suppose all of your ranting above is supported by your own credible scientific works... Where are those published? I'd love to do a peer review!

p.s. To help support your case, I thought I'd point you to another 'denier' article. A work was released entitled "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares". Please note, however, that nearly 10% of the supposed scientists included as co-authors didn't know of their inclusion on the document and disagreed with its contents. Maybe you should have tried to get included!

p.s.s. You fail due to Argument ad repetidium!

Note: The whole "the world is flat" bit was more of a cultural/religious issue... when science finally came along with empirical evidence to the contrary, it was the church that couldn't reconcile with it... not science. I'm sure dburkhead can provide some dead Latin to better illustrate this point.

 

[dburkhead]

Yep... your big words are too much for me. I don't understand.

This much you have correct.

So... you DO disagree with all of the scientific organization of the world (not a single one of which agree with your rant about climate change)? I thought my question was pretty simply, yet you failed to address it in any way...

I did address it. You just didn't like the answer.

You're right, I've got nothing (except every single scientific organization in the world) backing me up... in that much, you "sir" are correct. Sure, "Argument ad populem" me all you want. But I'm actually not trying to "argue" the facts about climate change. I'm simply stating facts.

Feldspar is a mineral found in both basaltic and granitic rocks.
Calcium Carbonate crystals exhibit birefringence.
Raman scattering is a large part of why the sky is blue.
2+2=4.

There. I've stated some facts too--about as relevant to a discussion on climate change, the causes, mechanisms, and likely effects as your "facts."

I suppose all of your ranting above is supported by your own credible scientific works... Where are those published? I'd love to do a peer review!

Ah, I get it. You only want peer reviewed results. But the "peers" to do the review are those who are believers in AGW. So only articles that are reviewed and passed as acceptable by "believers" are to be admitted.

And you still can't deal with content. I strongly suspect that if you could deal with any of the content you would.

p.s. To help support your case, I thought I'd point you to another 'denier' article. A work was released entitled "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares". Please note, however, that nearly 10% of the supposed scientists included as co-authors didn't know of their inclusion on the document and disagreed with its contents. Maybe you should have tried to get included!

Funny. I see exactly that on the pro-AGW side as well.

p.s.s. You fail due to Argument ad repetidium!

More commonly called "proof by repeated assertion." Yes, you do that a lot too.

(Hint, putting a sort-of-latin-sounding ending on an English word does not make it one of the classic fallacies. The ones I cited were and I gave their actual names.)

 

[dburkhead]

Note: The whole "the world is flat" bit was more of a cultural/religious issue... when science finally came along with empirical evidence to the contrary, it was the church that couldn't reconcile with it... not science. I'm sure dburkhead can provide some dead Latin to better illustrate this point.

A far better example than "The Earth is Flat" is Lysenkoism. The similarities are truly remarkable.

 

[hornadylnl]

When the solution for global warming includes something other than draining my wallet and fattening algore and other tin pot dictators wallets, I might start believing.

I also find it funny that consensus is good for science but not religion and culture.

 

[SavageEagle]

Hey, chip me some off - my beer need chillin'