Global warming?

This forum is for discussions on the noteworthy events, people, places, and circumstances of both the past and the present (note: pop culture etc... is on the back porch).
User avatar
Vonz90
Posts: 4731
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:05 pm

Global warming?

Post by Vonz90 »

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... -fraud.php

I would not quite call global warming a fraud per se. The science behind the idea that (all else being equal) increasing the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere will result in marginally higher temperatures is actually fairly solid. The problem for the alarmists is that the science also supports it beings rather modest and not particularly dangerous, the assumptions which get you to danger land are rather dubious. In the latest parlance that would make me a "luke warmist" but whatever.

The most obvious problem with the alarmists is that they have to pretend that we are already kind if hot fir the threat of a couple of degrees to be sinister. Actually it would just out us back towards the regular recent comments average (recent being the last few thousand years ).
User avatar
slowpoke
Posts: 1231
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 4:09 pm

Re: Global warming?

Post by slowpoke »

Vonz90 wrote:http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... -fraud.php

I would not quite call global warming a fraud per se. The science behind the idea that (all else being equal) increasing the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere will result in marginally higher temperatures is actually fairly solid. The problem for the alarmists is that the science also supports it beings rather modest and not particularly dangerous, the assumptions which get you to danger land are rather dubious. In the latest parlance that would make me a "luke warmist" but whatever.

The most obvious problem with the alarmists is that they have to pretend that we are already kind if hot fir the threat of a couple of degrees to be sinister. Actually it would just out us back towards the regular recent comments average (recent being the last few thousand years ).
No its pure fraud. The earth absorbes so much of the radistion from the sun in the CO2 absorption band that it is already in a saturation mode, there is no amplification effect in saturation mode.
Further everytime they talk about drought due to global warming. Pure fraud and lies, higher temperatures lead to increased evaporation and rain. Climactically the earths cooling caused the desertification of north africa.
"Islam delenda est" Aesop
User avatar
Vonz90
Posts: 4731
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:05 pm

Re: Global warming?

Post by Vonz90 »

slowpoke wrote:
Vonz90 wrote:http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... -fraud.php

I would not quite call global warming a fraud per se. The science behind the idea that (all else being equal) increasing the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere will result in marginally higher temperatures is actually fairly solid. The problem for the alarmists is that the science also supports it beings rather modest and not particularly dangerous, the assumptions which get you to danger land are rather dubious. In the latest parlance that would make me a "luke warmist" but whatever.

The most obvious problem with the alarmists is that they have to pretend that we are already kind if hot for the threat of a couple of degrees to be sinister. Actually it would just out us back towards the regular recent comments average (recent being the last few thousand years ).
No its pure fraud. The earth absorbes so much of the radistion from the sun in the CO2 absorption band that it is already in a saturation mode, there is no amplification effect in saturation mode.
Further everytime they talk about drought due to global warming. Pure fraud and lies, higher temperatures lead to increased evaporation and rain. Climactically the earths cooling caused the desertification of north africa.
Well yes, there is a lot of fraud involved with it (NYC was supposed to be underwater in 2015 per Al Gore).

However, all else being equal, extra CO2 will make the net emissivity higher, which will make the Earth warmer. Saturation does not really apply in this context because emissivity can never get to the theoretical extreme on either side.

The problem is that it CO2 is such minor factor in emissivity, so even doubling it (or tripling it) does not make that much difference. The means the alarmist use to get to the alarming number is to assume that their is positive feedback from higher water vapor concentrations (H20 is the largest factor in the green house effect by far). This is real to a certain extent, but counteracted by higher water vapor causing more clouds (the largest negative emissivity factor) - so they assume that the higher heat/concentration of CO2 will result in less clouds and also be a positive factor. Again, this is plausible to an extant, except it has been proven to not actually be happening.

So it is a real effect, it just isn't significant. The fraud is in pretending* that a third order factor in a system is actually driving said system. There is just a ton of evidence that this is BS. Actually the first and most obvious evidence is that CO2 concentrations used to be much higher than they are now, and yet a full range of climate (including both warmer and colder than today) occurred. So now we have climate scientists denying what used to be common knowledge about past climate ranges. To me that is the most bizarre part of this whole thing.

* I say pretending, but a lot of them actually believe it.
Last edited by Vonz90 on Wed Jun 07, 2017 3:02 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
blackeagle603
Posts: 9770
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:13 am

Re: Global warming?

Post by blackeagle603 »

Conveniently ignoring the record of CO2 as a effect following warming rather than leading it helps the hyperventilating exaggerators as well.

And pay no mind to first order effect like Solar Activity. Or second order effects like large scale volcanic happenings. A projected return toward the Maunder Minimum and the looming likely of a Yellowstone Caldera eruption are not a convenient truths.
"The Guncounter: More fun than a barrel of tattooed knife-fighting chain-smoking monkey butlers with drinking problems and excessive gambling debts!"

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic;" Justice Story
User avatar
Rich
Posts: 2592
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:11 pm

Re: Global warming?

Post by Rich »

slowpoke wrote:Climactically the earths cooling caused the desertification of north africa.
Don't forget the goat.
A weak government usually remains a servant of citizens, while a strong government usually becomes the master of its subjects.
- paraphrased from several sources

A choice, not an echo. - Goldwater campaign, 1964
User avatar
Darrell
Posts: 6586
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 11:12 pm

Re: Global warming?

Post by Darrell »

blackeagle603 wrote:Conveniently ignoring the record of CO2 as a effect following warming rather than leading it helps the hyperventilating exaggerators as well.

And pay no mind to first order effect like Solar Activity. Or second order effects like large scale volcanic happenings. A projected return toward the Maunder Minimum and the looming likely of a Yellowstone Caldera eruption are not a convenient truths.
Yes, and yes--CO2 is a following indicator, not a leading one. And solar activity is at a hundred year low--solar data says we may be entering a mini ice age, if anything.

Besides all that, "global warming" is out, "climate change" is in. That way, if shit gets cold instead of hot, the alarmists still get to have their cake and eat it too.
Eppur si muove--Galileo
User avatar
slowpoke
Posts: 1231
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 4:09 pm

Re: Global warming?

Post by slowpoke »

Rich wrote:
slowpoke wrote:Climactically the earths cooling caused the desertification of north africa.
Don't forget the goat.
Goat has nothing to do with it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_pump_theory
"Islam delenda est" Aesop
User avatar
Jericho941
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 8:30 am

Re: Global warming?

Post by Jericho941 »

Darrell wrote:
blackeagle603 wrote:Conveniently ignoring the record of CO2 as a effect following warming rather than leading it helps the hyperventilating exaggerators as well.

And pay no mind to first order effect like Solar Activity. Or second order effects like large scale volcanic happenings. A projected return toward the Maunder Minimum and the looming likely of a Yellowstone Caldera eruption are not a convenient truths.
Yes, and yes--CO2 is a following indicator, not a leading one. And solar activity is at a hundred year low--solar data says we may be entering a mini ice age, if anything.

Besides all that, "global warming" is out, "climate change" is in. That way, if shit gets cold instead of hot, the alarmists still get to have their cake and eat it too.
Sort of. It means you account for outliers so December political comics that say "haha global warming is fake because it's currently cold outside" stay dumb
User avatar
D5CAV
Posts: 2428
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:48 am

Re: Global warming?

Post by D5CAV »

The whole CO2 thing is a canard by the overlords to get those of low IQ (and those who fail at STEM*) to buy into more control by their masters.

If I recall correctly, the story, as told to me by my grandmother, was about a certain low IQ individual named "Chicken Little" who thought up something like "Global Warming". A clever minion of the overlord, "Foxy Loxy" ran with the concept to convince other low IQ members of society to seek "protection" from the overlord, "Lion King", in the overlord's place of protection, his cave. The story ends with the low IQ members of society serving the overlord with some of the scraps left for the minion.

* Speaking of STEM, this is a true story: On a recent trip to San Francisco for business, I got an invitation to a wine tasting party. I think there might have been one other person who had actually handled a gun at the party, so I made sure I kept my teeth tightly together whenever that topic came up. Everyone at the party was certainly not low IQ. All were lawyers, bankers, marketing execs, etc. Most had advanced degrees from Ivy league schools, but not many STEM grads.

Anyway, I'm talking with a senior exec from Tesla. He was an Ivy league grad with an Ivy league law degree. He was whining about Trump and the recent pullout from Paris Climate meeting. I try to be diplomatic, so I ask him to explain the mechanism by which a trace gas in the atmosphere (0.04% or about 400 parts per million), can affect the climate. He immediately gets a shocked look and says "So you're a climate change denier!"

I had visions of the scene from Monty Python, "She's a witch - burn her!", so I quickly backed off and said "no, I'm not denying there might be change in the climate, I'm just questioning the hypothesis that CO2 is the culprit."

I provided another hypothesis that the sun was the first order contributor to the earth's climate, and water vapor (about 1% to 5% of atmosphere depending on whether you live in the Mohave desert or Houston) was the second order contributor. I was unsure of the effect of CO2, but was willing to give him benefit of the doubt that CO2 could be a third order effect, even though it was a minor trace gas.

He continued to insist that the effect of CO2 was "proven science", so I asked him to give me another example in nature, or even in a hypothetical differential equation, where a third order function overcame a first order function.

Blank stare.

About this time a girl who I know is another Ivy league grad with an Ivy league MBA sits down next to me (I'm bigger and better looking than the Tesla exec), and wants to know what we're discussing. I give her the thumbnail: He says CO2 is the cause of climate change, I say the sun is the cause of climate change, and asked her what she thought was the cause of climate change.

She thinks for a minute and says "I saw a TV program once that said an asteroid hit the earth millions of years ago, and the moon was pushed out from the earth when that happened. I think our changes in climate are after effects from that." I stared at her speechless while the gears in my brain are grinding trying to comprehend the world-view that could lead to that statement.

After about 30 seconds, I give up. I turn to the Tesla exec and say "Well, I guess we have our answer!" I drain what's left in my wine glass and get up to find a refill.

Sometimes I worry about our future.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Greg
Posts: 8486
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:15 pm

Re: Global warming?

Post by Greg »

Vonz90 wrote:http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... -fraud.php

I would not quite call global warming a fraud per se. The science behind the idea that (all else being equal) increasing the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere will result in marginally higher temperatures is actually fairly solid. The problem for the alarmists is that the science also supports it beings rather modest and not particularly dangerous, the assumptions which get you to danger land are rather dubious. In the latest parlance that would make me a "luke warmist" but whatever.

The most obvious problem with the alarmists is that they have to pretend that we are already kind if hot fir the threat of a couple of degrees to be sinister. Actually it would just out us back towards the regular recent comments average (recent being the last few thousand years ).
It's fraud.

Yes, the basic idea looks plausible, to a small extent. It's how they run with it that shows the fraud.

Their climate models are retarded, fundamentally. The alarmism all seems to be based on slightly higher CO2 levels leading to positively reinforcing self-amplifying temperature increase. Nothing works like that, or the Earth would already be lifeless.

Every time their models are tested, they fail, currently or retrospectively. As in, when fed known historical conditions, the models don't output anything like known historical results.

They ignore other influences on climate, like solar activity (as mentioned). ISTR (I'd have to dig) research bent on studying surface temperatures on other planets, like Mars, and referencing them against solar activity and temperature on Earth, was downplayed or suppressed.

They ignore or seek to suppress knowledge of historical conditions that invalidate their theories. Which is creepy as all hell, and seems to go beyond mere fraud, to Orwellian. (Had to reread, yes that was you who first pointed that out, cool.)

After all that, the shenanigans they have played and continue to play, with our actual recorded temperature data, seems almost trivial. But by itself it's enough to show that these people are scammers not scientists. Scientists don't hide, alter or destroy data.
Maybe we're just jaded, but your villainy is not particularly impressive. -Ennesby

If you know what you're doing, you're not learning anything. -Unknown
Sanity is the process by which you continually adjust your beliefs so they are predictively sound. -esr
Post Reply