Climate Change denial vs History

Proof positive that the variation in the temperature of the oceans has reduced the solubility of CO2, thus releasing the gas into the atmosphere. The inconvenient truth plots of temperature and CO2 concentration over 800,000 years show conclusively that the CO2 concentrations follow the temperature. Since I will post a bonus plot of the Vostok CH4 concentrations, I am also providing a plot of the solubility of CH4 as a function of temperature:


Note below that the concentrations of CO2 and CH4 follow the temperature, that the temperature has remained at a relatively high almost constant level allowing the CO2 and CH4 concentrations to approach equilibrium.



Science is a wondrous thing. Thanks for bringing up the Vostok cores.

 

You illustrate my point. Deniers rely on only one of two arguments. Those who deny that science itself works. And those who claim there is a world-wide conspiracy of scientists to push Global Warming. You obviously fall in the second group. I'm not sure which group is more irrational. The first might be a respectable position if held by somebody who acts consistently with their belief and doesn't believe or use anything that is based on scientific principals (medicine, airplanes, ... the Internet). The second position (yours) has no redeeming qualities.

 

There is no worldwide conspiracy. The UN IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific organization. Most UN members are small countries who think they can shake down the industrial world to the tune of Billions of $$'s if only they can prove that all of their ills are caused by the likes of the US, the UK, Germany, etc. The gatekeepers for all of the Climate Journals are funded by the IPCC. They determine what gets published and what isn't published. So, when these same clowns measure the degree of consensus of the world's scientists by determining the percent of the abstracts in the literature that conclude man is responsible for Climate Change and when they come up with 97%, they are not calculating the consensus, but their own bias in accepting papers. Peer review in that crowd, as was determined by the conspiracy uncovered in Climategate, is a circle jerk. A handful of insiders review eachother's papers and call it peer review when it is really bedfellow review.

Dr. Chris Landsea is a perfect example. As the world's foremost expert in Cyclones, he concluded that Climate Change has little or no effect on the frequency or intensity of Hurricanes. Citing his work, an IPCC insider concluded just the opposite. When Landsea objected, he was blackballed from the Climate Change fraternity.

Science is not a religion. There is no such thing as an Climate Change infidel or denier. Using either of those terms expose you for what you are: a religious fanatic.

 

By smart people I mean those like Elon Musk. Those building the next generation of green tech to prevent us from destroying the planet. I have no love of the fossil fuel energy and I'm sorry my post came off that way.

 

That's not a legit complaint as ALL data has to have various corrections applied.

As it turns out, earth doesn't have a hole to stick a thermometer into for some specified number of minutes.

 

Nothing like geniuses running the power grid ,,, like these geniuses who didn't know that neither wind nor solar could be used as a base load

Last coal-fired power generator in South Australia switched off
By Giles Parkinson on 9 May 2016

The 520MW Northern brown coal power generator, the last coal-fired power station in South Australia, was switched off for the last time on Monday morning, setting the state on a new path to a decarbonised grid.

The facility in Port Augusta was switched off by its owner, Alinta Energy, ending more than 31 years of generation. Its smaller and older adjoining facility at Playford was switched off last year, due to falling wholesale power prices caused by the influx of renewable energy such as wind and solar.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/last-coal-fired-power-generator-in-south-australia-switched-off-88308/

Good thing Elon Musk is sharing some of his energy saving technology with the geniuses:

 

You say there is no world wide conspiracy.

Then, you argue for world wide conspiracies - plural!

 

No one denies that the climate changes. It always has.

 

However if we look at the empirical evidence we find a completely different story. The ice cores reveal that for the past 800,000 years the concentration of CO2 had not exceeded around 300ppm until the beginning of the industrial age. It now stands at a little over 400ppm. Thus the burning of fossil fuels accounts for one forth, 1/4th, or 25% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. If you don't think that CO2 plays a part in the temperature of the earth, how do you explain the fact that the earth doesn't cool off to -270 degrees like it does on the moon which has no CO2 or an atmosphere to contain CO2. Or, are you aware that there are something like 8,000,000,000,000,000,000 CO2 molecules per cubic meter?

 

A handful of hoaxters like this leader of the RICO20 doesn't a conspiracy make:
https://climateaudit.org/2015/09/28/shuklas-gold/
Just a hoax carried out by a handful of losers like Shukla, some who are gatekeepers for the Climate Journals. I don't blame Shukla --- he made 63 million double dipping dollars making you guys look like fools.

 

You claimed at least two conspiracies.

That isn't answered by a blog making claims about some single individual.

 

Some 20 individuals pushing to silence scientists with different research results using the power of the government.

There was always the Climategate scandal where results produced by Michael Mann as a grad student disagreed with the work of an established Climate Scientist, Briffa ---- so Briffa was pressured to "Hide the Decline"

The emails show that the late 20th century decline in the Briffa reconstruction was perceived by IPCC as “diluting the message”, that “everyone in the room at IPCC” thought that the Briffa decline was a “problem” and a “potential distraction/detraction”, that this was then the “most important issue” in chapter 2 of the IPCC report and that there was “pressure” on Briffa and other authors to show a “nice tidy story” of “unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more”. [Update Dec 11 – see note at bottom on the chronology. Comments from readers have clarified that the issue at the Arusha meeting was that the Briffa reconstruction “diluted the message” more through its overall inconsistency as opposed to the decline, which was still relatively attenuated in the Arusha version. After the Arusha meeting, Briffa hastily re-calculated his reconstruction sending a new version to Mann on Oct 5, 1999 and it was this hastily re-done version that introduced the very severe decline that was hidden in the First Order Draft and Jones WMO Report]
https://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/

The good news was that Penn St. vouched for Michael Mann --- just as they vouched for Jerry Sandusky.

Deleting results that didn't support the narrative was called the "science trick". Like another poster said --- just like Relativity, it's not science anymore --- it's settled. LOL. I wish I could tell my nuclear physics professor that his field has been invoked to describe why Climate Science is settled and no longer a science --- but he's long gone.

 

Somehow I am not impressed. Not the least is the fact that you seem to be unaware that climate science is physics. The flow of infrared radiation into and out of the CO2 molecule is well understood and can be demonstrated in a laboratory setting. There is nothing special about the atmosphere. On the atomic and subatomic level, it has exactly the same particle/energy interactions as there are everywhere else.

I'd be interested in seeing the physics that denies that fact that increases of CO2 in the atmosphere causes a warming of that atmosphere.

And let us not forget the true test of the validity of global warming. The fact that the earth is warming.

 

Okay, I'm calling your bluff. Show me the calculations.

 

The Climate Change Denial Dance

1. CO2 is not actually increasing.
2. Even if it is, the increase has no impact on the climate since there is no convincing evidence of warming.
3. Even if there is warming, it is due to natural causes.
4. Even if the warming cannot be explained by natural causes, the human impact is small, and the impact of continued greenhouse gas emissions will be minor.
5. Even if the current and future projected human effects on Earth's climate are not negligible, the changes are generally going to be good for us.
6. Whether or not the changes are going to be good for us, humans are very adept at adapting to changes; besides, it’s too late to do anything about it, and/or a technological fix is bound to come along when we really need it.[116]

 

When one looks into the demographics, of those who deny the role of the burning of fossil fuels in causing a rise in the Earth's surface temperatures, one finds that that deniers almost exclusively get their news from right wing or Christian news sources. Those same folks also tend to think that the economic crash at the end of lil' Bush's presidency was caused by, <name your Democrat> forcing banks to give mortgage loans to poor, dumb minorities. Global warming denial is just another example of how horribly ill-informed conservatives are.

 

Invariably those that believe the hype always dismiss those scientists with differing hypotheses as paid by big oil, another propaganda point with never any evidence. The same people are almost always on the left. Confirmation bias at work.

 

Climate changes and scientists don't understand its complexity.

The climate change alarmist handbook:

SETTLED SCIENCE the end.

So settled in fact, they can't model it effectively.

 

Unfortunately "scientists with differing hypotheses" account for about 3% of the scientific community and they ARE paid by the fossil fuel industry almost exclusively

 

Actually they can and they do and the models work

 

Sorry you still believe a falsehood but then those that believe the hype never venture beyond the hype.

 

Your confused on the variations of science. For there is theoretical science, and there is actual science. Knowing the difference is vital. For when one says science is always correct, is an admission as to they don't know what science is.

 

Actually there is one.



Also there is corroborating evidence form other sources. For instance, glaciers are shrinking, corral reefs are bleaching out, the ice sheets are thinning, migratory animal patterns are changing, plant cycles are changing - all in concert with additions of CO2 to the atmosphere and global warming.

 

It doesn't take a nuclear physicist to know that what we called a cross-section, the probability of aborption or scattering per cm (when dealing with neutrons anyway) in CO2 for short wavelength rays is much smaller than that of long wavelength radiation from the earth. At a molecular level, that's a given and leads to an assumption that there might be some greenhouse effect. That's doesn't mean that 400 ppm of CO2 will act like a transparent umbrella that lets energy in an blocks its escape.

The models that capture the 'settled science' are 1D. We're just coming out of a strong El Nino. Do you think that the phenomena involved in the convection of energy and moisture from the equatorial Pacific are 1D in nature? I don't. We can agree to disagree, but don't presume that Climate Science is by any stretch settled and don't call me an infidel or denier if I doubt you know enough to justify turning the lights off in South Australia to save the planet --- because you don't. One of the main reasons you don't is that warmunista's created enemies rather than collaborators. Too much at stake I guess -- like the $63 million Shukla --- the RICO guy made doing 'research'.

 

Have I mentioned that only those who get their information from right wing sources deny global warming? In light of this, are you not the one who so believes the hype that he cannot see beyond it?