rejection of climate change theory closely linked to conspiracy ideation

Groan. It's a denialist avalanche o' crap. Anyways, impressive how you get everything so totally wrong. Let's go down the list.

You show a graph a temps increasing, in a strong La Nina period that should have cooled temps, and declare it disproves warming.

You suppor the Svensmark theory, one disproved when clouds went the opposite way of what his theory predicted.

You pull out very obsolete data to declare the tropospheric models were wrong.

You make up some very bizarre stuff about ocean heat and Argo, so at odds with reality that I can't even begin to address it. With a nice blogger graph that is supposed to show something.

You declare Lindzon Choi 2009 is some gospel truth, even though almost the whole scientific community rejects it as very badly flawed.

You go off on a crazy rant about Hansen for no reason, then declare the Arctic can't get above freezing, even though much of the Arctic just got above freezing. That really calls your knowledge of physics into question, given how you declared the laws of physics prevent what just happened from happening.

Then, ignoring all the recent data of the big ice loss across Antarctica, you declare ... well, you declare victory about Antarctica. Why, I can't figure out.

Basically, you've given us obsolete data, bad data, made up data, bad science, bad logic and political rants, and declared it proves that AGW theory was wrong. Well done! I find is especially worthwhile to point out how much denialists rely on very obsolete data. Good data destroys their religion, so they have to ignore it and cling to the bad data.

 

People are pretty stupid when you think about where we choose to live. Thousands of people live within the blast zone of various volcanoes. Yellowstone Park is the crater of a super-volcano. We build cliff houses on eroding cliffs. How many millions are populating the east and west coasts of the USA which are subject to tsunamis and sea level rise? How many live in tornado alley? How many live in hurricane zones? My property is 10 miles from the San Andreas fault!

All of these natural events will take place given enough time. And they will have horrific and destructive consequences because we're stupid enough to place ourselves at risk. But I'm guessing 99% of the people in these tentative situations never give thought to their choices. They just go about life as if nothing can ever happen. And this is the same mental process regarding potential global climate change...

 

In my few years of posting on PF this is one of the dumbest posts ever!

Earth's average temperature is rising! This cannot be challenged!

http://www.currentresults.com/Environment-Facts/changes-in-earth-temperature.php

It makes no difference why it is increasing or how long the increases will continue or how hot it can become; Earth's temperature is rising. Common sense should tell you this is 'obvious'.

You take your post to dumb-squared when you compare Blacks to global climate change.

Your post is a great example why the dialogue on potential global climate change has become so dumbed-down...

 

Obviously you fail to recognize that it was 'Americans' who voted for your flake in 2008. Your flake could not have been in office without millions of Americans making that choice. Presidents don't self-appoint themselves; they are a product of the American public...

 

I notice your refusal to state a theory. You don't seem to have a theory. You just want to yell at someone else's theory.

What is your theory to explain the current warming, what evidence do you have to back it up, and what does your theory predict? The AGW side has been doing that kind of science successfully for decades. For the most part, your side refuses to even try to state a theory.

 

So you've started off with an unsupported assumption that climate can't operate on a faster scale. That's a major logical error, one scientists don't make. Scientists started off with no assumptions about the climate, and went where the data led them.

Another logical error on your part, cherrypicking statements so you can handwave away the entire topic as embraced only by the irrational. Why not just look at the data?

More bad logic on your part, your assumption that unless we know every last thing about a topic, we can't say anything about it.

Y2K was a serious problem, one that was prevented by millions of people busting their butts to prevent any problems. Yet you handwave it away as a conspiracy. You seem to fall in the poseur-skeptic category. Real skeptics, the AGW scientists being obvious examples, examine all the data without prejudice.

 

Fitting a theory to your own bias is how religion came to exist.

 

We are not in a La Nina.

Says who??? There have been some very bad attempts to discredit Svenmark. Most of them make the same mistakes he made when first trying to analyze clouds.

It is the radiosonde data it hasn't changed unless you can go back in time and remeasure.

Its simple enough. When we switched over to the ARGO system there was a 8X10^22 j jump in the heat content of the ocean. The honest man says that this is a byproduct of the switch over because such a quick jump is impossible. The fraud screams "Global Warming!!!"

It shows that using the new ARGO data the ocean heat content has remained largely constant.

Yes I know I read the piece on skeptical science. Junk as usual. But you probably had an orgasm all over your keyboard.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen-Choi-2009-low-climate-sensitivity.htm

I find it funny that they use Chung as calling it a debunking when the sum of the paper by Chung mentions Lindzen once.

Wow what a debunking!!!

Its called latent heat. It cant get above freezing because the energy goes to the state change of the ice. Its basic physics. I'm sorry you cant understand it.

Antarctic ice just hit a record and satellites show cooling. A cooling antarctic over the last 30 years is not possible under AGW theory.

 

Not much gets by you, does it, Brainiac?

The problem being...?

Yer a riot, dude.

That's what intelligent people do when they know they don't have sufficient information. Stupid people can easily get around that by conflating knowledge with "scientific consensus".

 

Sorry but the only proven scientific fact is that the climate is warming and has been as evidenced by the melting of the glaciers and warming of the oceans. However, it is not a proven scientific fact that humans have caused the warming significantly or that if we alter our behavior we can significantly stop this warming cycle and although it would have some effect scientist believe it will be very minimal and take thousands of years to make a substantial impact.

Please post a link to a study by a non-partisan group that discredits what I have said with proven facts, called Scientific Proof. You are correct that research tests an hypothesis. What I am asking for is Scientific proof that humans have dramitically increased the warming cycle and/or can alter it by changing their behavior.

 

Then show me some scientific evidence that actually makes sense.

Show me a single, unified theory that explains all of the changes in temperature for the last 15,000 years.

Because what I have seen 90% of the time has sliding scales, and shifting causes.

"Oh, well this caused this warming trend, and this caused this cooling trend, then this caused this warming trend, then this here caused this cooling trend, and this we can't really figure out, but we are working on understanding it/"

That is what I really see 98% of the time. "Greenhouse gasses cause global warming." Fine, but what caused the Medevial Warming Period? What caused the Little Ice Age? What caused temperatures to plumet, even as the CO2 levels drastically rose for 30 years? Why are these never really explained, just passed off?

You accuse me of being a "deniar". And as I said, over and over again, I am not. To me, the "Global Warming" crowd is more and more resembling the "9/11 Truther" movement. 20 different models and theories, often times conflicting with each other, but we are accept it 100% because somebody says so.

Although interestingly enough, one of the recent things to pop up in the "Little Ice Age" theory has been the fact that a lot of humans died off because of plagues, therefore that caused Global Cooling. And even Columbus killing Indians (which we all know he killed most of the Indians in North America) may have actually caused the Little Ice Age.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gen...olumbus_arrival_linked_to_carbon_dioxide_drop

So is it any wonder I am moving more from skeptic to doubter as time goes on? Come on now, the death of Indians links to the Little Ice Age?

And you wonder why I question the science? This is not science, this is a cause and a quasi-religion in search of a link. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Bowerbird loves and hates this post, kinda like my wife I guess.

*laugh*

Just having some fun, do not take that personally.

 

Well, let me cover this one at a time.

As far as volcanos, not much to be done about them. Most are pretty dormant, and they really are to rough a terrain to live on in general.

As far as Yellowstone, you can't really get far enough away from that one. 2/3 of the US will be decimated if that one goes, pretty much everything from the Mississippi West is pretty much wasteland after that happens. And not much you can do about it.



And most of the rest of the country is toast from cooling, light ashfall, and the like. If that baby goes, expect most of North America to be a no-mans land for 1-2 decades at least.

Tsunamis, those are really not that big of a risk here in the US. We have had what, one major one hit the US in the last 100+ years? Not much of a risk there if you ask me.

Tornadoes, well, there the problem is that the kind of land that is awesome for growing food in is also awesome for tornados. So unless we can figure out how to grow so much food elsewhere, we are gonna have to continue to live in "Tornado Alley".

Sea level rising, that is a long and slow process. Not much of an issue in the US, other then in New Orlenas, but a bigger issue in Europe.

And probably 1/3 or more of the US is subject to huricanes. The entire Gulf Coast and Eastern Seaboard is prone to them, so saying it is stupid to live along the entire East Coast is pretty silly. However, to me living on "Barrier Islands" is pretty silly.

As far as earthquakes, those really do not phase me much. I used to live less then 3 miles from the fault, and have been through 3 major Southern California earthquakes (1971 San Fernando, 1994 Northridge, 1999 Joshua Tree). Personally, I find those as rather fun "E-ticket rides".

Funny thing here is, I have been an advocate for decades in disaster preparedness. I have even made posts in here advocating that everybody be ready for some kind of disaster. ANd ironically, most people rather blow me off in this. However, how do we mentally prepare ourselves for climate change?

I do not know about you, but I think that a lot of us have lived through the radical changes (as shown by the historic record) from the 1940's through the 1980's. And that was a pretty drastic change, and we pretty much lived through it OK. I do encourage people to be prepared for disasters, but to be honest "Global Warming" is not one of them.

Although if I was to do so, I guess I would add "Sunscreen" to the list, right?

[video=youtube;sTJ7AzBIJoI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTJ7AzBIJoI[/video]

 

Better than the nut bar you elected before him

 

Actually, it does not make me hostile. However, it does make me tend to believe that there really is nothing to the beliefs because all that far to many can do is fall back on agression.

And this is actually a pattern I find rather entertaining. I ask questions, and then watch as people get all flustered and pissed off because they can't answer them, and of course accuse me of being part of a conspiracy because I dared to ask them in the first place.

Well, here is the funniest part. I do not know what caused most of the climate changes in the last 1,000 years either. However, I readily admit as much. I admit that it may be sunspots, changes in ocean currents, or a great many other things either alone or seperately. However, I do not go around trying to like the deaths of Indians by Columbus to causing the globe to get colder!

To me, this is simply the path to insanity. Because you have all of these scientists running around trying to prove "Man Made Global Warming", and they got so many nutball theories that I just can't take them seriously. And when part of one theory does not fit, they then make yet another theory to cover the hole in the first one. And this is what I see over and over and over again.

This is why I make the challenges to make simple theories. But nobody is able to do that. And now we get to the point that scientists are claiming that Christopher Columbus caused Global Cooling. I guess that next is coming a theory of how mouse farts caused the end of the list ice age.

 

What's silly about your contention is that it doesn't matter if and how much modern man is contributing to global climate change. It is obvious we are contributing but it's not obvious what our direct impact might be on the global climate change process. Unless you can predict how long the warming will continue, how much the average Earth temperature will increase, then we have three choices; do nothing, mitigation, prepare for the effects.

Do nothing is a stupid answer since the potential effects can be disastrous. This leaves mitigation and preparedness. Since YOU do not know to what degree modern man is contributing to this process, you cannot possibly know that mitigation won't do some good. In this sense, it's probably better to error on the safe side of exploring mitigation.

Lastly, since we ONLY know that the Earth's average temperature is rising, and since we can envision potential effects on human survival, and many of these are horrific, and if we do not know to what degree mitigation might help, then preparedness should be considered in parallel with mitigation...

 

I am familiar with both of these. When I was young my family went to visit some family near Crescent City, California. This was an area devistated by a tsunami by the 1964 Alaska Earthquake. The same city saw damage after the 2011 Japanese Earthquake. I do not say they do not happen (Indonesia is a great example), just that they are not a major threat in the US. Today we know how to predict them, so unless we get some kind of major undersea activity off Oregon or Washington (which is very possible), we will have enough warning to save the people. The buildings I could not care less about, they can all be replaced.

And as an amateur geologist, I also track volcanos. I remember several members of my family went to the region after Mt. St. Hellens erupted, and many people wondered at the seemingly cryptic announcement that was printed in the back of one of my yearbooks that says "Harry Truman Lives!"

The most recent major event in the US was Mount Lassen in 1915. Mount Shasta last erupted in 1786. Mount Hood last erupted in 1907.



And yea, that is Mount Shasta, taken during my recent trip.

However, once again these are events that can be predicted, they do not just erupt without warnings. And since 1980 we have learned how seriously to take the dangers and would have the surrounding areas evacuated well in advance. And once again, I could not care about the buildings, they can be replaced. The people can not be replaced.

And do you really think we can stop people from settling on the shores of the oceans? People accuse me of being an alarmist because I insist that everybody should have supplies to survive a disaster. But you my friend you take it to an extreme. We can't live near the ocean because of hurricanes and flooding. We can't live in the Great Plains because of tornadoes. We can't live in California, Oregon, Washington, or Alaska because of Earthquaked and tsunamis. We can't live in the Rocky Mountains, Sierras, or Cascades because of volcanos. I guess we also need to avoid the North East and North Central because of ice storms, and because glaciers will come through there again in the future.

Sorry, I do not live my life based upon fear. And by the way, are you aware that grapes generally love hot climates? And that before the Little Ice Age, one of the premiere grape country in Europe was right in England? Then the temperature dropped, and the grapes all died off. And the climate is still to cool to this day for grapes to grow in anywhere near the abundence that they did 1,000 years ago. So for all the claims that "we have never been hotter then we are now", our climate has yet to reach the highs it did prior to the latest climate drop.

 

Didn't say we were. We're in a neutral state now, coming out of a La Nina, and heading into what will probably be a mild El Nino. Air temps lag the El Nino cycle by 6-9 months, so the El Nino warming effect won't appear until 2013. 2012 is mainly La Nina affected. However, this decade as a whole has been mainly La Nina, topped off by a record low solar cycle. That's been holding down some of the temp rise.

No one is "discrediting" him. At least he proposes an actual theory. He does actual science in that way, and gets respect for it. He just hasn't proposed a theory that has made any successful predictions. Nothing wrong that, as not every theory people propose ends up right, and even being partially wrong can make progress.

Svensmark is not the only guy looking at cosmic rays and cloud nucleation, contrary to conspiracy thinking. A lot of other scientists are. They even quote Svensmark on things. But they find that cloud formation is affected only slightly by cosmic ray changes, and that the observed cloud changes can't be explained by cosmic rays, which have barely changed at all.

You can reprocess, if you botched the processing the first time around.

I have no idea where your claim comes from. This is sort of the definitive paper on it, but I can find no example of such a jump.

http://www.leif.org/EOS/2012GL051106-pip.pdf

Even if there was, so what? No one is using an initial jump as proof of anything. You just have to look at the steady year-to-year increase, after the sensors were standardized. The oceans are warming.

Expand your horizons. There are a bunch of debunkings. And instead of cursing the authors, you might want to read them. For example, why did Lindzen and Choi cherrypick certain subintervals, instead of using the whole interval? If they had used the whole interval, they wouldn't have gotten the results that supposedly disprove global warming.

No. It fell short. It hit the record for a certain day, then fell behind and didn't beat the peak record.

Is ozone a greenhouse gas? Why yes, it is. What happens if you reduce a greenhouse gas, under AGW theory? There's more to it than that, but the point is that of course AGW theory allows local coolings.

 

The fact that you don't understand the information doesn't mean we don't have sufficient information. Intelligent people understand that. I know that my failure to understand the math behind string theory has no bearing on whether string theory is valid.

Now, if I was a paste-gobbling political cultist, I would rant that string theory has to be a hoax, given that I don't understand it, and because I don't like that Sheldon Cooper character, who does push string theory. In other words, I'd act like you do with AGW theory.

 

Who really believes that playing shell games with Statism is more effective than building infrastructure that can even accommodate industrial waste?

 

I believe this is one case where our elected representatives should purchase the most Pareto Optimum choice money can buy under any form of Capitalism.

 

Here's the problem I have with idiots living in higher-risk areas; they always turn to government to solve their problems when the (*)(*)(*)(*) hits the fan. If people wish to build in these areas, and they can pay cash, and they can pay for repairs/replacement, and they can deal with death and injury without litigating someone else, then more power to them. As an American taxpayer I do not like portions of my taxes going to support people who choose to live in stupid places. People have homes along the eastern US coast and every time there's a hurricane or beach erosion, they demand the government rebuild the beaches...and this is BS.

Regarding wine grapes, you need to talk to UCDavis who have done the studies over many years and common varieties of wine grapes are at risk with more warming...this is not a myth! Either these farmers will lose their crops or they must replant with other varieties which tolerate higher temperatures. Replanting costs are prohibitive and Americans won't buy much of the lessor-known wine types so adios to some wine grape growing, in some areas, as temperatures increase.

You can't compare today's climate and temperatures to what happened in the past. Our situation is different today; already have drought, increased populations, economic issues, etc.

 

This thread belongs in the pseudo-science section. Perhaps instead of looking for bad science that you try an use to bash people with you should actually educate yourself on how climate science actually works. If you are such a proponent of science then why do you subscribe to pseudo-science? Oh and before you label me of being a climatology denier I'm actually on the forefront of atmospheric physics working on the worlds most powerful Rayleigh LIDAR system. http://www.usu.edu/alo/aboutlidar.htm