Scientist who said climate change sceptics proved wrong accused of hiding truth

How liberal arguments work:

"I'm right. You shut up."

Can you prove you're right?

"I said, "SHUT UP""

But I don't think you're right.

"Alright, buster. Off to jail with you."

 

And this is what we get.

There are human fingerprints on carbon overload. Fingerprints in the form of assuming that all of the CO2 is our fault because the liberal horde hates big cars.

Natural changes alone can’t explain the temperature changes we’ve seen. natural changes alone created the last big Ice Age and the later "Little Ice Age' . Not to forget the "Medieval Warm Period" that was warming than today and led to the ability of mankind to create agriculture societies.

Lower-level atmosphere—which contains the carbon load—is expanding. More circumstantial evidence that can only be supported by space based sensors that we are comparing to our finger in the air a hundred years ago..

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main heat-trapping gas largely responsible for most of the average warming over the past several decades Methane is far better at retaining heat and there are over a thousand volcanoes releasing it every day, not to mention that methane seeps from ever crack along the plate boundaries.

If we cripple our economy to eliminate CO2 we won't have the strength to recover from Yellow Stone super valance when it explodes any day. the ask cloud will kill a million or so and then the ash will block the sun and millions more will freeze because the power grid will be down and the economy will be in chaos n if we try to stay as strong as we can.

And before the ash settles the Chinese will invade from the west and the Russians will come from the East.

 

This is the last time saying this, after that I am going to give up:

$300,000 total award per year
$100,000 indirect costs - not available to the researcher
$25,000 x 4 = $100,000 for stipends for 4 grad students - 9 months
$5,000 x 4 = $20,000 for grad student summer salaries
$20,000 grad student tuition
$10,000 x 4 supplies for 4 grad student research
$20,000 travel for PI and grad students, instrumentation, other
----------------
$300,000 per year

And that doesn't even include PI summer salary.

Conservative seem to understand budgets, so this should make it clear that $300,000 per year DOES NOT allow one to run a big research lab. It also DOES NOT allow one to get personally rich. The reason he is getting grants is probably because he feels obligated to keep his grad students paid.

I repeat: This is not a big annual budget for a research group and pretty standard in terms of expectations for funding from universities.

He surely didn't find the never-ending AGW money spigot that you envision and which doesn't exist.

 

I just showed you billions more to others.

 

No need to smear Mann, very notable scientists and even his colleagues have.

"A Disgrace to the Profession"

This is a compendium of what other scientists and professional organizations have said about Michael Mann.

We conclude unequivocally that the evidence for a 'long-handled' hockey stick (where the shaft of the hockey stick extends to the year 1000 AD) is lacking in the data. - McShane & Wyner, The Annals of Applied Science

The underestimation of the amplitude of the low-frequency variability ...discourage the use of reconstructions to estimate the rareness of the recent warming. - Christiansen, Schmith & Thejil, The Journal of Climate

We have discovered that the geographic orientation of the CCSM field used by Mann et al (2005), Mann et al (2007a), and Mann et al (2007b) was incorrect. - Smerdon, Kaplan & Amrhein, The Journal of Climate

Just bad science. - Chapman, Bartlett & Harris, Geophysical Research Letters

 

it's put together by a highly, politically-biased journalist who has a bad reputation

 

There is no such thing as a site on climate change that does not involve politics. Its sort of like the Islam of science in that you cant separate the politics from the science

 

for scientists and people that trust science

it's all about science, facts and evidence

 

Yeah, I know, you don't like what scientists actually say so you attack the messenger. Typical. Being so blind I wonder how you don't walk into walls.

 

you really have no clue what you're talking about here

i trust what ethical scientists say, because i look at the facts and evidence they present

i don't trust paid liars, lobbyist and unethical scientists that take money from the oil and coal industries

 

Only the scientists that agree with you are trustworthy or so you claim. There is no use debating when you deny any site we choose as unreliable and we keep saying the same right back to you. This is obviously far from settled science and anyone who believes that 97% of people agree on anything is pretty much absurd.

Man made global warming is not a fact all you can provide is some evidence to back up your claims just like us

 

you've got things backward, read what i wrote

i trust what ethical scientists say, because i look at the facts and evidence they present

you really don't know what you're talking about

here are the facts, again:



Global temperature rise

All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.(5) Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.(6) Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.(7)


5) - https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

6) - T.C. Peterson et.al., "State of the Climate in 2008," Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 90, no. 8, August 2009, pp. S17-S18.

7) - I. Allison et.al., The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science, UNSW Climate Change Research Center, Sydney, Australia, 2009, p. 11

 

So, you are saying that some of Mann's colleagues are unethical?

 

i'm saying your comments are

along with paid liars, lobbyist and unethical scientists that take money from the oil and coal industries

mann's colleagues don't do that

 

Yeah, got a picture that represents your total argument.

 

that image describes your argument

my argument is that human activity is causing global warming

here are the facts, once again:



Global temperature rise

All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.(5) Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.(6) Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.(7)


5) - https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

6) - T.C. Peterson et.al., "State of the Climate in 2008," Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 90, no. 8, August 2009, pp. S17-S18.

7) - I. Allison et.al., The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science, UNSW Climate Change Research Center, Sydney, Australia, 2009, p. 11

 

Wash, rinse, repeat. Old data and appeal to authority.

 

actually what works are facts and you are just playing third grade

 

the data stands, your weak argument hasn't gotten off the ground

 

Wash, rinse, repeat. The Nuh Uh argument.

 

yes, that's exactly what your argument is

my argument is that human activity is causing global warming

i've posted facts and evidence supporting it


Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

"The proof that man-made CO2 is causing global warming is like the chain of evidence in a court case. CO2 keeps the Earth warmer than it would be without it. Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, mainly by burning fossil fuels. And there is empirical evidence that the rising temperatures are being caused by the increased CO2.

The Earth is wrapped in an invisible blanket

It is the Earth’s atmosphere that makes most life possible. To understand this, we can look at the moon. On the surface, the moon’s temperature during daytime can reach 100°C (212°F). At night, it can plunge to minus 173°C, or -279.4°F. In comparison, the coldest temperature on Earth was recorded in Antarctica: −89.2°C (−128.6°F). According to the WMO, the hottest was 56.7°C (134°F), measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley).

Man could not survive in the temperatures on the moon, even if there was air to breathe. Humans, plants and animals can’t tolerate the extremes of temperature on Earth unless they evolve special ways to deal with the heat or the cold. Nearly all life on Earth lives in areas that are more hospitable, where temperatures are far less extreme.

Yet the Earth and the moon are virtually the same distance from the sun, so why do we experience much less heat and cold than the moon? The answer is because of our atmosphere. The moon doesn’t have one, so it is exposed to the full strength of energy coming from the sun. At night, temperatures plunge because there is no atmosphere to keep the heat in, as there is on Earth.

The laws of physics tell us that without the atmosphere, the Earth would be approximately 33°C (59.4°F) cooler than it actually is.

This would make most of the surface uninhabitable for humans. Agriculture as we know it would be more or less impossible if the average temperature was −18 °C. In other words, it would be freezing cold even at the height of summer.

The reason that the Earth is warm enough to sustain life is because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These gases act like a blanket, keeping the Earth warm by preventing some of the sun’s energy being re-radiated into space. The effect is exactly the same as wrapping yourself in a blanket – it reduces heat loss from your body and keeps you warm.

If we add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the effect is like wrapping yourself in a thicker blanket: even less heat is lost. So how can we tell what effect CO2 is having on temperatures, and if the increase in atmospheric CO2 is really making the planet warmer?

One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.



Total Earth Heat Content from Church et al. (2011)

What can keep the energy in the atmosphere? The answer is greenhouse gases. Science has known about the effect of certain gases for over a century. They ‘capture’ energy, and then emit it in random directions. The primary greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), water vapour, nitrous oxide and ozone – comprise around 1% of the air.

This tiny amount has a very powerful effect, keeping the planet 33°C (59.4°F) warmer than it would be without them. (The main components of the atmosphere – nitrogen and oxygen – are not greenhouse gases, because they are virtually unaffected by long-wave, or infrared, radiation). This is the second piece of evidence: a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere.

For our next piece of evidence, we must look at the amount of CO2 in the air. We know from bubbles of air trapped in ice cores that before the industrial revolution, the amount of CO2 in the air was approximately 280 parts per million (ppm). In June 2013, the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory in Hawaii announced that, for the first time in thousands of years, the amount of CO2 in the air had gone up to 400ppm. That information gives us the next piece of evidence; CO2 has increased by nearly 43% in the last 150 years.



Atmospheric CO2 levels (Green is Law Dome ice core, Blue is Mauna Loa, Hawaii) and Cumulative CO2 emissions (CDIAC). While atmospheric CO2 levels are usually expressed in parts per million, here they are displayed as the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere in gigatonnes. CO2 emissions includes fossil fuel emissions, cement production and emissions from gas flaring.

The Smoking Gun

The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:



Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.

Summing Up

Like a detective story, first you need a victim, in this case the planet Earth: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.

Then you need a method, and ask how the energy could be made to remain. For that, you need a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere, and greenhouse gases provide that mechanism.

Next, you need a ‘motive’. Why has this happened? Because CO2 has increased by nearly 50% in the last 150 years and the increase is from burning fossil fuels.

And finally, the smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.

The last point is what places CO2 at the scene of the crime. The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up."

[video=youtube;5LvaGAEwxYs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LvaGAEwxYs[/video]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

 

OK now explain all that to us in your own words and I will start to take you seriously

 

It appears he is getting his science from a cartoonists alarmist blog. What would you expect but....Wash, Rinse, Repeat!

 

i've already done that

 

Well since you never seem to tire of repeating yourself humor us one more time