More Evidence Against the Carbon Dioxide Scam

[Maddie]

My minor at the University of Alaska was geography and I was fortunate in that with Alaska being in the arctic a LOT of climate change research was going on up there. The data is overwhelming that the climate change we are currently experiencing is due to human beings. Yes there have been cycles in the past BUT this current trend does not fit with any of the past cycles. On the other hand this is the first time that several hundred million years of stored carbon dioxide has been released in huge quantities in just the matter of a couple centuries.

[joeblast]

fkn facepalm

 

of course let's omit the ways in which the handlers of that survey put words in some people's mouths, because not even close to all of them agree about co2 being a problem.

 

the sun is still showing itself to be far more potent, volcanism far more potent, than the trace amounts of co2. it is a WILD extrapolation to assert that positive feedback mechanism in there. the system is well dominated by negative feedbacks.

 

I'll say again, how's them predictions and retrodictions coming? the models are still dali-esque caricatures at best - and all of the wild predictions will forever be like that free beer sign I saw the other day - all you can drink! tomorrow only. haha.

[ralis]

fkn facepalm

 

of course let's omit the ways in which the handlers of that survey put words in some people's mouths, because not even close to all of them agree about co2 being a problem.

 

the sun is still showing itself to be far more potent, volcanism far more potent, than the trace amounts of co2. it is a WILD extrapolation to assert that positive feedback mechanism in there. the system is well dominated by negative feedbacks.

 

I'll say again, how's them predictions and retrodictions coming? the models are still dali-esque caricatures at best - and all of the wild predictions will forever be like that free beer sign I saw the other day - all you can drink! tomorrow only. haha.

 

Same old chest thumping Joe! That is why I do not engage in discussions of this nature with you. This world does not belong to you alone but to everyone!

[voidisyinyang]

Same old chest thumping Joe! That is why I do not engage in discussions of this nature with you. This world does not belong to you alone but to everyone!

 

yeah even if the science predictions are not accurate that doesn't mean that human-induced global warming is not happening!

 

There are models and then there is physical reality. haha. Science can try -- but.....

 

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/5/20/geoengineering_can_we_save_the_planet

 

Geoengineering: Can We Save the Planet by Messing with Nature?

[ralis]

This statement speaks volumes in regards to the ignorance by many of the scientific method. AGW denial is not science but belongs in the same category as the creationists denial of scientific fact.

 

Edited May 23, 2013 by ralis

[joeblast]

yeah even if the science predictions are not accurate that doesn't mean that human-induced global warming is not happening!

well, if you want to start talking about the urban heat island effects and stuff like that - like when a hive of bees swarms in the winter, the end result is heat generated around the swarm. quite valid, and absolutely anthropogenic.

 

you will note that never have I asserted that humans do not have any impact on the climate whatsoever - you will also note that I keep saying that "turning up the dial on co2" absolutely does not make the climate response go parabolic, as these models assert.

 

why are you dismissing "not accurate" - the entire usefulness of a model lies in its predictive capability - well, the climate models are such a distant representation still, one may take their predictions with a grain of salt. until the models are evolved enough so as to accurately represent reality and start making predictions that actually jive with reality...then we have a representation of a physical fantasy when we look at the models. a bad approximation cannot be the sole justification for a trillion dollars spent so as to perhaps maybe possibly save a few tenths of a degree of potential warming.

 

that's just stupid and a waste of time, money, resources.

 

so when ralis dismisses me pointing out the swiss cheese holes in the climate models...I just chuckle, because co2 is going to keep doing what its doing and it is not going to behave like the alarmists want it to behave. nature simply doesnt work like that.

 

and as usual, straw men need to be introduced to try and make questioning the captured-orthdoxy sound as crazy as saying "well god just up and waved his hand and here we all are!" I wonder what the ratio of straw men to substance would be in your AGW postings, ralis. 7:1? 10:1?

[joeblast]

 

Survey: Scientists Have 97% Consensus Human Activity Causes Climate Change

A new survey of the scientific community has found near unanimous agreement that human activity causes climate change. Citing the work of more than 29,000 scientists in peer-reviewed journals, the survey’s authors say the consensus on human-caused global warming stands at 97.1 percent. Addressing the efforts by industrial polluters to fund climate skepticism, the study’s lead author, John Cook, said: "There is a gaping chasm between the actual consensus and the public perception."

 

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/5/21/headlines#52112

Twitter:

Richard Tol @RichardTol

Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.

4:43 AM - 22 May 2013

 

Dr. Idso, your paper ‘Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?‘ is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; “Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it“.

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Idso: “

That is not an accurate representation of my paper.

The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change.

It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming

.”

 

Dr. Scafetta, your paper ‘Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming‘ is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; “Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%“

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Scafetta: “Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.

What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.

This implies that the true climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is likely around 1.5 C or less, and that the 21st century projections must be reduced by at least a factor of 2 or more. Of that the sun contributed (more or less) as much as the anthropogenic forcings.

The “less” claim is based on alternative solar models (e.g. ACRIM instead of PMOD) and also on the observation that part of the observed global warming might be due to urban heat island effect, and not to CO2.

By using the 50% borderline a lot of so-called “skeptical works” including some of mine are included in their 97%.”

What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. Instead of apologizing and honestly acknowledging that the AGW theory as advocated by the IPCC is wrong because based on climate models that poorly reconstruct the solar signature and do not reproduce the natural oscillations of the climate (AMO, PDO, NAO etc.) and honestly acknowledging that the truth, as it is emerging, is closer to what claimed by IPCC critics like me since 2005,

 

 

Dr. Shaviv, your paper ‘On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget‘ is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; “Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise“

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Shaviv: “

Nope… it is not an accurate representation.

The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitiviity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).

I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper.”

Richard Tol @RichardTol

.@dana1981 Don’t worry. I did read your paper. A silly idea poorly implemented.

 

Richard Tol @RichardTol

@dana1981 I think your data are a load of crap. Why is that a lie? I really think so.

 

 

Richard Tol @RichardTol

.@dana1981 Most importantly, consensus is not an argument.

[joeblast]

My minor at the University of Alaska was geography and I was fortunate in that with Alaska being in the arctic a LOT of climate change research was going on up there. The data is overwhelming that the climate change we are currently experiencing is due to human beings. Yes there have been cycles in the past BUT this current trend does not fit with any of the past cycles. On the other hand this is the first time that several hundred million years of stored carbon dioxide has been released in huge quantities in just the matter of a couple centuries.

-overwhelming is pretty subjective applied to this - anything specific you're referring to? are you aware that "data"sets like GISS and NCDC use statistical smoothing methods to extrapolate data for where they have none. given the bastardizations of statistics in the past, I take such smoothings with a relative grain of salt. the entire hockey stick was a statistical blunder....or manipulation, depending where you're coming from.

-how so? the "current trend" from where? there's currently been no net warming for the past what, 15 years? so I'm not really sure what you're referring to as current trend...unless you're simply referring to the trend of CO2 concentration, in which case, if it does not have the catastrophic positive feedback claimed by incomplete models...so what?

-define huge - you know there's plenty of times in the historical record that had much higher concentrations. the system is still well dominated by negative feedbacks, and given that co2 concentration historically lags temperature changes significantly enough, its mainly a 'response' as opposed to a 'primary fundamental stimulus.'

Edited May 24, 2013 by joeblast

[joeblast]

so probably my biggest point is this -

 

-if the models cant predict El Nino/La Nina events,

-if they have no accounting for solar variability,

-no accounting for volcanism

 

DOA for the model, right there, without looking any further. Its predictions are garbage.

 

http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/the-manmade-global-warming-challenge.pdf

[ralis]

so probably my biggest point is this -

 

-if the models cant predict El Nino/La Nina events,

-if they have no accounting for solar variability,

-no accounting for volcanism

 

DOA for the model, right there, without looking any further. Its predictions are garbage.

 

http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/the-manmade-global-warming-challenge.pdf

 

Volcanism is accounted for. Stop deceiving people with your unfounded rants!

 

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

Edited May 24, 2013 by ralis

[joeblast]

Do you read this stuff you're posting? Oh, you mean manually inserted after the fact, since they saw an event happen and need to account for it since it is *significant*. So while "its in there" and "averaged in after the fact," the models are not able to predict when, where, how severe, timing coincident with other warming/cooling trends.

 

Care to point out where one of the models predicts these events? (yeah, didnt think so.)

 

I had to laugh my ass off at this one, from your link:

 

 

While sulfur dioxide released in contemporary volcanic eruptions has occasionally caused detectable global cooling of the lower atmosphere, the carbon dioxide released in contemporary volcanic eruptions has never caused detectable global warming of the atmosphere. This is probably because the amounts of carbon dioxide released in contemporary volcanism have not been of sufficient magnitude to produce detectable global warming.

 

 

See that's the problem when you start off with a preconceived notion - you make assertions based on what you believe, then still look for the signals even when scads of data is telling you the net effect is quite the opposite.

 

The net effect of volcanoes as far as the atmosphere is concerned is significant cooling.

 

 

 

 

Now since the models arent correctly predicting the el nino/la nina mechanism, or the solar mechanism - and cannot predict the timing, location, or severity of volcanic events - how on heaven and earth can one gloss over those glaring omissions? Because a pinatubo like event coincident with a weak double dipped solar cycle and a sputtered out el nino is a *very* different set of events than a pinatubo like event coincident with a particularly strong solar cycle and "normal" el nino.

 

Make sense? This is a huge reason why the further out in time you go with the models' predictions, the more whacked out things they say will happen - really, a 2 meter rise in sea level by 2100? ROFL...or was it 20, according to ol Al?

 

So... or are you still trying to "solve the equation by looking at CO2"

 

And dont forget - wherever you see "temperature anomaly" you are seeing them say "we're comparing what we measured against a baseline we have chosen to say is 'normal'."

Edited May 24, 2013 by joeblast

[ralis]

Do you read this stuff you're posting? Oh, you mean manually inserted after the fact, since they saw an event happen and need to account for it since it is *significant*. So while "its in there" and "averaged in after the fact," the models are not able to predict when, where, how severe, timing coincident with other warming/cooling trends.

 

Care to point out where one of the models predicts these events? (yeah, didnt think so.)

 

I had to laugh my ass off at this one, from your link:

 

 

 

 

See that's the problem when you start off with a preconceived notion - you make assertions based on what you believe, then still look for the signals even when scads of data is telling you the net effect is quite the opposite.

 

The net effect of volcanoes as far as the atmosphere is concerned is significant cooling.

 

 

 

 

Now since the models arent correctly predicting the el nino/la nina mechanism, or the solar mechanism - and cannot predict the timing, location, or severity of volcanic events - how on heaven and earth can one gloss over those glaring omissions? Because a pinatubo like event coincident with a weak double dipped solar cycle and a sputtered out el nino is a *very* different set of events than a pinatubo like event coincident with a particularly strong solar cycle and "normal" el nino.

 

Make sense? This is a huge reason why the further out in time you go with the models' predictions, the more whacked out things they say will happen - really, a 2 meter rise in sea level by 2100? ROFL...or was it 20, according to ol Al?

 

So... or are you still trying to "solve the equation by looking at CO2"

 

And dont forget - wherever you see "temperature anomaly" you are seeing them say "we're comparing what we measured against a baseline we have chosen to say is 'normal'."

 

Given that you have an obsessive need to be right and make everyone wrong, no matter how many facts are presented by 97% of climate scientists to you, you remain obstinate and unevolved. Your homeschooling is getting you nowhere!

 

I looked up your cut/paste from above and the site is notorious for disinformation. The owner of that blog John Kehr is only a chemical engineer and not a climate scientist. Not even peer reviewed but approved by the denier crowd. Your posts are an insult to persons that engage in critical thinking.

Edited May 24, 2013 by ralis

[joeblast]

more hot air, ralis.

 

substance.

 

c'mon, its not THAT hard.

 

we're debating points here. so what of the points I made? nothing from you on them other than your explicit refusal to consider the concept presented? what of the holes I've pointed out in the co2 story? nah, you just summarily dismiss anything that disagrees with your preconceived view on this.

 

what the hell is so hard about addressing the substantive points I am making? ignoring them is not a defense here, man. I pointed out 3 serious, catastrophic, fundamental issues with the climate models. are you saying that those holes do not exist?

 

whenever you want to get around to posting substantive, I'll reply to you again. I get this every time I happen to include you in a reply - disparagement, then a complete ignoring of every word pointing out the sandy ground your position stands on.

[joeblast]

[JustARandomPanda]

I wonder why one type of pollution gets world conferences by heads of state while most others languish?

[joeblast]

in one instance there are already laws in place and thus minor potential for skimming a greater share of tax monies. in the other, since the assertion that co2 equals pollution is dubious at best, nothing has been set up and there is great potential for "government revenue generation"...aka scamming more of your tax dollars. with how up on the various ways governments like to scam the people, I'm surprised drew hasnt seen through this one more thoroughly - but hey, take a group that rightly believes in one thing, conflate another with it, then get them on the "side of conservation" via the scam, and you have a whole buttload of people supporting something that the math doesnt quite support but by statistical manipulations and trickery.

 

so there's no money to be made at all by going and cleaning up that huge mass of plastic in the pacific. but, the idea of charging a company by what comes out of its exhaust ports...why that's a huge vast source of "untapped potential," as it were.

 

I was thinking of the strange weather we've been experiencing, reached 80 last week, its 60 today, they say its going to be 90 here on thursday.

 

and I had to chuckle, we dont even have a model for the jetstream that can predict changes in its flows. and we wont, so long as people are still stuck on the co2 bandwagon.

[voidisyinyang]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKWO_spRV9k

[joeblast]

you know something is alarmist when they simply parade around a bunch of people that claim to the hilt that correlation is in fact causation, and didnt ya know, we've long since determined this is all due to co2, right? that national geographic episode is garbage, drew.

 

"co2 is the hidden price we pay" hahahaha what fancy fiction.

 

you write plenty when you need to, still havent written anything that supports the co2 meme. you seem to go overboard finding all sorts of anthropogenic issues without ever really even touching the co2 aspect of it - yeah, straw men.

[voidisyinyang]

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

 

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

 

 

 

The US scientist, James Lawrence Powell, found 13,950 peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1991 and 2012 that had the keyword phrases “global warming” or “global climate change”.

 

By his definition, only 24 of the 13,950 articles, or 0.17 per cent, clearly rejected human-caused global warming, or endorsed a cause other than carbon dioxide emissions for warming.

 

John Cook and another co-author of the IOP paper, Dana Nuccitelli, were involved in that study.

 

Separately, another US academic, science historian Naomi Oreskes, did a 2005 study of 928 scientific articles published between 1993 and 2003 that included the phrase “global climate change”. She concluded, after reading the abstracts of each, that “remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position” of human-caused global warming.

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/28d54536-bd7b-11e2-a735-00144feab7de.html#axzz2Uc1UJcRU

Edited May 28, 2013 by pythagoreanfulllotus

[ralis]

you know something is alarmist when they simply parade around a bunch of people that claim to the hilt that correlation is in fact causation, and didnt ya know, we've long since determined this is all due to co2, right? that national geographic episode is garbage, drew.

 

"co2 is the hidden price we pay" hahahaha what fancy fiction.

 

you write plenty when you need to, still havent written anything that supports the co2 meme. you seem to go overboard finding all sorts of anthropogenic issues without ever really even touching the co2 aspect of it - yeah, straw men.

 

There has been plenty written supporting AGW. However, you choose to believe that volcanic activity is the main problem. I addressed that issue with substantive evidence and you fail to comprehend facts.

[joeblast]

One of the first things that a student in science or engineering acquires at the beginning of his college career is a sublime confidence in the objectivity of the scientific method and the unimpeachable status of the results thereof, along with a rather critical and condescending attitude toward other fields of learning which operate on a less exact basis. I still have a very vivid recollection of the amusement with which my classmates and I looked upon a statement in our economics textbook wherein the author commented on the theory of wages which he had just expounded at great length. This statement admitted that the theory did not produce the right results, but the author went on to say that he could not think of any better explanation, and consequently this one must be right anyway. Certainly, we students told ourselves, it was a pleasure to be identified with a branch of knowledge in which conclusions are reached by logical and mathematical processes rather than by any such ridiculous reasoning as this.

 

But those of us who have subsequently had occasion to leave the beaten path in the course of research work of one kind or another have been thoroughly disillusioned on this score. In spite of the high ideals to which the scientific world subscribes in theory, today’s best guess is just as firmly enthroned in the field of science as it is in economics or any other of the less “exact” branches of knowledge, and the extent to which general acceptance is taken as the equivalent of proof in present-day scientific practice is nothing short of astounding. It is true that the areas in which the facts have been positively and unequivocally established are much larger in science than in these other fields, but outside of these fully explored areas the scientist is just as reluctant to admit ignorance as his counterparts in other disciplines, and just as prone to present his opinion or that of the “authorities” in his field as positive knowledge. There is, in fact, a very general tendency to elevate currently popular scientific theories and assumptions to the status of incontestable articles of faith whose validity must not be questioned, and the path of the innovator who dares to take issue with these cherished doctrines is thorny indeed.

 

The most serious aspect of this policy is that it tends to perpetuate basic errors when they are once made. Inevitably the theorists will take a wrong turn sooner or later, and present practice sets up an almost impassible roadblock in the way of getting back on the right track. This situation is greatly aggravated by what some observers have called the “epicyclical” character of much of present-day physical theory. When a theory encounters difficulties of a serious nature, it is no longer fashionable to abandon it, as would have been done in an earlier era. The present practice is to “save” the theory by adding the equivalent of one of the epicycles of Ptolemaic astronomy. Then when further trouble develops another epicycle is added, and so on. Each addition not only buries the errors of the original theory that much deeper and makes them that much harder to deal with, but also puts the originator of a new and better theory in a position where he cannot isolate the primary issue and meet it squarely; he must contend with all of the epicycles at the same time, however irrelevant they may actually be.

 

One of the most “epicyclical” of all physical theories is the nuclear theory of the atom. I am continually coming into conflict with this theory in my work, and while it has not been difficult to demonstrate the shortcomings of this theory in the particular applications with which I have been concerned, the theory and its coterie of epicycles are so firmly embedded in so much of present-day scientific thought that even the most glaring deficiencies make little impression on the general standing of the theory as long as they are exposed one by one in their separate areas. The usual reaction to a demonstration of the failure of the theory in any specific application is quite reminiscent of the attitude of the author of the economics textbook. “Perhaps I will have to admit that the theory gives the wrong answers in the particular case under consideration,” the physicist says, “but it must be correct as a general proposition anyway, because everyone who knows anything about science accepts it.” In view of this prevailing attitude which makes it impossible to deal with the situation on an item by item basis, it has seemed necessary to undertake a critical appraisal of the structure as a whole, to show how utterly untenable the entire theory becomes when it is examined in the light of the immense amount of experimental knowledge now at our command. As the facts brought out in this work demonstrate, there never was any adequate experimental basis for the theory in the first place—the originators simply jumped to conclusions without considering the possible alternative explanations of the results of their experiments—and the advance of knowledge in the intervening half-century has completely destroyed the support which the theory originally derived from the scientific ideas and beliefs prevailing at the time it was originated.

 

The conclusions of this work will no doubt be extremely distasteful to those who have been so confident of the validity of their atomic theory for so many years, but the facts are clear and unmistakable once anyone takes a good look at them. This situation must be faced eventually, and the longer the reckoning is postponed the greater the cost. However painful the necessary readjustment of thinking may be, the sooner it is accomplished the sooner it will be possible to get some tangible benefits out of the tremendous amount of time, money and effort that are now being wasted in futile attempts to find answers to meaningless problems and to establish the nature and properties of non-existent particles and forces.

 

D. B. Larson, August 1962

Edited May 30, 2013 by joeblast

[voidisyinyang]

In the book he actually dismisses quantum mechanics as an attempt to change established laws of nature (classical mechanics) to fit with a concept that was unfounded to begin with (the Rutherford model). The short version is that Larson would be absolutely correct if the Marsden-Geiger experiment was all we knew about the atom and subatomic particles, but it isn't. The book itself is mostly a tl;dr rant about critical thinking, and in fact doesn't postulate any experiments, equations, or testable ideas of any kind to back up his own model - he simply asserts that it fits equally with the evidence (except where it doesn't) and if you "think critically" it should come out as self-evident.

 

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reciprocal_Theory

 

 

If no electrons exist within the atom, as Larson suggests, I do not see how the photoelectric effect can be explained. From this I conclude that however stimulating Larson’s book might be as an intellectual exercise, it need not be taken seriously as anything more than that. —

 

Dr Isaac Asimov, Chemical and Engineering News, July 29, 1963

Edited May 30, 2013 by pythagoreanfulllotus

[ralis]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reciprocal_Theory

 

 

 

Dr Isaac Asimov, Chemical and Engineering News, July 29, 1963

 

 

Thanks for researching that piece. I was suspicious of the cut/paste by JB but didn't have the time to fully research it. Haha!

[joeblast]

missing the point, as usual

[ralis]

missing the point, as usual

 

No. Your point was not well made. Just more cut/paste as usual. Your posts are replete with anti-science rants.