More Evidence Against the Carbon Dioxide Scam

[voidisyinyang]

James Hansen: Fossil fuel addiction could trigger runaway global warming

Without full decarbonisation by 2030, our global emissions pathway guarantees new era of catastrophic climate change

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/earth-insight/2013/jul/10/james-hansen-fossil-fuels-runaway-global-warming?CMP=twt_fd

[voidisyinyang]

Ken responded directly to this to make the context far more plain (slighty edited): The article by Christopher Booker … is a misrepresentation of my views.

 

Arctic misrepresentations

Filed under:

• Arctic and Antarctic
• Climate Science

— gavin @ 8 July 2013

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/07/arctic-misrepresentations/

[joeblast]

Haha....hansen...I lol'd. freakin charlatan.

 

Do you get that without the mythical positive feedback inventions and double counting, just about everything he asserts is utter garbage?

 

Schmidt is dishonest and has a preconceived notion also .....make the data fit.the.conclusion and not the other way around...

[joeblast]

I'm.just sitting watching the sunspot count go down, the 10.7cm radio flux go down, ap magnetic index stay low....and knowing what stuff like that does to the jet stream, I will plan on bundling up in the coming years. Sc24 is weak weak weak. N&s hemisphere a little out of time. Does not bode well for 25...

 

And ill say again, focusing on co2 is like testing the lock on your car door when it won't start. I'm gonna need more r30 for my attic.

[voidisyinyang]

The Hansen paper:

 

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1211/1211.4846.pdf

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/earth-insight/2013/jul/10/james-hansen-fossil-fuels-runaway-global-warming?CMP=twt_fd

 

nice comment:

 

2.4 billion years ago early forms of bacteria (blue green algae) produced so much oxygen they changed the atmosphere of the Earth. It created a long lasting ice ball Earth and led to a mass extinction.
We are also changing the atmosphere of the Earth by pumping out vast quantities of CO2. That will also create a mass extinction event but this time by creating a hot Earth.
We have become the new blue green algae of the Earth.

[joeblast]

lol...I thought that comment was rather idiotic - "vast quantities" is kinda like saying...if you saw the documentary about the lady who sued mcdonalds about the hot coffee - there were what, roughly 700 reported instances of people having burned themselves and people were shocked that the mcd's rep said he was glad it was that low - basically revealing that "wow, seven HUNDRED instances" appears to be quite a large number, until you consider how many tens of thousands of mcdonals there are that serve however many millions of cups of coffee a day, and you come to find that the number 700 is really a statistically insignificant number.

 

not to mention the fact that oxygen and co2 act very differently.

 

but let's not have statistics get in the way of things, right - unfortunately, that's where the climatologists fail again and again and show that they probably couldnt have passed a remedial statistics course.

 

 

every single dire prediction is from a flawed model, I'm not sure where this hubris comes from that these fools think they can ignore the sun (I corresponded with hansen like 10 years ago for a bit and grilled him about his oversimplification of the sun, remember, and his only retort was that his calculations clearly showed that man's effects on the climate had well overtaken THE SUN as the main driver of the climate....haha....seriously!?!)

 

So I dont know how people wind up thinking Hansen's predictions are accurate in the least - the best fit he had assumed a massive deindustrialization and massive reductions in CO2 - and those predictions are STILL very high! Instead, CO2 has kept ramping up and up, and we see...yeah, the models say the climate should respond in one way to this elevation, but reality just does its thing and shows how the models are fatally flawed:

 

 

”The dramatic warming predicted after 2008 has yet to arrive"

-Nature

 

 

• “It’s fair to say that the real world warmed even less than our forecast suggested,” [modeller] Smith says. “We don’t really understand at the moment why that is.” and until you acknowledge that co2 doesnt have the impact that is currently programmed into the models, you'll keep wondering.
• “Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, says that it could be a decade or more before this research really begins to pay off in terms of predictive power, and even then climate scientists will be limited in what they can say about the future.” I dont think I need to write that comment again, heh. Sorry kev, uless you accept that you brazenly, blindly, falsely accept these positive feedbacks are fudge factors that poorly mimic reality, you'll still be wondering the same thing 10 years out from now.

So as long as you keep ascribing things like UHI effect to CO2...you are going to be drawing incorrect conclusions from your efforts.

 

 

haha..."claimatology" at its finest.

[voidisyinyang]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/David-Evans-All-at-Sea-about-Ocean-Warming-and-Sea-Level-Rise.html

 

David Evans: All at Sea about Ocean Warming and Sea Level Rise

 

Edited July 12, 2013 by pythagoreanfulllotus

[voidisyinyang]

Edited July 12, 2013 by pythagoreanfulllotus

[voidisyinyang]

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

[joeblast]

Yeah that article lost me at the "re-radiating" bit. Not to mention it makes no causal link whatsoever between the ocean heat content and co2 - they just toss it out there and give the inference about co2. We're just off a rise in temps that has next to nothing to do with co2, of course the ocean is going to retain more heat....speaking of which, has tremberth found his missing heat yet? Or is he still thinking its disapearred.deep without the sea surface anomaly showing it, lol

 

Ya do realize that the stuff you're posting doesn't actually say anything concrete about co2 right? You keep posting stuff about anthropogenic heating but none of it says much at all about a causal co2 link, it is just inferred and assumed as obviously being the reason.

Edited July 12, 2013 by joeblast

[joeblast]

The Hansen paper:

 

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1211/1211.4846.pdf

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/earth-insight/2013/jul/10/james-hansen-fossil-fuels-runaway-global-warming?CMP=twt_fd

 

nice comment:

I also thought that comment was stupid because it entirely ignores the role of plate tectonics in the eq

[voidisyinyang]

Gee maybe you want to give some evidence? haha.

 

Nice accusations but no evidence!!

 

 

[ralis]

Gee maybe you want to give some evidence? haha.

 

Nice accusations but no evidence!!

 

He rarely if ever cites references as to his purported evidence. Just cut/paste from questionable sources and his above quote from the Journal 'Nature' has no link so that one can read the quote in the context of the article. Which any intelligent person would find suspicious. I guess Joe believes that persons reading his story are not very bright.

 

"The dramatic warming predicted after 2008 has yet to arrive"

-Nature

[joeblast]

I guess pointing out the myriad failings of the co2 based agw fright models isnt enough? and of course, whatever evidence I give up, I immediately get a comment like we've seen a million times over from ralis, and if that all fails, then hide behind peer review.

 

I dont understand what's so hard about admitting the models dont replicate reality well - the the more weighty the co2 coefficient, the worse the predictions and quicker they break and start making unphysical predictions outside of reality.

 

who's the burden of proof on here anyway - I'm not the one conjuring up ideas, marrying them with bad statistics, then making unphyisical claims about what my dream world construct says the world will be like - all the while watching the real world data diverge from it...

 

ah, no matter - let's set that start date for the model run back to today and then for an extremely short time it'll make some semblance of realistic result and we'll claim the models are once again sound, now please pay a carbon tithe.

 

you guys are getting old - posting model output as reality, then having a problem with what I say when I call it out. *shrugs*

[joeblast]

too much to replicate here. but a good explanation why SST anomalies are high east, northeast of iceland, and they are low south of iceland. so hey, what happened in iceland in recent history that just might affect albedo and Sea Surface Temps..

 

http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.htm

[voidisyinyang]

“Compared to the first few years of the Grace mission, the ice sheets’ contribution to sea-level rise has almost doubled in recent years,” added Dr Wouters, the lead author of the study published in the Earth sciences journal Nature Geoscience.

 

The Grace satellite measures tiny fluctuations of the Earth’s gravity field resulting from the loss of ice into the sea, but it cannot yet point to a long-term trend. Ice sheets also melt because of variations in the weather due to shifting ocean currents or decade-long oscillations in the weather systems of the North Atlantic Ocean.

 

A few more years of observations would be needed for the Grace experiment to point to whether global warming rather than natural variability is behind the loss of ice in the Antarctic, while it could take another 10 years of data to demonstrate a link with the loss of ice in Greenland, Dr Wouters said.

 

At the moment, the ice loss detected by the Grace satellite is larger than what would be expected from just natural fluctuations, but the acceleration in ice loss over the last few years is not, the scientists said.

 

Professor Andrew Shepherd of the University of Leeds said that less than a decade of satellite data from the Grace experiment is too short to establish with confidence whether the ice sheet losses are truly accelerating.

 

“Fortunately, we can appeal to data from other, longer satellite missions to get a long-term perspective, and our own analysis of their data confirms that the rate of ice sheet losses has indeed accelerated over the past 20 years,” Professor Shepherd said.

 

Massive ice sheets melting 'at rate of 300bn tonnes a year', climate satellite shows

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/massive-ice-sheets-melting-at-rate-of-300bn-tonnes-a-year-climate-satellite-shows-8708117.html

[joeblast]

haha...so you're not interested in debating the causal link, just posting up tangential things that have little to do with CO2.

 

 

scientists have warned that the measurements gathered since 2002 by the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace) flying in space are still too short-term for accurate predictions of how much ice will be lost in the coming decades

[ralis]

haha...so you're not interested in debating the causal link, just posting up tangential things that have little to do with CO2.

 

This is what I am talking about. Where is this quote from? Completely out of context which proves what?

[voidisyinyang]

This is what I am talking about. Where is this quote from? Completely out of context which proves what?

 

He's just trying to pull out one sentence out of context to change the accuracy of the article. haha.

 

Again this is because the denialists are based on force - they are industrialist thugs - and so left-brain reason is just a front for them - it's actually this way for science as a whole.

 

I don't think science can "save" the environment - science is just accurately tracking the destruction to ecology that science is creating!!

 

Of course most people are in denial about what science is doing to the planet. Others are not in denial but it's more like "deers in the headlight" reaction. So the scientists keep changing their predictions - based on the still linear deterministic analysis - and so the predictions always fall behind the necessary steps needed to stay ahead of the game so to speak.

 

This is why people don't understand hyperbolic statements - they are necessary to reset a nonlinear, nondeterministic system - just like if a person's car is sliding off to one direction then the person steers to the opposite extreme in order to get the car to go straight again. That is the real purpose of hyperbolic statements - otherwise just by relying on rational linear planning the scientific predictions will never be on target.

 

So then what is the result? The supercomputers using their nondeterministic, nonlinear analysis are in charge of society! It is the Matrix - machine controlled automation. Automation is the number one cause of job loss. So then the more techno-fixes for the environmental crisis then the more jobs are lost - and this goes against the supposed blue-green alliance. I have experienced this directly! I was a fall guy for the automation of my department - I saw many people get fired since the information I relied on was transferred from my paper job to a "supercomputer" - a speed dialer. This transfer was done in a top-down fascist manner that was totally inefficient for the nonprofit bottom line but was effective at concentrating power at the top.

 

David F. Noble has documented this same automation trend as an inefficient concentration of power - in his book "The Forces of Production" and Noble puts science in its apocalyptic Freemasonic context in his book "Religion of Technology" and the misoygny of science is detailed in his book "World Without Women." Of course those are all very radical views - still incomplete without a Pythagorean-Taoist analysis. haha. Noble was getting there by tracing the origins of this whole situation to the tantric technology myths of ancient civilzation - the focus of his final book which I have not read yet.

[joeblast]

This is what I am talking about. Where is this quote from? Completely out of context which proves what?

It was from the article Drew posted, man. That's why I quoted it. Are you familiar with something called statistical significance...and how that ties in when your sample size is too small to really be representative of the whole you are trying to say something about? That is what they were admitting right there in the article, that their sampling was too small to really say much of anything concrete except a bit about the current trajectory of the too-small snippet. Extrapolating linearly off into infinity like you see the IPCC models do is just plain dishonest.

 

Sorry Drew, the claim of the article is suspect and they admit the failing very early on into the article, but that doesnt stop them from musing about what would happen if the small snapshot were taken as part of a parabolic equation, which it isnt.

 

Filling up a big post with a bunch of words about ecology and things that have nothing to do with the co2 link isnt going to change this.

[voidisyinyang]

"It's the first time all the people who have estimated changes in the size of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets using satellites over the past 20 years have got together to produce a single result," Andrew Shepherd from the University of Leeds in the UK explained in an interview with DW.

 

http://www.dw.de/polar-ice-sheets-melting-faster-than-ever/a-16432199

 

 

Thanks to the accuracy of our data set, we are now able to say with confidence that Antarctica has lost ice for the whole of the past 20 years. In addition to the relative proportions of ice that have been lost in the northern and southern hemispheres, we can also see there's been a definitive acceleration of ice loss in last 20 years. So together Antarctica and Greenland are now contributing three times as much ice to sea levels as they were 20 years ago," says the Professor of Earth Observation.

 

and to corroborate my last comment:

 

 

The main uncertainty in climate projections is not to do with the physics or processes, the scientist says. It is the uncertainty as to what emissions scenarios nations will adopt in the future.

 

Interview with Shepherd on the statistics involved:

 

http://www.dw.de/popups/mediaplayer/contentId_16432199_mediaId_16432466

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183.abstract

 

actual study

 

And -- the above information is extrapolated from this quote

 

which I will REPEAT

 

to kind of -- well as remedial education:

 

 

“Fortunately, we can appeal to data from other, longer satellite missions to get a long-term perspective, and our own analysis of their data confirms that the rate of ice sheet losses has indeed accelerated over the past 20 years,” Professor Shepherd said.

Edited July 16, 2013 by pythagoreanfulllotus

[joeblast]

I guess that means you missed the articles about how they overestimated greenland ice sheet loss rather significantly, and I've already talked about how they've been taking antarctic peninsula measurements and "smoothing" them over the entire continent. The trend has been positive recently for the main bit of the continent, but things that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with CO2 have been the drivers of what goes on with the peninsula. Do you even recognize its damn near a different climate zone?

 

I'm not fooled by this bullshit. I'm clear on the post '70s warming trend. Are you clear that it has basically slacked off over the last 8-10 years? And I suppose the sea level decrease this past year is what now? Too minute, just within variability?

 

The main uncertainty in climate projections is not to do with the physics or processes, the scientist says. It is the uncertainty as to what emissions scenarios nations will adopt in the future.

 

As in, "I'm already bought and paid for with grant money, and the only way my blinders will let me see a cooling is for carbon dioxide emissions to decrease." What a tripe, its all about how much deindustrialization occurs, and hey, while we're at it, we can conflate that co2 mechanism in there.

 

Hey doc, you cant keep saying the last 20 years forever!

 

Its getting annoying having every single "climate issue" out there boil down to co2. Go read up on solar dynamics, drew, you appear to have a lot to learn there.

[voidisyinyang]

So the scientists need to read these "articles" apparently? haha.

 

HILARIOUS.

 

 

Sea levels could rise by 2.3 metres for each degree Celsius that global temperatures increase and they will remain high for centuries to come, according to a new study by the leading climate research institute, released on Monday.

Anders Levermann said his study for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research was the first to examine evidence from climate history and combine it with computer simulations of contributing factors to long-term sea-level increases: thermal expansion of oceans, the melting of mountain glaciers and the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/15/sea-level-rise-study_n_3591435.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

 

So the problem again is a linear result from nonlinear, nondeterministic realities.

 

2.3 metres for every degree Celsius rise in Temp - this ignores nonlinear feedback.

 

 

He sees especially the rapid melt in West Antarctica as a signal and a result of direct changes in the local balance between the ice sheet, the ocean and the atmosphere. If the west Antarctic ice sheet should become unstable, it could trigger abrupt changes globally.

 

http://www.dw.de/polar-ice-sheets-melting-faster-than-ever/a-16432199

 

So back to Shephard - he says not to panic but again it all depends on how much emissions are actually lowered.

[joeblast]

"could"

 

and

 

"computer simulations"

 

aka GIGO conjecture. nice try. cmon, when you model something...it is just like an audio recording. you "create" the entire landscape and have supreme control over all the input for what its going to churn out.

 

 

The Modelers’ Hippocratic Oath

~ I will remember that I didn’t make the world, and it doesn’t satisfy my equations.

~ Though I will use models boldly to estimate value, I will not be overly impressed by mathematics.

~ I will never sacrifice reality for elegance without explaining why I have done so.

~ Nor will I give the people who use my model false comfort about its accuracy.
Instead, I will make explicit its assumptions and oversights.

~ I understand that my work may have enormous effects on society and the economy,
many of them beyond my comprehension.

Edited July 16, 2013 by joeblast

[voidisyinyang]

 

the Arctic will be ice-free for several months of every year, starting sometime during the years 2054 to 2058.

 

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-07-ice-free-arctic.html#jCp