More Evidence Against the Carbon Dioxide Scam

[joeblast]

ROFL....and you are confident in a prediction forty years out, generated from computer models that dont well account for the sun, magnetism, volcanism, ENSO, AMO, and ascribe huge weights to carbon dioxide! hahahahaha...

 

with all the "I'm all over these corporate scams" you spout, I'm really surprised you havent taken the time to study what's going on and simply accept academia's grantmoney-driven jibba jabba as gospel.

 

hint hint drew, such predictions will ALWAYS be safely and well into the future coming from these specious models, because it takes a little bit of time for the inherent misunderstandings built right into the model to manifest a breakage from the model and start saying funny things will happen.

 

if solar cycle 25 follows the wacky things 24 is doing, you do realize those predictions are going to be so far off its not even funny, and its pretty much going to take a 180 reversal of current solar trends for those predictions to come true - but it will NOT be because of whatever the co2 concentration winds up being, that much I will guarantee you. ten thousand prostrations for the error-ee and it wont be me.

 

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his income depends on his not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair

 

Go read up on Livingston & Penn.

Edited July 16, 2013 by joeblast

[voidisyinyang]

Exclusive: Billionaires secretly fund attacks on climate science

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-billionaires-secretly-fund-attacks-on-climate-science-8466312.html

 

 

Robert Brulle, a sociologist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, has estimated that over the past decade about $500m has been given to organisations devoted to undermining the science of climate change, with much of the money donated anonymously through third parties.

The trust has given money to the Competitive Enterprise Institute which is currently being sued for defamation by Professor Michael Mann of Pennsylvania University, an eminent climatologist, whose affidavit claims that he was accused of scientific fraud and compared to a convicted child molester.

[voidisyinyang]

By the 1990s, there was a tentative answer: minor solar variations could indeed have been partly responsible for some past fluctuations... but future warming from the rise in greenhouse gases was far outweigh any solar effects.

 

Changing Sun, Changing Climate?

 

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm citing

 

http://www.agu.org/history/SV.shtml

 

 

Back in 1994 a U.S. National Academy of Sciences panel had estimated that if solar radiation were to weaken as much as it had during the 17th-century Maunder Minimum, the entire effect would be offset by another two decades of accumulation of greenhouse gases. A 2010 study reported that by the late 21st century a Maunder-Minimum solar effect would be offset with barely a single decade of emissions. As one expert explained, the Little Ice Age "was a mere 'blip' compared with expected future climatic change."

[voidisyinyang]

O'Neary explains the results: "What we have found is that warming at the earth's surface is eventually great enough to have an impact further inside the earth. It is well-known that heating a magnet is one method of destroying its magnetism. Our model shows that the increased heat in the earth's core is sufficient to destroy the earth's magnetic field totally. Ten years ago we were worried about the poles moving around. Now we are predicting there won't even be a magnetic pole."

 

http://www.maprunner.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=42:global-warming-and-the-earths-magnetic-field&catid=14:maprunner&Itemid=183

[voidisyinyang]

To understand why that would be, the research team used a computer model and captured how those changes affected the pressures experienced at different places on the Earth's crust. The team found that when glaciers melt, they reduce the pressure on continents, while sea-level rise increases pressures on the ocean floor crust. In the computer model, the change in pressures on the Earth's crust seem to cause increases in volcanism.

In general, the speed of the transition from ice age to melting, rather than the total amount of melting, predicted how intensely the volcanic eruptions increased, she said.

The study doesn't address whether modern-day climate change would have any impact on the frequency of volcanic eruptions, though in theory it's possible, Jegen said.

But even if anthropogenic, or human-caused, climate change impacts volcanic eruptions, people wouldn't see the effect in this lifetime, because the volcanic activity doesn't occur immediately after the climate change, Jegen said.

"We predict there's a time lag of about 2,500 years," Jegen said. "So even if we change the climate, you wouldn't really expect anything to happen in the next few thousand years."

 

http://www.livescience.com/25936-climate-change-causes-volcanism.html

[voidisyinyang]

Now a new study, which builds on prior efforts to reconstruct El Niño's past behavior by examining coral growth, suggests that El Niño and La Niña events have become more variable and intense over the past several decades.

"We kind of answered the question, is El Niño changing with respect to recent natural variability?" said Kim Cobb, the Georgia Institute of Technology climate scientist who led the research published yesterday in the journal Science. "The answer is yes, tentatively so."

The 7,000-year portrait painted by the corals she examined suggests El Niño may get stronger as the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere climbs, Cobb said.

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=study-strengthens-link-between-el-nino-and-climate-change

[joeblast]

yup and I keep pointing out that's a HUGE assumption - the MODELS say "this will happen." and you dont even consider the fact that the models are necessarily incomplete and do not make accurate prediction or retrodiction! so if they are incomplete and not accurate...what the hell good is what it says will happen forty years from now? it is garbage...and you know it.

 

and cmon....funding?? if you really want to make an apples to apples comparison and include how much governments and companies spend on AGW, whether its propaganda or grants or what have you, then you're not going to see the disparity lean in the "denier" direction.

 

it makes me wonder what proclamations you take as fact on its face and what you might actually give some thought to.

[voidisyinyang]

A new computer model developed by German researchers, reported in the journal Nature, suggests the cooling will counter greenhouse warming.

However, temperatures will again be rising quickly by about 2020, they say.

Other climate scientists have welcomed the research, saying it may help societies plan better for the future.

 

See how modelled temperatures may develop

The key to the new prediction is the natural cycle of ocean temperatures called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which is closely related to the warm currents that bring heat from the tropics to the shores of Europe.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7376301.stm

[joeblast]

lol, coral reconstruction....this is on par with the Yamal data dude

[joeblast]

http://www.maprunner.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=42:global-warming-and-the-earths-magnetic-field&catid=14:maprunner&Itemid=183

lol, the magnetic poles have NEVER been still and they flip flop every umpteen centuries....and we are long overdue for a flippage.

[voidisyinyang]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2013/02/27/why-skepticism-about-computer-models-is-not-a-good-reason-for-skepticism-about-climate-change/

 

 

Why Skepticism About Computer Models Is Not A Good Reason For Skepticism About Climate Change

[voidisyinyang]

computer models that dont well account for the sun, magnetism, volcanism, ENSO, AMO, and ascribe huge weights to carbon dioxide!

 

A LIE

[joeblast]

LOL

 

like everyone else that accepts CO2 AGW as a fact, you are quick and shoddy with ascribing all kinds of things to carbon dioxide.

 

EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE you post up on this proclaims "we understand the carbon process SO WELL, you just have to take what we're saying as fact.....ummm...that little issue of not being able to make any accurate predictions or retrodictions...well that's just a minor technicality, please pay no attention to the men behind the curtain."

 

You're pretty well duped, Drew. I know I'm not going to convince you to do some actual study, I'm just going to keep seeing you post up grant funded proclamations that the models are perfectly representative of reality, and I'm going to keep rolling my eyes at them.

[joeblast]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_bias

 

Systemic bias is the inherent tendency of a process to favor particular outcomes. The term is a neologism that generally refers to human systems including institutions; the analogous problem in non-human systems (such as measurement instruments or mathematical models used to estimate physical quantities) is often called systematic bias, and leads to systematic error in measurements or estimates.

 

 

This is all we're seeing here. Watching correlation get conflated for causation is alllll I'm seeing, over and over and over and over and over again.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_bias

Edited July 16, 2013 by joeblast

[joeblast]

livingston & penn pdf

 

like I said, if 25 does what it looks like its going to do, best getcha tummo out there in minneysota! and it aint gonna make a shit of a difference what the CO2 concentration is. to assert otherwise....well, is to buy into the agw propaganda, which WILL be shown to be the fallacy it is - in time....sooner or later the data will bludgeon AGW to death.

Edited July 16, 2013 by joeblast

[voidisyinyang]

While dark sunspots tend to vanish during solar minima, the bright faculae do not. This may be why paleoclimate records of sun-sensitive isotopes C-14 and Be-10 show a faint 11-year cycle at work even during the Maunder Minimum.

 

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

 

 

Such an event would not be unprecedented, since during a famous episode from 1645-1715, known as the Maunder Minimum, the normal 11-year periodicity vanished and there were virtually no sunspots visible on the solar surface (1).

 

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/livingston-penn_sunspots2.pdf

 

 

"If there is indeed a solar effect on climate, it is manifested by changes in general circulation rather than in a direct temperature signal." This fits in with the conclusion of the IPCC and previous NRC reports that solar variability is NOT the cause of global warming over the last 50 years.

Much has been made of the probable connection between the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year deficit of sunspots in the late 17^th-early 18th century, and the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America were subjected to bitterly cold winters. The mechanism for that regional cooling could have been a drop in the sun’s EUV output; this is, however, speculative.

 

The L&P Effect is Debunked

http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/65

 

The National Solar Observatory made some interesting comments re L&P in their 2009 annual report. They do not see any decline in spot magnetic strength but suggest we are seeing a higher proportion of weaker spots, coming about from measuring the increasing proportion of specks and pores that have occurred on the downslope of SC23.

[joeblast]

They do not see any decline in spot magnetic strength

 

 

lol, what the hell do you think makes the sunspots disappear??? beneath a threshold, they do not have the potential to manifest a "spot" even though the underlying mechanism still cranks on!

 

debunked my ass, it points out areas where L&P isnt comprehensive and hints at deeper solar mechanisms that arent properly understood at present (you know, like the co2 coefficient.)

 

no crap its not 100% direct, otherwise we wouldnt be having this silly discussion on carbon dioxide!

 

not to mention, we are detecting more and smaller "spots" these days due to increased ability to view this stuff. so our sunspot counts are skewed a little high (just like co2 coefficient)

 

http://science.nasa....jan_sunclimate/

and I already mentioned how TSI ignores some uv aspects and is not "TOTAL" ...so if your model reduces the entirety of the sun's output down to one little almost representative coefficient like Hansen does,

 

the approximate present does not necessarily have any correlation whatsoever to the approximate future

[voidisyinyang]

Haigh says that if Rawls had read a bit further, he would have realised that the report goes on to largely dismiss the evidence that cosmic rays have a significant effect. "They conclude there's very little evidence that it has any effect," she says.

 

In fact, the report summary reaffirms that humanity's greenhouse gas emissions are the main reason for rising temperatures. It goes on to detail the many harmful effects, from more frequent heatwaves to rising sea levels.

 

Leaked IPCC report reaffirms dangerous climate change

 

Changes in the sun's brightness do have an important effect on the climate, but not in the way climate sceptics would like to think. The sun's brightness changes very little on human timescales, so the amount of heat Earth receives does not change much.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23005-leaked-ipcc-report-reaffirms-dangerous-climate-change.html#.UeWRjG1huSo

[joeblast]

lol, the IPCC's mission statement is basically to prove the AGW CO2 paradigm.

“The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential and options for adaptation and mitigation.”

 

LOL...keep that climategate data hush hush!

 

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

 

and redefine they did, that's what we now know as Pal Review.

 

 

and "if the amount of heat doesnt change much",...why dont you go re-read the first post in this thread?

[ralis]

Just starting to read this book which discusses reasons for Republicans denial of science.

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Republican-Brain-Science-Science-/dp/1118094514/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1374027202&sr=8-1&keywords=republican+brain

[voidisyinyang]

A footnote left out of the OP "re-write" of the NASA article:

 

 

Footnote: (1) No one on Earth’s surface would have felt this impulse of heat. Mlynczak puts it into perspective: “Heat radiated by the solid body of the Earth is very large compared to the amount of heat being exchanged in the upper atmosphere. The daily average infrared radiation from the entire planet is 240 W/m²—enough to power NYC for 200,000 years.”

 

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

 

So the big expose here? Two years over 2 days compared to (left out foot note) 200,000 years over one day.

 

 

NASA-funded researchers say the solar storms of March 8^th through 10^th dumped enough energy in Earth’s upper atmosphere to power every residence in New York City for two years.

 

Hilarious!!!!

Edited July 17, 2013 by pythagoreanfulllotus

[joeblast]

LOL...okay Drew, it cant be felt by someone standing on the surface, so we dont need to include it in our considerations. What a dupe. I'm done arguing with you fools on this for now, all you're doing is speaking tangentially at best about CO2 and saying it is a preponderance, claiming again and again that correlation is causation so long as its CO2 we're talking about, but any of these other shit-ton of holes in the swiss cheese AGW argument, well, they dont matter because "its correct and we have a big consensus about it." Get that bs outta here. If you cant put 2+2 together about the OP, then you are being willfully ignorant, you're smarter than that, but apparently not quite so evolved that bias doesnt color the hell out of your view "when you feel things should be a certain way."

 

Which can basically explain the majority of people that believe in the AGW CO2 fairy tale. C'mon, please give us another story about ecology that has nothing whatsoever to do with CO2, and then tie it into saying yeah, well, CO2 is absolutely responsible for all this warming. *facepalm*

 

How's that UHI effect in south korea doing over the last 50 years? Right, that's all co2, didnt ya know

[ralis]

LOL...okay Drew, it cant be felt by someone standing on the surface, so we dont need to include it in our considerations. What a dupe. I'm done arguing with you fools on this for now, all you're doing is speaking tangentially at best about CO2 and saying it is a preponderance, claiming again and again that correlation is causation so long as its CO2 we're talking about, but any of these other shit-ton of holes in the swiss cheese AGW argument, well, they dont matter because "its correct and we have a big consensus about it." Get that bs outta here. If you cant put 2+2 together about the OP, then you are being willfully ignorant, you're smarter than that, but apparently not quite so evolved that bias doesnt color the hell out of your view "when you feel things should be a certain way."

 

Which can basically explain the majority of people that believe in the AGW CO2 fairy tale. C'mon, please give us another story about ecology that has nothing whatsoever to do with CO2, and then tie it into saying yeah, well, CO2 is absolutely responsible for all this warming. *facepalm*

 

How's that UHI effect in south korea doing over the last 50 years? Right, that's all co2, didnt ya know

 

Fools = Ad hominem

[joeblast]

who's the bigger fool, the fool, or the fool who follows him?

 

agreeing with a premise because it sounds good and refusing to acknowledge any contrary evidence is rather foolish, innit?

 

you two have been fooled by propaganda - to the extent that all contrary evidence, all of the holes poked in the agw story, those are meaningless to you, because some professors found out the grant money flowed like the Nile once the government discovered it might be able to harvest tax money from the whole deal. *shrugs*

 

 

so yeah, I really dont need to hear any more of this "ZOMG! Our NEEEW model is even better and TOTALLY backs up the CO2 paradigm" being parroted around - but we'll fail to mention we are the ones that set those parameters (or we just copied from that guy over there who seems to know what he's talking abouot since he says co2 is bad too) and didnt have a good understanding of why we set those parameters or the extent of statistical fudgery used to come up with that conclusion. Oh, and we dont care if this was all funded by taxpayers, you still have no right to FOIA us and make us reveal exactly what's in this black box we used to tell the world that carbon dioxide is REAL! and it will cause CATASTROPHE! there's a consensus and all reputable scientists agree!

 

and shhhhh, you cant count public money when talking about who funds what, those damned kochs! hahahaha

Edited July 17, 2013 by joeblast

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

 

How many rotations does the sun make in an earth year?