Jump to content

Objective Global Cooling


jduff
 Share

Recommended Posts

They've stacked the deck

 

Criticism: Paper [Insert Name] does not argue against AGW.
Rebuttal: This is a strawman argument as the list not only includes papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW but also ACC/AGW Alarm. Thus, a paper does not have to argue against AGW to still support skeptic arguments against alarmist conclusions (e.g. Hurricanes are getting worse due to global warming). Valid skeptic arguments include that AGW is exaggerated or inconsequential

 

 

This means that the mere existence of any "alarmist" paper means that any other paper that disagrees — even if it says that AGW exists — counts as supporting skeptic arguments.

 

Which means that it is possible to have 1000 journal articles on some topic, all of which support AGW, and have 999 of them count as support for the skeptic position, simply because 1 contains an alarmist position.

 

By incorrectly equating "outdated" with "old", it also means that one of those papers could be an updated paper by that same set of authors as the "alarmist" paper, which revises the predictions to be less extreme. You'd have the extremist authors also counting as skeptics.

 

This isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. Just more sleight of hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This disclaimer, quoted by moth above, is worth highlighting:

 

Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. While certain authors on the list cannot be labeled skeptics (e.g. Harold Brooks, Roger Pielke Jr., Roger Pielke Sr.) their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) can still support skeptic's arguments against ACC/AGW alarm. Various papers are mutually exclusive and should be considered independently.
I still have a hard time believing I read that.

 

Not only are we to take papers failing to specifically assert undue alarm, or indicating some hazard has turned out to be less than was earlier noticed as possible, as evidence against AGW itself; but also we are to consider papers that when taken as evidence against AGW contradict each other independently. Self-contradictions, mutually exclusive assertions, in the arguments against AGW are to be deliberately separated, prevented by some tactic of consideration from affecting each other. WTF? How, exactly, is that supposed to be accomplished - one tack on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and a contradictory tack on Wednesdays and Fridays?

 

Some Brit on a talk show the other night was discussing US news media, and asserted that from the outside Fox News appeared to be a spoof - something Saturday Night Live would do as a mockery of television news. I took that as joke by him. I'm not so sure, now - honestly, if one were to spoof the denialist crowd, that disclaimer would be excellent material to plagiarize, straight and as is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol, a excerpt from American Thinker magazine concerning Global Warming supporters "

When apocalyptic cults turn murderous, they become a danger to the public. The warmist cult, frustrated by the failure of nature to back-up their prophecies of doom, apparently is turning to homicidal fantasies, and venting them in the pages of the New York Times.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/02/ny_times_publishes_cartoon_about_killing_global_warming_deniers.html#ixzz2uHV1YfNe

 

frigging hilarious! Even better is this..

 

total CO2 in atmosphere = 3.16×1015 kg (about 3,000 gigatonnes)

TOTAL Human emissions = 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year.
26 / 3000 = .0086667
-------------
Compare to water Vapor
CO2 = .04% of total atmosphere
H2O Vapor = 1%
Total H2O vapor = 25x total CO2
CO2 = 1/25 of H2O vapor
-------------
Specific Heat capacity of H20 vapor = 1.93
Specific heat capacity of CO2 = 0.844
H2O is 2.29 times more efficient than CO2
-------------
If we stop ALL human emissions and return to the stone age, we would make 1/25x.0086667/2.29 = .00016925 difference. JUST IN REGARDS TO WATER VAPOR+CO2 alone. About 1.7 TEN-THOUSANDTH of the effect of water vapor.

 

With link: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/volcanic-eruptions-contributed-to-global-warming-pause-scientists-claim-9147856.html

 

Now these doomsday climate change/global warming peeps are getting crazy :) And here I thought it was the skeptics!

Edited by jduff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol, a excerpt from American Thinker magazine concerning Global Warming supporters "

 

When apocalyptic cults turn murderous, they become a danger to the public. The warmist cult, frustrated by the failure of nature to back-up their prophecies of doom,

Failure? As we emerge from the 4th warmest January in recorded history, and observe that nobody under the age of ~28 has ever experienced a month with below average temperatures.

 

apparently is turning to homicidal fantasies, and venting them in the pages of the New York Times.

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/02/ny_times_publishes_cartoon_about_killing_global_warming_deniers.html#ixzz2uHV1YfNe

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

frigging hilarious!

One cartoonist ≠ cult, much less being plural cults

 

Even better is this..

 

total CO2 in atmosphere = 3.16×1015 kg (about 3,000 gigatonnes)

 

TOTAL Human emissions = 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year.

26 / 3000 = .0086667

The meaning of this is what, exactly?

 

The fallacious conclusion that relatively small amounts can't do anything? If you think that's true, I advise you not to ingest a relatively small amount of ricin or many other poisons.

 

Anyway, CO2 has gone up 25% since the start of the industrial age. That's not a small amount. That's what you get for ignoring the "per year" part of the statement.

 

-------------

Compare to water Vapor

CO2 = .04% of total atmosphere

H2O Vapor = 1%

Total H2O vapor = 25x total CO2

CO2 = 1/25 of H2O vapor

CO2 stays in the atmosphere a lot longer than water vapor. There's this phenomenon called rain. Perhaps you've heard of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually kind of interested in the "heat capacity" part of that post. This:

 

Specific Heat capacity of H20 vapor = 1.93
Specific heat capacity of CO2 = 0.844
H2O is 2.29 times more efficient than CO2
That one's new to me, and I've got a feeling we're going to see it again. I actually would care to hear, if our poster would be so kind, what exactly he thinks the relevance is - what that number means to him or has been presented to him as meaning. Edited by overtone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Here's a fun chart showing global cooling:

 

Z34mDyl.png

 

Here's a link to the parent site. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global

Fun with charts...change time scale dates and trend line dates.

Global land lagged global oceans in beginning to cool by a couple years, but has been accelerating in the past few years, eg: 2007-2013

which exceeds global ocean cooling by orders of magnitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What/where are the error bars on that graph? The trend is 0.02ºC. Are you claiming the error bars are so small that you can exclude an increase, or even a flat line?

 

 

How deep do the ocean measurements go, and what is the Arctic coverage of the data collection? Because both have been identified as being recipients of energy influx, but if they are warming and not being included in these results, then the results are understating the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ain't my charts

see noaa site

and, if you do find the error margins specific to the charts shown and linked

please share

maybe try the ncdc also?

 

I found "examples" but nothing specific to any one month.

Edited by sculptor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ain't my charts

see noaa site

and, if you do find the error margins specific to the charts shown and linked

please share

maybe try the ncdc also?

 

I found "examples" but nothing specific to any one month.

 

You posted it. You made the claim. Disingenuous to then throw your hands up and shift blame when someone points out your claim is without merit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in the interest of balance - I plotted the graph for my lifetime. This global cooling is sneaky - cos it looks to me as if it is warming not cooling.

 

post-32514-0-87691500-1398935509_thumb.jpg

 

I think all I changed was the start year of the plot and the start year of the trend otherwise the settings were per Sculptor's. Just goes to show how you can cherry pick data - I had to carefully pick a period to show a global warming and my choice was limited to almost all of them apart from those so short to be, as John Cuthber described it, Weather not Climate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in the interest of balance - I plotted the graph for my lifetime. This global cooling is sneaky - cos it looks to me as if it is warming not cooling.

 

attachicon.gifIn the interest of balance.jpg

 

I think all I changed was the start year of the plot and the start year of the trend otherwise the settings were per Sculptor's. Just goes to show how you can cherry pick data - I had to carefully pick a period to show a global warming and my choice was limited to almost all of them apart from those so short to be, as John Cuthber described it, Weather not Climate.

I was going to do the same thing, but I realized you were only a year older than I am, so I decided to try my grandfather's year of birth, and add fifty more years of data.

 

post-74622-0-94393100-1398949717_thumb.png

 

Overall the trend from the late 20's to the current year is upwards at 0.10 C per decade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is probable that a significant number of persons expressing a belief in anthropocentric global warming do so as a matter of dogma, "belief", joining the band-wagon, or similar motivation.

 

It is probable that a significant number of persons expressing disbelief in anthropocentric global warming do so as a matter of dogma, "belief", joining the band-wagon, or similar motivation.

 

What is interesting is that when one examines the facts the preponderance of evidence points towards the reality of anthropocentric global warming.

 

Those who believe in AGW on the basis of dogma do a disservice to those seeking to address the issue, since they provide viable ammunition for the nay-sayers. This is unfortunate. (That's British understatement for "dumb bastards".)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's ironic that humanity's impact on the Earth is being debated when British colonial geographers in the early 20th century in Southern Asia already measured changes in the region's climate due solely to human-induced deforestation. The Dutch and French measured these changes as well and that's why conservation laws were adopted. Not the mention the fact that pristine forests that haven't been touched by humans don't even exist anymore, just about every forest on the face of the Earth has undergone drastic changes in species and soil composition due to humans chopping down and planting trees and other flora and moving animals around in those regions over thousands of years, and even the large expanses of Savannahs in Africa were created by nomadic portraitists practicing swidden agriculture to create grazing fields for their domesticated cattle. The reduction of Mangroves induces more flooding and polluting, and the damning of rivers that fed the Aral sea caused the entire lake to disappear which has made temperatures in the region vary by more extreme amounts and left huge salt deposits. If you look at history, it's really obvious humanity can affect the Earth.

Edited by SamBridge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Can it be so? Reasonableness of the politico-climate climate? I feel warmer, if not fuzzier, already. :cool:

 

Republican EPA chiefs to Congress: Act on climate

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Top environmental regulators for four Republican presidents told Congress on Wednesday what many Republican lawmakers won't: Action is needed on global warming.

...

The former EPA administrators told lawmakers that global warming was similar to other serious environmental issues they confronted, such as industrial pollution, dangerous pesticides or water contamination. But tackling those issues enjoyed broad public support.

 

"Inherent in all of these problems was uncertain science and powerful economic interests resisting controls. The same is true of climate change," said Ruckelshaus, who also led the agency under Reagan. "In all of the cases cited, the solutions to the problems did not result in the predicted economic and social calamity."

...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.