New report on climate change released today

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is clear you did not read the paper. You posted a reply just 7 minutes after I posted it. It took me about 1/2 hour to read it. Get back with specific objections to the paper's content (not my summary.) Please include which of his referenced articles are wrong.

Just as soon as you demonstrate that what I said about the paper not nothing the denials are founded on truth isn't true. This is just another Moore-Coulteresque false equivalency.

The Earth is warming, but climate change predictions aren't carved in stone... therefore political opinions of denialists are as valid as scientific observations of scientists.

You still haven't read it?

It doesn't support your position. I summed up the climate change section in one sentence.

 

[bilby]

The paper merely describes the basis for the undermining of science in the service of a political or commercial objective.

This process is widely known as 'The tobacco strategy', as it was used from the early 1950s by the tobacco industry to shed doubt on the increasing scientific consensus that smoking tobacco was harmful to health.

There are two major components to the tobacco strategy:

1) Cherry picking of research to amplify any findings that support your preferred conclusion (or fail to support the consensus against it) - This includes both scouring external research for any hints that your preferred conclusion is not wrong, and commissioning research, but only publishing the small fraction of results that support your preferred conclusion; and

2) Agressively persuing the appearance of doubt. Question everything; Demand that equal time and focus be given to 'both sides', regardless of whether the evidence on one side is overwhelmingly greater than on the other.

The industry had realized that you could create the impression of controversy simply by asking questions, even if you actually knew the answers and they didn’t help your case. And so the industry began to transmogrify emerging scientific consensus into raging scientific “debate.”

- Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, 2011.

Indeed, one key tool in the creation of doubt is to insist that people who haven't read ALL of the evidence are incapable of having an informed opinion; And presenting them with a huge mountain of irrelevant or low quality information - if they reject it (on the reasonable basis that it contains errors of fact, or is simply tangential to the point), you claim that they cannot be fully informed, and therefore might be mistaken or untrustworthy. If they don't reject it, then you shut them up for as long as they need to analyse it, and by the time they've finished, either they, ot the audience, or both, have forgotten what was being discussed, or moved on to something less turgid and more entertaining.

As the purpose of the strategy is not to prove your position, but merely to shed doubt on the contrary position, every person who gives up or stops caring is a win.

The fact is that in both the damaging effects of tobacco smoking on health, and the damaging effects of fossil fuel burning on climate, there are not two sides to the argument, who deserve equal time and respect.

There's the scientific consensus, and there's the usual tiny number of results that are erroneous for various reasons. Taking the one or two percent of contrary results and dissenting scientists, and presenting them as though they constitute an equally valid position, is totally contrary to how science works. But it's absolutely central to political manoeuvring.

This is why it's vital not to let politicians (or courts, or the general public) decide on questions of fact.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

CO2 cannot cause global warming. I'll tell you why. It doesn't mix well with the atmosphere, for one. For two, its specific gravity is 1 1/2 times that of the rest of the atmosphere. It heats and cools much quicker. Its radiative processes are much different. So it cannot -- it literally cannot cause global warming. --- Joe Bastardi, Fox Business, March 9, 2012.[20]

Let's consider this bit of crap. Sunday I was out in the mountains, above 10,000'. There are a few insects and birds up there, AFIAK nothing larger. The primary vegetation is bristlecone pine--and given their slow growth I'm sure they're basically inedible. Furthermore, I was going along a ridgeline--that dense CO2 could easily have spilled off either side of the ridge. Thus that area should be basically devoid of CO2.

How, then, are these plants growing?
View attachment 22453

And for that matter, how come you don't choke to death on carbon dioxide every time you go down to your basement? People have been exhaling it in the house above for years.

1) We live in a climate without a frost line. Basements are almost unheard of here. (Basements are fairly expensive to construct, it's just if you have to dig deep to put the foundation below the frost line you've already incurred much of the cost, might as well throw down a floor rather than fill the hole back up.)

2) We live in a climate with central air systems. The CO2 would be blown out.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here’s a better graph of CO2 and temperature for the last 600 million years! As noted, CO2 levels have historically been quite a bit higher than current levels Joe!
You might note that at 4400 ppm, the earths temperature was roughly the same as it is today! AND an ice age occurred while CO2 was over 4,000 ppm!

You have ignored the fact that I have repeatedly pointed out: When the sun wasn't as hot it took more CO2 to produce the same temperature.

Note that we do not have actual CO2 measurements back beyond the ice core data, the data you are looking at is a calculation based on current scientific theories.

Thus your argument, expressed in logical terms is A proves not-A. Why does your head not explode?

 

[Keith&Co.]

CO2 cannot cause global warming. I'll tell you why. It doesn't mix well with the atmosphere, for one.

Um... Okay, maybe this is my sub background talking, where we have to pack our atmosphere along with our water and porn, but i have to ask.
If you release CO\(2\) in gaseous form, it, like, becomes the atmosphere, right?

How can the atmosphere not mix with the atmosphere? Or is this just throwing words out to pretend there is an argument in progress?

 

[thecajunatheist75]

I'm baffled as to why people think the earth's climate should never fluctuate. These irresponsible proclamations of death and destruction are not based on science or evidence.

I have taken two years of college level astronomy course. Even I know that what you are saying is intellectually dishonest or ignorant. On top of my university education I also read a lot of peer reviewed articles on climate change. The evidence is overwhelming. Also there is a difference between climate and weather. Look it up!!! You are talking about weather. Yes weather does change. Climate is the trends of weather of an extended period of time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[George S]

[Note: Most of their references are their own papers. One is even to their own [6] to be published. Too interesting to ignore though.
One of the authors (JK) worked as an expert reviewer of IPCC AR5 report.]

NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT
ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE
J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI
Abstract. In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC report
AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global
temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature
change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house
gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a
very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further
they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order
to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in
the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

In Fig. 4 we see clearly how well a change in
the relative humidity can model the strong temperature minimum around the year
1975. This is impossible to interpret by CO2 concentration.
The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude too high, because
a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models. If we pay
attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is
anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does
not exist in practice. The major part of the extra CO2 is emitted from oceans [6],
according to Henry‘s law. The low clouds practically control the global average
temperature. During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about
0.1°C because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01°C.

 

[angelo]

This paper (15 pages) explains how people on both sides can present actual scientific data to support their political position.

Ain't that the most bullshit of statements. Global warming isn't a "political position". It is a scientific observation. The paper you cite doesn't particularly indicate that the denials are founded on truth.

It is clear you did not read the paper. You posted a reply just 7 minutes after I posted it. It took me about 1/2 hour to read it. Get back with specific objections to the paper's content (not my summary.) Please include which of his referenced articles are wrong.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a rational reply if I were you!

 

[angelo]

Here’s a better graph of CO2 and temperature for the last 600 million years! As noted, CO2 levels have historically been quite a bit higher than current levels Joe!
You might note that at 4400 ppm, the earths temperature was roughly the same as it is today! AND an ice age occurred while CO2 was over 4,000 ppm!

You have ignored the fact that I have repeatedly pointed out: When the sun wasn't as hot it took more CO2 to produce the same temperature.

Note that we do not have actual CO2 measurements back beyond the ice core data, the data you are looking at is a calculation based on current scientific theories.

Thus your argument, expressed in logical terms is A proves not-A. Why does your head not explode?

In the same vein of thought then. Why is the sun completely ignored as the main cause of any GW/CC/CD today? Again. Why is a harmless trace gas of one molecule per 100 demonised while the sun is treated as it's not even there?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Here’s a better graph of CO2 and temperature for the last 600 million years! As noted, CO2 levels have historically been quite a bit higher than current levels Joe!
You might note that at 4400 ppm, the earths temperature was roughly the same as it is today! AND an ice age occurred while CO2 was over 4,000 ppm!

You have ignored the fact that I have repeatedly pointed out: When the sun wasn't as hot it took more CO2 to produce the same temperature.

Note that we do not have actual CO2 measurements back beyond the ice core data, the data you are looking at is a calculation based on current scientific theories.

Thus your argument, expressed in logical terms is A proves not-A. Why does your head not explode?

In the same vein of thought then. Why is the sun completely ignored as the main cause of any GW/CC/CD today? Again. Why is a harmless trace gas of one molecule per 100 demonised while the sun is treated as it's not even there?

Do you have a daily quota of indefensible posts you are required to make?

 

[angelo]

In the same vein of thought then. Why is the sun completely ignored as the main cause of any GW/CC/CD today? Again. Why is a harmless trace gas of one molecule per 100 demonised while the sun is treated as it's not even there?

Do you have a daily quota of indefensible posts you are required to make?

In other words, nothing must stop the demonising of the cult of GW/CC/CD.
MINUSCULE. CO2 has a specific heat capacity of 0.81 at 275K and water vapour of 1.89 with CO2 at 410 ppm and Water Vapour at 25,000 ppm. Their relative contribution to GHE is (410*.81)/((410*.81)+(25000*1.89)) which rounds to zero. CO2 is an insignificant so called Green House Gas GHG.

At 412 ppm carbon dioxide is an invisible, non-toxic, trace gas in the atmosphere primarily known for its role as the essential plant food for photosynthesis. CO2 makes up only a tiny portion of the atmosphere (0.040%) and constitutes only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect. The atmospheric content of CO2 has increased only 0.008% since emissions began to soar after 1945. Such a tiny increment of increase in CO2 cannot cause the 10°F increase in temperature predicted by CO2 advocates.

Carbon dioxide has been wrongly maligned by the Alarmist climate movement. Take a few minutes with Dr. Patrick Moore former founder of Greenpeace to get the facts.

Dr. Patrick Moore Co Founder of Greenpeace

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-percentage-of-CO2-in-the-atmosphere

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In the same vein of thought then. Why is the sun completely ignored as the main cause of any GW/CC/CD today? Again. Why is a harmless trace gas of one molecule per 100 demonised while the sun is treated as it's not even there?

Do you have a daily quota of indefensible posts you are required to make?

At 412 ppm carbon dioxide is an invisible, non-toxic, trace gas in the atmosphere primarily known for its role as the essential plant food for photosynthesis.

So the invisible, non-toxic, trace gas is potent enough to drive the vast majority of life on the planet. Do you see an issue with what you said?

 

[ZiprHead]

And for that matter, how come you don't choke to death on carbon dioxide every time you go down to your basement? People have been exhaling it in the house above for years.

1) We live in a climate without a frost line. Basements are almost unheard of here. (Basements are fairly expensive to construct, it's just if you have to dig deep to put the foundation below the frost line you've already incurred much of the cost, might as well throw down a floor rather than fill the hole back up.)

2) We live in a climate with central air systems. The CO2 would be blown out.

Yeah, that's why you don't choke.

 

[scombrid]

MINUSCULE. CO2 has a specific heat capacity of 0.81 at 275K and water vapour of 1.89 with CO2 at 410 ppm and Water Vapour at 25,000 ppm.

Funny thing. Take the other greenhouse gasses out of the atmosphere and the water vapor condenses out.

Therefore:

Their relative contribution to GHE is (410*.81)/((410*.81)+(25000*1.89)) which rounds to zero.

Is a meaningless math exercise.

CO2 is an insignificant so called Green House Gas GHG.

At 412 ppm carbon dioxide is an invisible, non-toxic, trace gas in the atmosphere primarily known for its role as the essential plant food for photosynthesis. CO2 makes up only a tiny portion of the atmosphere (0.040%) and constitutes only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect.

So the atmosphere would be 3.6% cooler if there were no CO2 and then how much warmer if the CO2 is doubled?

 

[scombrid]

NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT
ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE
J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI
Abstract. In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC report
AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global
temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature
change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house
gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a
very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further
they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order
to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in
the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.

There is a big chicken/egg problem with their analysis.

It turns out that the changes in the relative humidity and in the low cloud
cover depend on each other [4]. So, instead of low cloud cover we can use the
changes of the relative humidity in order to derive the natural temperature anomaly.
According to the observations 1 % increase of the relative humidity decreases the
temperature by 0.15°C, and consequently the last term in the above equation can
be approximated by −15°C∆φ, where ∆φ is the change of the relative humidity at
the altitude of the low clouds.

Basically they noticed an inverse relationship between low cloud cover and temperature. So they put in relative humidity as a predictor of temperature change. Then they said that the change in relative humidity better predicted the change in temperature than the change in CO2 concentration. Relative humidity is dependent on temperature. It stands to reason that decreased relative humidity at the surface and decreased low cloud cover would be caused by increased temperature. But these guys flipped that over, asserted that the decrease in relative humidity caused the increase in temperature.


One thing that we see here in central Florida during summer is that when the temperature at the 500mb level is anomalously warm (say -4C instead of -7C) the diurnal cumulus field is a lot slower to form and our surface temperature must reach a higher level to produce our normal diurnal convection. So we hit a high of 93 F instead of 90 F. So our relative humidity at the surface is actually lower in the day time as well. The low clouds are a feedback but their formation is dictated by the temperature in the middle and upper atmosphere which is influenced a good deal by radiative budgets.

This paper is no better than the emeritus physics professor that said that you could ignore the greenhouse effect entirely because he could make the math work on heat transfer in the atmosphere on convection alone; you can ignore radiation entirely. His equations were neat. But you can't ignore infrared radiation when radiational cooling is observed and you can measure the radiation and the bottom and top of the atmosphere and calculate the difference between the two.

 

[scombrid]

nteresting too, I googled the author's names and sputnik news was the second hit after forums.sherdog (whatever that is). Other hits on the first page of results are politicalhotwire, reddit-climateskeptics page, wattsup, ussanews... All hits are posts less than 24-hours old. Man, when the propagandist want to push something out... Shit, zerohedge is a top hit.

Sputnik news and zerohedge. That's some fine company. Maybe we can get RT and NaturalNews to join in with an GMO-Vaccine angle.

Amazing how fast this stuff spreads on the social media that is censored by the New World Order Bilderbergers Derp State Clinton Soros reptilians.

 

[thecajunatheist75]

Anyone still arguing against anthropogenic climate change is deluded at best and willfully ignorant at worst. There is more than just this one paper. Arguing using this one paper would be an argument from authority unless it is simply a critic of the science. There is countless peer reviewed journals that prove that we are adversely affecting global climate change. Just take two astronomy classes at any credible university as I did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TSwizzle]

The catholic church is doing it's part;

Since Pope Francis’s letter to the world, Laudato Si’, Catholics have been reflecting on how we can work for climate justice. Thousands of our churches now run on renewable energy, while thousands of parishioners have taken to the streets to demand political action. Last month, for instance, nearly 1,500 Cafod supporters joined people from other faith communities as part of a climate and environment lobby of parliament. Some 12,000 people of all faiths and none travelled from across the country to speak to more than 350 MPs about the political and economic decisions needed if the UK is to reach net-zero emissions. And faith leaders undertook a Walk of Witness down Whitehall to show our commitment to protecting creation and our poorest sisters and brothers – those who will pay the greatest price if we fail to urgently cut emissions.So, people in faith communities are taking action. But not because it’s a membership drive. It’s because we hear the cry of the Earth and of the poor, who experience the injustice of climate change right now through lost lives and livelihoods. We care for our common home because it’s our moral duty to act.
Christine Allen
Director, Catholic Agency for Overseas Development

Teh Gruaniad

Why can't they just pray away the climate, like teh gayness ?


Teh Gruaniad, hilarious.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT
ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE
J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI
Abstract. In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC report
AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global
temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature
change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house
gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a
very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further
they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order
to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in
the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.

There is a big chicken/egg problem with their analysis.

It turns out that the changes in the relative humidity and in the low cloud
cover depend on each other [4]. So, instead of low cloud cover we can use the
changes of the relative humidity in order to derive the natural temperature anomaly.
According to the observations 1 % increase of the relative humidity decreases the
temperature by 0.15°C, and consequently the last term in the above equation can
be approximated by −15°C∆φ, where ∆φ is the change of the relative humidity at
the altitude of the low clouds.

Basically they noticed an inverse relationship between low cloud cover and temperature. So they put in relative humidity as a predictor of temperature change. Then they said that the change in relative humidity better predicted the change in temperature than the change in CO2 concentration. Relative humidity is dependent on temperature. It stands to reason that decreased relative humidity at the surface and decreased low cloud cover would be caused by increased temperature. But these guys flipped that over, asserted that the decrease in relative humidity caused the increase in temperature.


One thing that we see here in central Florida during summer is that when the temperature at the 500mb level is anomalously warm (say -4C instead of -7C) the diurnal cumulus field is a lot slower to form and our surface temperature must reach a higher level to produce our normal diurnal convection. So we hit a high of 93 F instead of 90 F. So our relative humidity at the surface is actually lower in the day time as well. The low clouds are a feedback but their formation is dictated by the temperature in the middle and upper atmosphere which is influenced a good deal by radiative budgets.

This paper is no better than the emeritus physics professor that said that you could ignore the greenhouse effect entirely because he could make the math work on heat transfer in the atmosphere on convection alone; you can ignore radiation entirely. His equations were neat. But you can't ignore infrared radiation when radiational cooling is observed and you can measure the radiation and the bottom and top of the atmosphere and calculate the difference between the two.

Stop making so much sense. We already know tobacco does not cause cancer.

And I kinda look forward to no more ice on the planet. Think of all the new places we can grow things like we had millions of years ago. Never mind the 500 feet of ocean level rise, people can just wear boots.

 

[bilby]

There is a big chicken/egg problem with their analysis.




Basically they noticed an inverse relationship between low cloud cover and temperature. So they put in relative humidity as a predictor of temperature change. Then they said that the change in relative humidity better predicted the change in temperature than the change in CO2 concentration. Relative humidity is dependent on temperature. It stands to reason that decreased relative humidity at the surface and decreased low cloud cover would be caused by increased temperature. But these guys flipped that over, asserted that the decrease in relative humidity caused the increase in temperature.


One thing that we see here in central Florida during summer is that when the temperature at the 500mb level is anomalously warm (say -4C instead of -7C) the diurnal cumulus field is a lot slower to form and our surface temperature must reach a higher level to produce our normal diurnal convection. So we hit a high of 93 F instead of 90 F. So our relative humidity at the surface is actually lower in the day time as well. The low clouds are a feedback but their formation is dictated by the temperature in the middle and upper atmosphere which is influenced a good deal by radiative budgets.

This paper is no better than the emeritus physics professor that said that you could ignore the greenhouse effect entirely because he could make the math work on heat transfer in the atmosphere on convection alone; you can ignore radiation entirely. His equations were neat. But you can't ignore infrared radiation when radiational cooling is observed and you can measure the radiation and the bottom and top of the atmosphere and calculate the difference between the two.

Stop making so much sense. We already know tobacco does not cause cancer.

And I kinda look forward to no more ice on the planet. Think of all the new places we can grow things like we had millions of years ago. Never mind the 500 feet of ocean level rise, people can just wear boots.

Sorry, but we can't grow anything anywhere. Haven't you heard? There's not anywhere near enough CO₂ in the atmosphere to have an effect on the planet. It's just a negligible trace gas. Therefore plants don't exist.

You can't argue with that kind of reasoning.