Global warming hoax!?! - UPDATED - » Forum Post by SivCorp

... wow... you know, I'd try and make an intelligent response to what you said... if it made any real sense. People haven't been hunter gatherers for a long time (of course there are exceptions,) R&D has nothing to do with global warming, and the amount of time it'd take for those lands to become "viable" wouldn't really make it feasible to relocate to frakkin' ANTARTICA for pete's sake... not to mention the logistical nightmare such a migration would create. More over, think of the poor cute penguins. No not like that you sick perv. When you say political gain... what is that supposed to mean? Doing something to help "save" the planet is a political move 'cause it makes you look good or something? From what I've seen, its quite the opposite. So I'm guessing you were just joking. I hope.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Wow.

Someone needs to learn how to think.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Mumblefratz

Join Date 07/2006

+139

Quoting Moosetek13,

reply 945

It is just half-way down the page:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/

You can zoom in an out. as well.

It shows the temperature variation for the past 400,000 years - from the Vostok, Antarctica ice core.

What I find most interesting is that we are currently in a fairly warm period, relative to the overall cycle, but by no means are we all that close to the warmest periods of the past - and even seem to be in a slight (long-term) cooling trend.

There are 4 previous 'warm' periods that surpass our current 'warming trend' by as much as 2C. (I am fairly certain they were not caused by too many cars or heat exchangers or industry, or farting cows)

That's very interesting.

OK go to that site and zoom out to a timeframe of 240,000 years. You'll notice two warm periods like you describe, one about 120,000 years ago and another about 240,000 years ago. Assumedly these correlate to interglacial periods like the one that we are in now.

So it's true that 120,000 years ago that temperature rise was not due to human emissions. But that does not by any means disprove that our emissions don't increase the temperature above what would otherwise occur.

However what you're neglecting to mention is that the sea level aproximately 120,000 years ago was about 6 meters (20 feet) above the sea level of today.

"However, for the past 6,000 years (a few centuries before the first known written records), the world's sea level has been gradually approaching the level we see today. During the previous interglacial about 120,000 years ago, sea level was for a short time about 6m higher than today, as evidenced by wave-cut notches along cliffs in the Bahamas."

This says nothing about the anthropogenic part of AGW but it does say that bad things do happen when the temperature gets as little as 2°C above current levels. Just because warming has occured before doesn't mean such warming is not without serious consequences.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Daiwa

Join Date 07/2001

+330

This says nothing about the anthropogenic part of AGW but it does say that bad things do happen when the temperature gets as little as 2°C above current levels. Just because warming has occured before doesn't mean such warming is not without serious consequences.

I don't think anyone's said warming wouldn't or couldn't have 'serious consequences' - if sea level again rises to that degree, it will happen gradually enough for us to accommodate.

In case you missed it.

I didn't miss it but I'm sure you missed the following refutations of this "so-called" work.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Gerhard_Gerlich

http://www.ing-buero-ebel.de/Treib/Hauptseite.pdf (Sorry it's in german but is supposedly a line by line refutation)

http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324

http://atmoz.org/blog/2007/07/10/falsification-of-the-atmospheric-co2-greenhouse-effects/

http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=15432&posts=49&start=1

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/03/formal-reply-to-gerlich-and-tscheuner.html

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/02/all-you-never-wanted-to-know-about.html

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/02/kramm-steps-on-another-rake-just-when.html

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/02/light-dawns-and-sun-sets-g.html

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/10/loons-take-flight-as-halloween-nears.html

And from http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/comment-page-10/#comments

"You folks should know about this if you don’t already and have a response. It’s not an amateurish looking product:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v2.pdf

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The
Frame Of Physics
Authors: Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner

[edit]

[Response: It's garbage. A ragbag of irrelevant physics strung together incoherently. For instance, apparently energy balance diagrams are wrong because they don't look like Feynman diagrams and GCMs are wrong because they don't solve Maxwell's equations. Not even the most hardened contrarians are pushing this one.... - gavin]

Successfully updated karma reason!

Daiwa

Join Date 07/2001

+330

So the climate scientists didn't like it. I'm shocked. Really.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Mumblefratz

Join Date 07/2006

+139

So the climate scientists didn't like it.

Garbage seems a lot stronger than simply didn't like, plus only one of the direct refutations is in german the other two are perfectly readable if you'd care to bother.

Successfully updated karma reason!

psychoak

Join Date 07/2007

+225

Garbage is what they put out themselves, it's high praise!

Still no commentary on that whole "nothing new about the melting ice" bit?

Successfully updated karma reason!

So it's true that 120,000 years ago that temperature rise was not due to human emissions. But that does not by any means disprove that our emissions don't increase the temperature above what would otherwise occur.

However what you're neglecting to mention is that the sea level aproximately 120,000 years ago was about 6 meters (20 feet) above the sea level of today.

Yes, add another 2C or so and the sea levels will be a few meters higher.

And what you fail to mention is that the sea level was ~130 meters below what it is today, at the last glacial maximum.

I don't think another few meters is really that big of a deal.

Sure, it is inconvenient. And sure, we have added a little bit to the globe warming up. But in the overall swing of the recorded cycles of naturally occurring global warming and cooling, what we contribute is drops in a glass full of water.

And, in fact, since we are already nearly as warm as it would take to melt virtually all the ice on the planet, we are nearing an absolute maximum sea level. At most, it could rise another 15-20 meters.

Actually, the more that I think about it, I am all for AGW. I think in the long run it is a good thing. I am all for holding off a glacial period if we can manage it, because a glacial period would be far more harmfull to us than keeping the planet warm.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Mumblefratz

Join Date 07/2006

+139

Still no commentary on that whole "nothing new about the melting ice" bit?

The Greenland core samples show a temperature climb that started before 1900, and both steeper and higher climbs previously. The Greenland core samples do not agree with AGW, showing the increase predating the emissions and being completely normal. This shouldn't be a surprise since news papers were abuzz about Greenland melting away in the fucking 20's. Vostok shows a whopping .5 degree change over the last century. Just five hundred years is enough time to have a 3 degree change in the same time frame. If you look over the past two hundred, you find that the current upward trend predates the industrial age by half a century. Yeah, your precious CO2 is trailing it there too.

I scanned the last 10 pages of this thread and this is the only hit I got on "melting" so I assume this is what you're referring to but I'm really not all that positive.

But I'll try to play along and see where it goes. So first I suppose we need a GISP2 graph or two that should be easy enough I suppose. Problem is there are a lot of graphs showing a lot of things and I'm not all that sure what to make of them and certainly not sure what in fact they "prove". First off all of these graphs come from http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/.

Sulfate and Nitrate Concentrations at GISP2 from 1750-1990.

Snow Accumulation at GISP2 Summit, Greenland from 1840-1990

Holocene Variability from ARCSS/GISP2 compared to other Paleo-Proxy Records

Comparison between ARCSS/GISP2 and Vostok Ice Cores

So I'm really not trying to be obtuse here but I have no idea as to how any of this "disproves" AGW. Can you at least give me a hint?

Successfully updated karma reason!

There is yet another flap about the books being cooked to show higher temperatures:

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/40749822.html

Successfully updated karma reason!

Mumblefratz

Join Date 07/2006

+139

And what you fail to mention is that the sea level was ~130 meters below what it is today, at the last glacial maximum.

Actually I mentioned that it was 200 feet below but we're not expected to enter into a glacial maximum for another 20,000 years at least.

Yes, add another 2C or so and the sea levels will be a few meters higher.

6 meters really isn't just a few, that would pretty much flood out the entire east coast of the US and 2C is not all that much more warming. At 0.2C per decade it's only another 20 years, 0.2C per decade is a bit higher than it is right now but another 2C in the next 30 years is not all that unrealistic. Even I might still be alive to see it.

And, in fact, since we are already nearly as warm as it would take to melt virtually all the ice on the planet, we are nearing an absolute maximum sea level. At most, it could rise another 15-20 meters.

Oh. *Only* 15 to 20 meters! That's 60 fucking feet you know. Seems pretty dramatic to me. But even these are severe under estimates.

"It is estimated that Antarctica, if fully melted, would contribute more than 60 meters of sea level rise, and Greenland would contribute more than 7 meters." However this extreme would be slow, like perhaps 1500 years for Greenland and more for Antarctica.

But no one is really predicting all of this happening and even a handful of meters can be a very dramatic issue.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Oh. *Only* 15 to 20 meters! That's 60 fucking feet you know. Seems pretty dramatic to me. But even these are severe under estimates.

And since the last glacial maximum it has risen over 425 feet.

Successfully updated karma reason!

psychoak

Join Date 07/2007

+225

So I'm really not trying to be obtuse here but I have no idea as to how any of this "disproves" AGW. Can you at least give me a hint?

Must you intentionally find graphs that don't have any relevance to the word recent? This shit was old ten years ago.

You can't prove AGW by looking at the last century, and then using the last ten thousand years or better to show that it's something new. You can't even see the warming trend on those other scales. Everything is just a straight line up and down.

Clonmac even pasted the two thousand year scale during his bout of severe idiocy. That's a useful scale for looking at recent climate behavior in comparison to previous cycles. Go here and play with it. When you're done, explain how Antarctica being a whopping half a degree higher since the start of the industrial age is in any way a new thing when it's shifted six times as fast in the same span just a couple hundred years before man was playing with fossile fuels and without any change in the level of CO2. Then check out Greenland again here, you know, a scale with some relevance to recent "unnatural warming trends" that you seem to think we're undergoing. If you're really brave, you can go find the ice core data on it too, there's this massive spike in the late 1800's, blows away all the recent trends there. The Arctic is the same deal, we just don't have any long term stations in a stable location to draw from. The Ruskies were watching the sea ice disappear a century back though. It's all warmed up before.

You keep wondering what things are supposed to prove. Why aren't you wondering what the current, completely normal, and mild warming trend, is supposed to prove?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Moosetek13,

reply 961

There is yet another flap about the books being cooked to show higher temperatures:

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/40749822.html

I'm not debating anything here at all, I just wanted to make a comment before that post got buried. I thought it was pretty funny. I am in the middle of watching one of his videos here:

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81557272.html

and one of the first things he says is how none of this is political and all he cares about is the science and truth...then literally like 20 seconds after he says that he goes on a 5 minute tirade about how we could be facing higher taxes, senate legislations, and UN talks and such. Haha. I thought it was funny is all. I am gonna go finish watching it now and maybe I will have something more productive to say.

EDIT: Oooooo; they even had a True/False question at the end for the viewers! Fun fun! It was: True or False: The earth's temperature is rising. And, the CO2 greenhouse effect is real.

And she was even nice enough to give us a hint and say that both answers for each statement are the same!

LOL

Successfully updated karma reason!

Saying we will face higher taxes is not being political, it is being realistic.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Daiwa

Join Date 07/2001

+330

In a rebuttal to the rebuttal:

It makes much more sense that[sic] the "traditional" IPCC view:

1. A warm body (the earth) radiates heat to a cool body (the atmosphere)
2. The cool body "back-radiates" (IPCC term) heat to the warm body.
3. This process continues perpetually, with heat flowing round and round in a continuous cycle.
4. The result of this perpetual process is that the warm body becomes warmer.

What is most amazing is that both alarmists and skeptic scientists have taken the above blatant 2nd Law of Thermodynamics violation at face value for so long. Many will shout that all bodies radiate ... yes they do but NETT heat flow is always from hot bodies to cool bodies (without the input of work), not the reverse. Note also that the 2nd Law does not care about the wavelength of radiant heat.

Atmospheric gases do absorb radiation from the sun and the earth. NETT radiation from the cool daytime atmosphere is to space. The Sahara desert in daytime has a very low "greenhouse gas" concentration above it, yet contrary to greenhouse theory, it is a hot place rather than a cool place.

Night time, rotation of the earth, convection, conduction, latent heat all add greatly to the complexity of climate. However the basic daytime atmospheric greenhouse model as presented by the IPCC and most school textbooks, is nonsense.

No greenhouse means no "greenhouse gases" ... just absorbers and emitters.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Mumblefratz

Join Date 07/2006

+139

Must you intentionally find graphs that don't have any relevance to the word recent? This shit was old ten years ago.

You can't prove AGW by looking at the last century, and then using the last ten thousand years or better to show that it's something new. You can't even see the warming trend on those other scales. Everything is just a straight line up and down.

These are the only graphs available directly from what appears to me to be the official GISP2 site.

You want me to look at something else fine I'll check that out but one thing to note is that none of the GISP2 data gives you anything like a direct temperature graph. They give you things that can be measured that are in some unspecified way converted into a temperature plot. This undoubtedly requires the kinds of "adjustments" and "weighting" of data that you seem to find so objectionable when applied to the instrumental record. No big deal but I'm just pointing out a certain amount of hypocrasy that you accept an ice core temperature reconstruction which require far more manipulation than simple "adjustments" of surface stations. But I digress.

Clonmac even pasted the two thousand year scale during his bout of severe idiocy. That's a useful scale for looking at recent climate behavior in comparison to previous cycles. Go here and play with it.

OK. This is what Clonmac posted earlier.

When you're done, explain how Antarctica being a whopping half a degree higher since the start of the industrial age is in any way a new thing when it's shifted six times as fast in the same span just a couple hundred years before man was playing with fossile fuels and without any change in the level of CO2.

I can't explain it because in fact it makes no sense. I think this was what Clonmac was saying. The CO2 graph seems reasonable but the temperature graph does not. There is no given source for this temperature graph nor does it look like any graph that I've seen before.

The only conclusion that I can take from this is that this unattributed temperature graph is totally bogus and hence no legitimate conclusions can be made from it. Given that this is from a denier site this should not be surprising.

*If* I were to accept this temperature graph as accurate (which I don't) then I would have to conclude that there is no relationship between CO2 and temperature.

Then check out Greenland again here, you know, a scale with some relevance to recent "unnatural warming trends" that you seem to think we're undergoing.

I assume you mean this graph which again given that it's source is a denier site it's validity is in question.

I see where you're talking about the 1920's however the problem again is the graph. The following graph is from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Greenland.multi.pdf and shows no such increase in the 1920's. The problem is you accept unattributated graphs posted on denier websites as truth.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Mumblefratz

Join Date 07/2006

+139

You keep wondering what things are supposed to prove. Why aren't you wondering what the current, completely normal, and mild warming trend, is supposed to prove?

The problem is that you keep looking at what amounts to a localized temperature record for some limited area of the planet and then try to conclude that the temperature was higher at one point or the rate of temperature increase was higher at some other point and claim that because that does not correlate to CO2 levels that therefore disproves AGW.

The thing is that CO2 is a *global* level. For all I know in the 1920's there was a shift of the jet stream that made one area of the planet warmer and another area of the planet colder leaving the global average temperature unchanged. That means absolutely nothing. You continually try to use local weather conditions to try and disprove a global phenomena. The individual records are important but only in the aggregate, individually they are almost meaningless. You cannot take any one temperature record and conclude anything from it other than what the temperature was on such and such a time at such and such a place.

Even if there was a rapid rise in temperature in the Antarctic in the 1920's by itself that means absolutely nothing. Only if you can show that such a rise occured "globally" would it mean anything.

Successfully updated karma reason!

psychoak

Join Date 07/2007

+225

Global warming is based on localized temperature shifts as well. The entire planet isn't warming, only the arctic is to any real degree. I've checked South America, North America, Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia and Antarctica, and every single continent is colder now than it was a thousand years ago.

Those graphs you're bullshitting over are sourced. The Vostok data is from the same dataset the one you posted is from. Those are the same numbers the IPCC gives for Vostok, based on actual science. They just don't look like anything special when you have them compressed down to forty thousand years an inch. The temperature stations on the otherhand are being maniputed with no scientific basis. That you refuse to admit this doesn't change anything, hypocracy is all on you for equating them with each other.

If you bother actually looking at what you're posting, the lack of similarity between those two graphs on Greenland should be obvious. All of the northern datasets have been excluded, southern Greenland? A real big DUH there. They match up perfectly with your "official" source.

Go ahead and continue excusing everything with your lame ass denier site stupidity. I find it amusing.

Successfully updated karma reason!

There is yet another flap about the books being cooked

Global warming is based on localized temperature shifts as well.

I lol'd

Successfully updated karma reason!

WIllythemailboy

Join Date 03/2006

+70

6 meters really isn't just a few, that would pretty much flood out the entire east coast of the US and 2C is not all that much more warming. At 0.2C per decade it's only another 20 years, 0.2C per decade is a bit higher than it is right now but another 2C in the next 30 years is not all that unrealistic. Even I might still be alive to see it.

2.0 C increase at 0.2 C per decade = 2 decades?

Yeah, that's about the level of math I expect to see in a AGW debate.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Ya, only 10 years it would take.

And I really doubt that a significant decrease in CO2 levels can be reached in that period of time to make much difference.

The whole idea of Cap and Trade is stupid, considering they only want to go back to levels of a decade ago. To reverse the warming that they say we have caused over the past century would mean shutting everything down - completely.

The smartest approach is to simply plan for higher sea levels, and put the money into relocating people as the need arises.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Timmaigh

Join Date 05/2009

+71

Quoting Mumblefratz,

reply 953

Quoting Moosetek13, reply 945 It is just half-way down the page:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/

You can zoom in an out. as well.

It shows the temperature variation for the past 400,000 years - from the Vostok, Antarctica ice core.

What I find most interesting is that we are currently in a fairly warm period, relative to the overall cycle, but by no means are we all that close to the warmest periods of the past - and even seem to be in a slight (long-term) cooling trend.

There are 4 previous 'warm' periods that surpass our current 'warming trend' by as much as 2C. (I am fairly certain they were not caused by too many cars or heat exchangers or industry, or farting cows)That's very interesting.
OK go to that site and zoom out to a timeframe of 240,000 years. You'll notice two warm periods like you describe, one about 120,000 years ago and another about 240,000 years ago. Assumedly these correlate to interglacial periods like the one that we are in now.

So it's true that 120,000 years ago that temperature rise was not due to human emissions. But that does not by any means disprove that our emissions don't increase the temperature above what would otherwise occur.

However what you're neglecting to mention is that the sea level aproximately 120,000 years ago was about 6 meters (20 feet) above the sea level of today.

"However, for the past 6,000 years (a few centuries before the first known written records), the world's sea level has been gradually approaching the level we see today. During the previous interglacial about 120,000 years ago, sea level was for a short time about 6m higher than today, as evidenced by wave-cut notches along cliffs in the Bahamas."

This says nothing about the anthropogenic part of AGW but it does say that bad things do happen when the temperature gets as little as 2°C above current levels. Just because warming has occured before doesn't mean such warming is not without serious consequences.

No it just shows that the temperature rise might be influenced by another factor than antropoghenic CO2 emissions. And if you claim that current temperature rises because of these emissions (therefore we should cut them down), tell me what caused it to rise 120000 years ago and how do you know this time it is down to our emissions and not the very same reason like back then.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Timmaigh

Join Date 05/2009

+71

Quoting Moosetek13,

reply 973

Ya, only 10 years it would take.

And I really doubt that a significant decrease in CO2 levels can be reached in that period of time to make much difference.

The whole idea of Cap and Trade is stupid, considering they only want to go back to levels of a decade ago. To reverse the warming that they say we have caused over the past century would mean shutting everything down - completely.

The smartest approach is to simply plan for higher sea levels, and put the money into relocating people as the need arises.

Yes, but that will not satisfy the green lobby.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Global warming hoax!?! - UPDATED -

Global warming hoax!?! - UPDATED -

Scientists no longer in it for the science...