Further evidence warming is nanufactured

[Old_Trapper70]

Wish I could find a coal fired prius so that I could do my part...any idea where I might get a line on one?

Should be easy in the alt reality world you live in with the dog boy. Why, by the time your form of drought kills off all of life there should be millions of fossil fueled vehicles for you to play with if you survive.

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/One-dimensional_thinking

 

[Wag more]

If global warming is real or a political fabrication (as I believe) doesn't matter too much to me. We are technically smart enough to figure out solutions for TRUE problems.
The UN says air in the US is cleaner than any other industrialized nation. (Remember the UN is the world bastion of liberal PC think). If they say our air is tops in the world for cleanliness what more action do we need to take?
If you buy all this climate change stuff you should probably check out the new Tesla 3. Costs only $35,000 less $7,500 tax rebate and suppose to go 200 miles to a charge.
I'm stickin with my 98 Explorer.

 

[palerider]

Should be easy in the alt reality world you live in with the dog boy. Why, by the time your form of drought kills off all of life there should be millions of fossil fueled vehicles for you to play with if you survive.

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/One-dimensional_thinking

Alas guy...It is you who lives in the alt.reality world, where words mean whatever the hell you want them to mean...

And it hasn't gone un noticed that you have yet to provide a single shred of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....not even one shred... It was interesting, and quite humorous to look at your so called science link and see what passes for evidence in your mind...little wonder you are a top shelf dupe.

 

[palerider]

If global warming is real or a political fabrication (as I believe) doesn't matter too much to me. We are technically smart enough to figure out solutions for TRUE problems.

The climate changes...if money is to be spent on it, then it should be spent on adaptive technology. Such is the nature of the most adaptable creature to have ever walked the face of the earth.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Alas guy...It is you who lives in the alt.reality world, where words mean whatever the hell you want them to mean...

And it hasn't gone un noticed that you have yet to provide a single shred of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....not even one shred... It was interesting, and quite humorous to look at your so called science link and see what passes for evidence in your mind...little wonder you are a top shelf dupe.

Again you play the fool with your inability to think outside the box you have allowed yourself to be placed in. I have never argued for AGW (you really need to look up the meaning of the term). I argue strictly for mans contributory role in climate change. And you, in your feeble attempt to appear as if you have some intellect, consistently ignore that very real reality.

Now, go back to your sand box with your doggie, and play nice.

BTW, there are numerous theories out there. All you have to do is have a mind that seeks knowledge, and take your pick:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...uman-contribution-to-gw-faq.html#.WWqW7lG1uM8

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/three-quarters-of-climate/

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/global-cooling_b_4413833.html

Now, tell me how man is not polluting the earth, and making it unsustainable.

 

[palerider]

Again you play the fool with your inability to think outside the box you have allowed yourself to be placed in. I have never argued for AGW (you really need to look up the meaning of the term). I argue strictly for mans contributory role in climate change. And you, in your feeble attempt to appear as if you have some intellect, consistently ignore that very real reality.

OK then trapper, lets see a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that man has in any way altered the global climate...or even contributed to it in a way that is statistically different from zero.

So lets take a look at some more stuff that passes for evidence in your mind...this should be good for a laugh.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...uman-contribution-to-gw-faq.html#.WWqW7lG1uM8

OK...so the heading of this "article" is "
How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?'

So in spite of your claim that you think we are only "contributors" your first link is making the claim that we are "major" contributors. I look up at the top of the page and what do I see? It is by the Union of Concerned Scientists.....snicker. Before we start looking for anything like actual evidence in this piece, I would like to take a minute to point out what sort of organization the Union of Concerned Scientists is. Here, meet Kenji. She is a voting member in good standing in the Union of Concerned Scientists and has been since October 2011.

Here is her letter of acceptance:

It is always very interesting...and telling to see where people get the information that convinces them to a particular point of view. So now that we have established what sort of organization the Union of Concerned Scientist is...that being one who will accept anyone so long as they are willing to pony up $35 and actually are not a union of scientists at all, lets look at the evidence contained on that page if there is any there.

So off the bat, they say that the 4th assessment of the IPCC is certain to greater than 90% that emissions of "heat trapping" gasses from human activities has caused "most" of the observed warming since the mid 20th century.

Well, it is a statement, but if you go to the 4th assessment of the IPCC, you won't find a shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of that statement. And the statement itself is so wrong as to be laughable. The only so called greenhouse gas that can actually "trap" heat in the open atmosphere is water vapor due to its ability to change phases at atmospheric temperatures. All the rest of the so called greenhouse gasses simply absorb and emit right on out into space....when they actually get to emit that absorbed energy in the form of a photon that is. If the so called greenhouse gasses were able to absorb and trap energy, the inevitable result would be a tropospheric hot spot, and more than a million radiosondes sent to the upper atmosphere tell us that there is no tropospheric hot spot.

Here...some actual science for you, although I doubt that it will get past your blinders. The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second. That means that when a CO2 molecule absorbs a photon, it takes about a second for it to actually emit a photon in the form of IR radiation. At low altitudes...that would mean the troposphere, the mean time between molecular collisions by which any given molecule could transfer energy to another gas molecule by convection is about a nanosecond. That means the time it takes a CO2 molecule to emit a photon is about a billion times longer than it would take that same molecule to transfer its energy to another molecule. Statistically, it is more likely to be oxygen or nitrogen.

This means that the chances of a molecule radiating energy rather than passing that energy on via convection is about a billion to one. That very fact should make you wonder about the veracity of a radiative greenhouse effect. The very idea of a radiative greenhouse effect in an atmosphere that is so dominated by convection is suspect.

So moving on...The make the claim that there are human fingerprints on the carbon "overload". Recent published studies cast some serious doubt on that claim.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

“A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

In simple terms, that means that our CO2 emissions are not even enough to have an effect that is statistically greater than zero on the amount of CO2 the earth produces on its own. And the claim that our CO2 is different from natural CO2 is on the dodgy side as well...there are plenty of natural forest fires, and gases resulting from the burning of natural hydrocarbons that are indistinguishable form our own emissions.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/095830508786238369

“[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

“[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”

http://journals.sagepub.com.sci-hub.cc/doi/abs/10.1260/095830509789876772

“The increase rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide for the period from 1980 to 2007 can be statistically explained as being a function solely of the global mean temperature. Throughout the period, the temperature differences seem to have caused differences around a base trend of 1.5 ppmv/year. The atmospheric CO2 increase rate was higher when the globe was warmer, and the increase rate was lower when the globe was cooler. This can be explained by wind patterns, biological processes, or most likely by the fact that a warmer ocean can hold less carbon dioxide. This finding indicates that knowledge of the rate of anthropogenic emission is not needed for estimation of the increase rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide.”

Then they go on to claim that natural variability can't account for the changes we have seen. That claim is complete and udder bullshit on its face. Here are two gold standard temperature reconstructions...one from the arctic circle...one from the antarctic circle...both show the same signature of increase and decrease indicating that the temperature changes were global in nature...both show temperature changes that were both larger than anything we have seen, and those changes happened far faster than any change we have experienced.

I could go on, but suffice it to say that there is not the first piece...not a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence on that entire link that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...nor is there a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that even demonstrates that we have an effect on the global climate that is statistically different from zero. In short, like your other link, this one is an opinion piece, not supported by any actual evidence. It is based on assumption and assumption isn't anything like science in case you didn't know.



(CONTINUED)

 

[palerider]

(CONTINUATION)

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/three-quarters-of-climate/

So this piece is from Scientific American...and it is titled "Three-Quarters of Climate Change is Man-Made"

Sounds ominous...wonder what sort of actual evidence they have to support it?

Right off the bat, they show a smokestack emitting some sort of particulate with the intent to show you that what is coming out of that stack is CO2...

So they say early on that natural variability is "extremely" unlikely to have contributed more than 1/4 of the temperature rise we have seen in the past 60 years. The two graphics above put that bit of nonsense to rest...no need to go further.

And then they go on to describe how they came to this conclusion and you have to read right down to the end of the paper and there they tell you that this study was based on runs of various climate models...the very models that have been failing spectacularly for decades. Here is a clue for you trapper....model output..especially from models that are failing is not data for anything other than that the models should be scrapped. So again...nothing like actual evidence there..opinion supported by failed computer models...

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/global-cooling_b_4413833.html

An article from the huffington post titled "Why Humans Don't Have Much to do With Climate Change..

This article goes on to discuss scientists who predict a cooling trend...which by the way, regional temperature records across the globe do not dispute..see my thread "if the globe is not warming, why do we call it global warming?"

Not sure how that helps your claim that we are contributing to climate change.

Now, tell me how man is not polluting the earth, and making it unsustainable.

And we come full circle right back to your foundational error...pollution and climate change are two different topics...Pollution is a real man made problem that we need to address immediately. Climate change is not a man made problem, but it is wasting billions and eventually trillions of dollars that could have been put to work on real, addressable environmental problems... As I have said before, no real action is going to be taken towards addressing our very real and very serious environmental problems until the climate change scam is put down...Climate charge has co-opted environmental issues, and pollution and is squandering the truckloads of money they get on useless false, and fabricated research in an attempt to make CO2 the devil. It demonstrably isn't. Tell me trapper, how much real progress have you seen the climate science make towards actually addressing real environmental issues? Answer ..none...and they are not likely to ever put any money into the issue.

No real progress will ever be made towards addressing the serious environmental issues that face us so long as the climate change scam is sucking all the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

OK then trapper, lets see a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that man has in any way altered the global climate...or even contributed to it in a way that is statistically different from zero.

So lets take a look at some more stuff that passes for evidence in your mind...this should be good for a laugh.

I enjoy when the useful idiot class once again proves they lack the ability to think in anything but the linear line, and thus miss most everything around them. Here is what I said:

"BTW, there are numerous theories out there. All you have to do is have a mind that seeks knowledge, and take your pick:"

I gave you three examples of three different theories, man caused global warming, man contributed in part to global warming, and man contributed nothing to global warming. In your childlike mind you chose to ignore my words, and went on your own mindless rant with this comment:

"OK then trapper, lets see a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that man has in any way altered the global climate...or even contributed to it in a way that is statistically different from zero."

I then asked you this question:

"Now, tell me how man is not polluting the earth, and making it unsustainable."

And again you respond with a childish rant proving nothing save for the reality that you will support polluting the earth as long as your linear mentality allows you to feel it is not affecting the climate.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/pollution/

http://www.webofcreation.org/Earth Problems/pollution.htm

 

[palerider]

I enjoy when the useful idiot class once again proves they lack the ability to think in anything but the linear line, and thus miss most everything around them. Here is what I said:

I just answer the positions you post...Don't blame me because you are all over the board.

"BTW, there are numerous theories out there. All you have to do is have a mind that seeks knowledge, and take your pick:"

No...there are numerous hypotheses out there...certain requirements exist in science for a hypothesis to be elevated to the level of theory...manmade climate change is a hypothesis and a piss poor one at that.

I gave you three examples of three different theories, man caused global warming, man contributed in part to global warming, and man contributed nothing to global warming. In your childlike mind you chose to ignore my words, and went on your own mindless rant with this comment:

You put forward the claim that you think we are contributing to the changes seen in the global climate...then you provide links, supposedly to support your claim. You have already demonstrated beyond any doubt that you aren't very good at picking sources...and that you don't have the first idea of what actual evidence supporting the claim might look like..and that you can't differentiate between material that expresses opinion and material that reflects observerd, measured, quantified data.

The fact that you are all over the board isn't surprising to me..and the fact that I pointed out that your links...at least the ones promoting man made climate change...or even a contribution to climate change are nothing more than opinion. And the fact that now, you seem to want to distance yourself from that is also not surprising.

again you respond with a childish rant proving nothing save for the reality that you will support polluting the earth as long as your linear mentality allows you to feel it is not affecting the climate.p/quote]

You have already demonstrated that you conflate pollution, and misuse of resources with climate change....and then you continue on with two more links...one claiming that CO2 is the primary pollutant, and the other addressing some very real problems...CO2 is not a pollutant...and in the photo on the national geographic link...the stacks are issuing forth water vapor...not CO2...more fakery. CO2 is not pollution, and we are not altering the global climate.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/pollution/

http://www.webofcreation.org/Earth Problems/pollution.htm

 

[Old_Trapper70]

I just answer the positions you post...Don't blame me because you are all over the board.

No, you just postulate the position you wish to have and ignore all else that is said. I offer examples, not necessarily facts I support, of others thinking. I know from personal experience that ground water is disappearing. I know the air is dirtier. I know I cannot drink creek water as I could when I was a kid. I know the fishing is worse. I know the deer, and elk, are smaller. There are things I know, and the sole source of those troubles is man. What total effect it has on the environment, and the climate, I do not know. I am not educated in that realm, and aside from what affects me personally I am not really concerned about the rest of it. When I go to the lake I do not want to be bothered by Blue Algae, Tiger Mussels, etc. I do not want to catch Tui Carp, I want to catch Trout, or Bass.

You want to continue with the current trend of pollution that is killing off the rivers, the oceans, the air we breathe. And you use the debate over climate change as your excuse to continue to do so.

End of story.

 

[palerider]

No, you just postulate the position you wish to have and ignore all else that is said.

No, I respond to your stated position. You have stated that you believe that man is altering the climate to a degree that goes beyond natural variability. Here are some quotes from you.

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/thr...-the-climate-change.18258/page-12#post-239079

The difference is past changes have been caused by natural events such as volcanic eruptions, meteor crashes into the earth, etc. The changes now have been aggravated since the beginning of the industrial age, and that is not "nature".

So don't sit back and make the claim that you haven't suggested that we are causing the climate to change...you set the tone of the conversation...I just go around pointing out that you have no actual data with which to support your position.

I offer examples,

Mostly you offer anecdote and opinion...both have very little value.

not necessarily facts I support, of others thinking.

Yeah, I have noticed that fact isn't your best thing.

You want to continue with the current trend of pollution that is killing off the rivers, the oceans, the air we breathe. And you use the debate over climate change as your excuse to continue to do so.

And for all your talk, it appears that you don't pay much attention...how many times have I said to you that I favor draconian punishment for polluters...and I favor cleaning up the environment? And I repeatedly point out a fact that you seem incapable of absorbing...genuine environmental problems will not be addressed so long as the AGW scam is sucking all the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers.

I am guessing that you have no idea of how much money has been squandered on the man made climate change scam...but now they are asking for dollars numbering in the trillions.... some actual progress might have been made towards addressing our very real environmental issues if even a small amount of the money squandered on climate had been put to productive use on the environment...you don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that the climate change scam has co opted the environment..and money that might have been put to use on real problems is being squandered on useless, fabricated research with a predetermined outcome.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

No, I respond to your stated position. You have stated that you believe that man is altering the climate to a degree that goes beyond natural variability. Here are some quotes from you.

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/thr...-the-climate-change.18258/page-12#post-239079

So don't sit back and make the claim that you haven't suggested that we are causing the climate to change...you set the tone of the conversation...I just go around pointing out that you have no actual data with which to support your position..

Thank you for posting my comments, and thus demonstrating just how ignorant you really are, and worthless to try to communicate ideas with. First comment I made:


"Anthorpogenic" by definition means "human caused". I am not sure every scientist, or even a majority of them, agree that man is the primary source. Most ceertainly they agree that man is a contributing factor."

Do you understand the difference between "contributing", and "causing"? Look it up.


"Aain you have to fabricate what I said into something you want to believe. No where have I said, or any article I have posted has claimed, that climate change has never occurred in the past. The difference is past changes have been caused by natural events such as volcanic eruptions, meteor crashes into the earth, etc. The changes now have been aggravated since the beginning of the industrial age, and that is not "nature"."

Again, do you know the meaning of "aggravated""

"And you have yet to post even one scintilla of evidence that man is NOT influencing the change."

And again you have failed to provide any evidence that the warming of the oceans thus creating more evaporation, not to mention the killing off of the coral reefs, or that the melting of the ice packs thus reducing the amount of reflection of heat back into the atmosphere, and numerous other man caused problems, has not affected the climate. All you do is babble on with your high school intellect.

 

[palerider]

"Anthorpogenic" by definition means "human caused". I am not sure every scientist, or even a majority of them, agree that man is the primary source. Most ceertainly they agree that man is a contributing factor."

Do you understand the difference between "contributing", and "causing"? Look it up.

I understand perfectly...and did I not ask you for a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that even supports the claim that we are a contributing factor in the change in global climate? The climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero or less. CO2 has no effect on the climate beyond its contribution to the total mass of the atmosphere.

Again, do you know the meaning of "aggravated""

Why yes I do...tell me, do you know the meaning of observed, measured, quantified data? Can you apply those terms to data that might be used to support your claim that we have any influence whatsoever on the global climate...any influence WHATSOEVER? Apparently not because I have been looking for decades for even one shred...just one piece of actual data that supports the claim that our climate is not simply behaving as it always has and I can't find it...if you have seen it, then by all means post it...if you can't, then I have to wonder how smart you are, despite your high opinion of yourself, for believing in a trillion dollar scam that has no actual data in support.

"And you have yet to post even one scintilla of evidence that man is NOT influencing the change."

Of course I have. I provided you with two gold standard temperature reconstructions...one from the Arctic, one from the Antarctic...both covering the same period of time. The fact that both show the same temperature signatures demonstrates that the temperatures they reflect were global in nature...unless of course, you would care to provide a rational, scientifically sound reason why both poles might show the same temperature signatures but those changes didn't show up in the space between the poles. Here, let me show them to you again.

This one is from the Arctic Circle:

This one is from the Antarctic Circle:

And if that isn't enough, I will be happy to provide you with level I and level II studies from any region of the world...your choice...showing the same temperature signatures. The "wildness" of natural variability of the climate is no secret...it is just ignored in favor of a very short period...a literal eye blink in geological time which supports a political goal. If you look at the long view of the earth's climate, the idea that the present is in any way different from the past is laughable.

And again you have failed to provide any evidence that the warming of the oceans thus creating more evaporation, not to mention the killing off of the coral reefs, or that the melting of the ice packs thus reducing the amount of reflection of heat back into the atmosphere, and numerous other man caused problems, has not affected the climate. All you do is babble on with your high school intellect.

Logic and critical thinking don't seem to be your best things, in spite of your high opinion of yourself. The two graphs above pretty much put the idea that the present climate is behaving in any way different than it ever has to bed...Are you are claiming that we are altering the global climate but our influence on the climate is indistinguishable from natural variability? Got any evidence to support that ludicrous claim.

Regarding your request for evidence to prove that a thing has not happened....back to logic not being your best thing. Here, from someone for whom logic is their best thing.

Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist.

Per the traditional aphorism, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", positive evidence of this kind is distinct from a lack of evidence or ignorance[1] of that which should have been found already, had it existed.[2] In this regard Irving Copi writes:

In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.

— Copi, Introduction to Logic (1953), p. 95

Since you can't come up with a shred of observed, measured, quantified data that suggests that we are altering the global climate in ANY way...or that the climate isn't behaving in accordance with natural variability, after the billions upon billions upon billions of dollars that have been spent looking, it is a safe bet that we are simply seeing natural variability.

 

[palerider]

By the way trapper...here is some more observed, measured, quantified evidence that we are not contributing to the changing global climate.

If we were making a contribution to the warming climate via our so called greenhouse gas emissions, the warming would be due to less outgoing longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere...the so called greenhouse gasses would be holding some in which would mean less going out...here are a couple of studies of outgoing long wave radiation at the top of the atmosphere...

As you can see, there is no decrease in ongoing long wave radiation..in fact, the amount of radiation at the top of the atmosphere is increasing.

Further if there was a greenhouse effect as described by climate science, increased CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses would inevitably result in a tropospheric hot spot..due to radiation being held within the troposphere by so called greenhouse gasses...see the above graphic showing no decrease in outgoing LW radiation...a million plus radiosondes have been sent up through the troposphere looking for that hot spot...it isn't there...and how could it be as evidenced by the graphs above showing no decrease in outgoing long wave radiation.

As you can see...no increase whatsoever, and far below that predicted by the failing models...which also bolsters the claim that most of the warming temperatures we have seen is the result of data manipulation, and not actual warming of the atmosphere.

There was also the prediction that the increased radiation being held within the troposphere by so called greenhouse gasses would result in more evaporation of water leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere leading to even more enhanced warming...once again...failure...do you see a trend developing here? Have a look at what is happening to global relative humidity...

This is observed, measured, empirical evidence demonstrating that our CO2 emissions are having no effect on the climate...we are not contributing to global climate change at all. Face it guy, if you believe that we are even contributing to any changes in the global climate, you have been duped. The observed, measured, quantified evidence says otherwise.