Climategate?

Turtwig

Complete and utter nonsense..
Insult to physicists and climatalogists alike.

Refuted below.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf

Toiletroll

Malty_T wrote: »

Complete and utter nonsense..
Insult to physicists and climatalogists alike.

Refuted below.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf

Though from that updated article I notice:

Incoming solar radiation still drives everything - if the solar constant S drops, then so does everything else. But the effect of the absorbing layer is to reduce the final outgoing energy for a given temperature, so the planet heats up until things are back in balance again.

I have not read the entire paper but I will do this tomorrow and comment further. Thanks.

Turtwig

Dang that was a fast edit..lucky!:)

djpbarry

Toiletroll wrote: »

CO2 greenhouse effect cannot be developed from basic physics.


http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

Posting the same article on different threads with no accompanying explanation does not constitute discussion.

I think that anyone who has a strong belief in AGW should watch this series!
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/man-on-earth/episode-guide/series-1

Series Summary Tony Robinson

Tony Robinson travels back through 200,000 years of human history to find out what happened to our ancestors when violent climate change turned their world upside down, and what they teach us as we face our own climate crisis today. While some civilisations flourished, others were destroyed. Vicious and sudden changes to the climate killed millions; but benign change has enabled humans to multiply and develop at an extraordinary pace.

Using CGI effects and stunning imagery, this series illustrates how climate has shaped human history from the beginning. Tony seeks answers at some of the world's most important and intriguing archaeological sites, speaking to leading archaeologists, historians and climate scientists.

The next "Climate change" will happen regardless of what Humans do, no matter how much we pay the "intermediates to the climate gods!" Like the Mayan's did. (episode 3)

Man is still only the tenant on the planet of course, and we should minimise pollution and destruction of the natural environment. But, I'l repeat again

Carbon taxes will only make certain people richer by placing a cost on something that is a byproduct of human existance, how long will it be before subsistance farmers are taxed for burning wood scavenged from the savanna to use for cooking.

Turtwig

Is it really necessary to post the same thing all over the place?
Documentaries while interesting are limited by their format.
(Unfortunately)

Malty_T

Malty_T wrote: »

Is it really necessary to post the same thing all over the place?
Documentaries while interesting are limited by their format.
(Unfortunately)

Yes it is, as the other debate is in AH.

The main issue being that climate change has happened in the past and it will happen again any time soon! How soon, your guess is as good as mine.

Taxation and stunting growth in the third world will achieve little.
Population control will!

Turtwig

Deleted User wrote: »

Population control will!

And I thought I told you in AH that that idea is far too simplistic and it won't work!
Anyways, how do you suppose we go about implementing population control?

he main issue being that climate change has happened in the past and it will happen again any time soon! How soon, your guess is as good as mine.

Indeed, I do not deny this, but if it happens too quickly then systems will not be able to adapt regardless how much funding is available. So if our contribution is causing acceleration then that means we're reducing our future chances of survival.

Malty_T

Malty_T wrote: »

Anyways, how do you suppose we go about implementing population control?


.

Education, Contraception & better health care in the third world for starters!

Turtwig

Deleted User wrote: »

Education, Contraception & better health care in the third world for starters!

More specifics please.
Btw, just letting you know the Anti -AGW lobby in the US, is mostly anti-contraception too.

Malty_T

Malty_T wrote: »

More specifics please.
Btw, just letting you know the Anti -AGW lobby in the US, is mostly anti-contraception too.

I don't pidgeonhole that easily!

Specifics, OK just a couple -

Cancel thirdworld debt to those countries that are willing to educate their people that it's better to raise two or three healty kids than have seven starving ones.
Contraception to help with the above - overruling the catholic church if necessary (the dangers of overpopulation are too great).
Better health provision that can be funded by the world banks - they can well afford it!

djpbarry

Deleted User wrote: »

The main issue being that climate change has happened in the past and it will happen again any time soon!

Of the episodes I've seen, explanations based on scientific and/or archaeological evidence are usually offered for these historical climate changes, be they regional or global. But of course, when a scientific theory is put forward to explain the warming of the last century...

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

Of the episodes I've seen, explanations based on scientific and/or archaeological evidence are usually offered for these historical climate changes, be they regional or global. But of course, when a scientific theory is put forward to explain the warming of the last century...

Big difference is that if a past event that can be dated, it's difficult to argue the science, with future events it's much harder to be certain that a particular chain of events will happen, and more to the point whether mankind changing a few minor (in global terms) things will achieve anything.

Turtwig

Deleted User wrote: »

Big difference is that if a past event that can be dated, it's difficult to argue the science, with future events it's much harder to be certain that a particular chain of events will happen, and more to the point whether mankind changing a few minor (in global terms) things will achieve anything.

Right so if you run a simulation that is reasonably accurate for past climatic events, you can't use that simulation for future events?

Malty_T

Malty_T wrote: »

Right so if you run a simulation that is reasonably accurate for past climatic events, you can't use that simulation for future events?

If you can pinpoint what exactly caused the past climate changes then yes, re-run the models.

The documentory in question completely side-stepped the issue as to what triggered the changes.

I have yet to find anywhere a decent explanation as to what triggered the flips between warm and cold periods, the "best-fit" so far is the solar sunspot activity.

Turtwig

Deleted User wrote: »

If you can pinpoint what exactly caused the past climate changes then yes, re-run the models.

The documentory in question completely side-stepped the issue as to what triggered the changes.

I have yet to find anywhere a decent explanation as to what triggered the flips between warm and cold periods, the "best-fit" so far is the solar sunspot activity.

No Solar sunspot activity explains some flips. Others are explained by volcanic eruptions, carbon dioxide, orbital perturbations, impacts from space etc etc
There is no one root cause for all events.

Malty_T

Malty_T wrote: »

No Solar sunspot activity explains some flips. Others are explained by volcanic eruptions, carbon dioxide, orbital perturbations, impacts from space etc etc
There is no one root cause for all events.

You answered your own question, but which event was caused by carbon dioxide?

Most major catastrophic events can be dated as well and matched to some of the short term events but not the long term flips.

djpbarry

Deleted User wrote: »

Big difference is that if a past event that can be dated, it's difficult to argue the science, with future events it's much harder to be certain that a particular chain of events will happen...

Who said anything about the future?

Deleted User wrote: »

I have yet to find anywhere a decent explanation as to what triggered the flips between warm and cold periods, the "best-fit" so far is the solar sunspot activity.

Really? I’m not seeing any upward trend here.

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

Really? I’m not seeing any upward trend here.

But there is a period in the early 70's where the sunspot number was low, the rays remaind high and the temperatures were cool, far too short a time frame to make any real conclusions, but still a partial match!
The most recent cycle was also lower and now temperatures appear to be falling (depending on which dataset you use).

The oceans will absorb the solar energy and hold on to it, then release it slowly, that's why there isn't a perfect match.

Toiletroll

Good video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzZdAfx37d8

Turtwig

Toiletroll wrote: »

Good video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzZdAfx37d8

Okays, but it's 40 mins long.
Maybe you could list the key points and we'd go through em with you.
Also in the first minute I noticed at least 3 scientists that were funded directly by petroleum related companies (namely Exxon). Not only that but their papers were rubbished, iirc one of them showed no actual understanding of how tree ringng data is measured. I haven't watched the documentary, and I'm not going to, but maybe if you present its arguments we'll address them.

Toiletroll

Toiletroll wrote: »

Good video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzZdAfx37d8

As well as the above video, have a look at what a NASA employee has to say...

I’ve never been a believer for several reasons –
1. I worked as a NASA contractor for 40+ years. I knew (actually worked with) the NASA Atmospheric scientists on the Nimbus, Landsat, UARS and Terra programs. And few, if any, of them believed in the “IPCC party line” prior to 1998.

2. The first time I was challenged on my “skepticism” was on an Internet forum in 2001. The opposing argument was re: the Hockey Stick, which I simply laughed at. I may be an engineer, but my knowledge of history was not so poor as to believe that the MWP and LIA had simply disappeared. It wasn’t until several years later that MacIntyre and McKittrick “broke” the Hockey Stick.

3. Since my first Internet GW/CC “flame war” there have been many more. I’ve never at any time found reasonable, well founded, scientific arguments on the alarmist side. It was 5 years ago that I determined – and stated long and loudly – that AGW was not science, but religion.

4. More and more, I’ve also found it to be ” BIG Business”, generating billions, if not trillions of dollars. The money motive has been obvious with respect to the “Climate Change scientific community” for at least the last 10 years, Remember – I worked with that “community”.

5. The constantly escalating alarms for the last decade have been a very BIG flashing red light on my BS detector. I think maybe that message is finally getting through to other people as well. The other ALARM was the constant litany of pre-canned mantras – without any real supporting data. Specifically things like “the science is settled” and “the science is all peer-reviewed.” Scientific consensus is an oxymoron.

6. My wife worked for AMS (American Meteorological Society) when the IPCC SAR was issued – and the shock wave there was remarkable. The SAR had been fully expected to have full peer reviewed status – but the final version had the final, bottom line conclusion altered (by a single person) to claim a consensus that absolutely did NOT exist on the Anthropogenic cause of Global Warming. The SAR was issued without peer reviewed status because VERY few of the climate scientists failed to withdraw their approval of the document. That’s not a story that the alarmists will tell you.
There’s more – much more. But I think it unnecesary to continue.
The final point here though, is that I want to congratulate you. Your “turnaround” labels you as a “thinking human being”. And that’s a rare and wonderful beastie indeed.

http://www.nctimes.com/app/blogs/wp/?p=6063&cpage=2#comment-1765

AGW is a religion supported by the alarmists. It may be too uncomfortable at the moment to publicaly admit that AGW is wrong. Though it is coming.

Turtwig

Toiletroll wrote: »

AGW is a religion supported by the alarmists. It may be too uncomfortable at the moment to publicaly admit that AGW is wrong. Though it is coming.

Actually, I have no problem in admitting if AGW is wrong(It could well be, but you're not really making any case against it). Would you have a problem in admitting if you were wrong?

Toiletroll

Malty_T wrote: »

Okays, but it's 40 mins long.
Maybe you could list the key points and we'd go through em with you.
Also in the first minute I noticed at least 3 scientists that were funded directly by petroleum related companies (namely Exxon). Not only that but their papers were rubbished, iirc one of them showed no actual understanding of how tree ringng data is measured. I haven't watched the documentary, and I'm not going to, but maybe if you present its arguments we'll address them.

Totally irrelevant point. Head of the IPCC is also funded by Exxon and also even worse, SHELL!

djpbarry

I'm getting tired of people posting links to videos and/or articles without any accompanying discussion, so further posts of this variety will be deleted without warning. If you want to draw attention to something in a video or article, that's fine, but simply posting the link with a comment such as "AGW is nonsense" doesn’t cut it.

EDIT: Repeat offenders will be infracted.

Toiletroll

Malty_T wrote: »

Actually, I have no problem in admitting if AGW is wrong(It could well be, but you're not really making any case against it). Would you have a problem in admitting if you were wrong?

I would admit it if I was wrong.

Though this whole scandal is little to do with the science or climate. It is much bigger than that, which was obvious from COP15.

Toiletroll

djpbarry wrote: »

I'm getting tired of people posting links to videos and/or articles without any accompanying discussion, so further posts of this variety will be deleted without warning. If you want to draw attention to something in a video or article, that's fine, but simply posting the link with a comment such as "AGW is nonsense" doesn’t cut it.

Point taken and will be adhered to.

Turtwig

Deleted User wrote: »

The oceans will absorb the solar energy and hold on to it, then release it slowly, that's why there isn't a perfect match.

You're right in that the oceans absorb and slowly release heat. However, it has been shown that the lag over the last 1150 years was 10 years.

..the best correlation between sunspot number and temperature data are consistently obtained for a time lag of 10 years.

[MOD_EDIT] Attaching the graph and linking to the paper is sufficient - no need to include it in the post too. [/MOD_EDIT]

Hopefully from the graph (sunspot activity compared with measured temperature) it should be fairly obvious that the temperature lags the sunspot by ten years.

So, I think you'll agree that using the ocean's lag to explain a significant lack of correlation for 30 years just doesn't compute.

Turtwig

Malty_T wrote: »

You're right in that the oceans absorb and slowly release heat. However, it has been shown that the lag over the last 1150 years was 10 years.


[MOD_EDIT] Attaching the graph and linking to the paper is sufficient - no need to include it in the post too. [/MOD_EDIT]

Hopefully from the graph (sunspot activity compared with measured temperature) it should be fairly obvious that the temperature lags the sunspot by ten years.

So, I think you'll agree that using the ocean's lag to explain a significant lack of correlation for 30 years just doesn't compute.

Well I can't thank my own post, but em thanks for the edit.
I knew it was a bit big

Malty_T

Malty_T wrote: »

You're right in that the oceans absorb and slowly release heat. However, it has been shown that the lag over the last 1150 years was 10 years.


[MOD_EDIT] Attaching the graph and linking to the paper is sufficient - no need to include it in the post too. [/MOD_EDIT]

Hopefully from the graph (sunspot activity compared with measured temperature) it should be fairly obvious that the temperature lags the sunspot by ten years.

So, I think you'll agree that using the ocean's lag to explain a significant lack of correlation for 30 years just doesn't compute.

The chart shows quite a good correlation, OK not exact! But nothing in climate science is exact. It's still good enough to signify that solar activity in a major player in clamate change!