Proof that AGW is bad science

[Flash]

The AGW scam says that man has been the main factor in the planet getting hotter.

Today it was 100 F in Tallahassee Florida. Proof right?

Nope, not even close. The last time it was 100 F on this day was 80 years ago.

Not only that but the city of Tallahassee in a much bigger heat sink now than it was 80 years ago with a lot more construction and concrete going on nowadays.

So no warmer than 80 years ago, check

Tallahassee hits 100 degrees Friday, ties daily record high set over 80 years ago

Tallahassee ties a record-high setback in 1942.

www.wctv.tv

This puts this chart into perspective.

 

[Flash]

This is the scientific proof the AGW scammers use:

 

[EMH]

The AGW scam says that man has been the main factor in the planet getting hotter.

Today it was 100 F in Tallahassee Florida. Proof right?

Nope, not even close. The last time it was 100 F on this day was 80 years ago.

Not only that but the city of Tallahassee in a much bigger heat sink now than it was 80 years ago with a lot more construction and concrete going on nowadays.

So no warmer than 80 years ago, check

Tallahassee hits 100 degrees Friday, ties daily record high set over 80 years ago

Tallahassee ties a record-high setback in 1942.

www.wctv.tv

This puts this chart into perspective.

Without any real climate data suggesting warming, they are left hyping and lying about weather, and you are very correct about Urban Heat Sink Effect....

 

[Oddball]

The proof is that none -as in NONE- of their dire predictions has come to pass.

 

[1srelluc]

I heard that they so desperate that they are taking track temps at NASCAR events and reporting them as air temps.

 

[Oddball]

Fuck off, apu fuckup....You suck, just like all the other scaremonger bitches.

 

[EMH]

Fuck off, apu fuckup....You suck, just like all the other scaremonger bitches.

abu is exemplary of the idiocy and dishonesty of those who still insist the Co2 fraud is real....

 

[Crick]

The AGW scam says that man has been the main factor in the planet getting hotter.

The AGW theory says that human GHG emissions are the main factor in warming observed since the Industrial Revolution.

Today it was 100 F in Tallahassee Florida. Proof right?

No. There are no proofs in the natural sciences and one temperature on one day in one location barely qualifies as a fraction of an iota of evidence of global warming. And it says absolutely nothing about anthropogenicity. That makes this comment look very much like a lead in to another denier strawman argument.

Nope, not even close.

Good. We seem to agree on something.

The last time it was 100 F on this day was 80 years ago.

I'm surprised it was that long.

Not only that but the city of Tallahassee in a much bigger heat sink now than it was 80 years ago with a lot more construction and concrete going on nowadays.

Did you mean to say "...IS a much bigger heat sink..." because heat sinks are not something you can get in and out of. But I agree that Tallahassee has lots more asphalt and lots more fuel combustion going on. But then, it also has almost constant coastal breezes. So... just as an aside, aren't humans responsible for making Tallahassee a larger heat sink than it was 80 years ago?

So no warmer than 80 years ago, check

Tallahassee on that one day. No hotter. Check.

Tallahassee hits 100 degrees Friday, ties daily record high set over 80 years ago

Tallahassee ties a record-high setback in 1942.

www.wctv.tv

This puts this chart into perspective.

The rules here at USMB require that when you copy and paste something like this chart, you need to put up a link identifying its source. But be that as it may, let's talk about this graphic.

1) This is appears to be data from a Greenland ice core. Some Greenland ice cores are known for poorly representing abrupt glacial climate changes during precisely the period covered by your graphic. See Greenland ice core project - Wikipedia and then The anatomy of past abrupt warmings recorded in Greenland ice - Nature Communications
2) Typically, temperature data are acquired from ice cores by conducting an isotopic analysis of its water. The proportions of water molecules containing the oxygen 18 isotope and deuterium are temperature dependent because both, in water, require more energy to evaporate and less loss to precipitate. Since water vapor is a well-mixed gas, these temperatures are dependent on the global average temperature and do not reflect local conditions. The range of temperatures in your chart are certainly Celsius values local to central Greenland. I have looked for ways in which scientists might determine local temperatures from an ice core but have had no luck. So I would very much like to see the origin of this graphic.
3) AGW warming totals 1.1C. That would be roughly one-half of one minor division on this chart's vertical scale, yet no such rise is visible. That is very likely because it is not possible to get contemporaneous data from ice cores and, besides, the horizontal scale here is "Years BP". BP stands for "Before Present" and in this context, "Present" has a specific definition: 1950. So even had modern instrument data been appended, it would have shown only a small fraction of current warming.

Here is a temperature reconstruction created by scientists at the University of Arizona. It is discussed in a Phys.Org article at Global temperatures over last 24,000 years show today's warming 'unprecedented' while the study itself was published in Nature and is behind their paywall at Globally resolved surface temperatures since the Last Glacial Maximum - Nature, though, as usual, the Abstract is available.

 

[Crick]

The proof is that none -as in NONE- of their dire predictions has come to pass.

Could you dig up some of these predictions? Just a few of 'em.

 

[Flash]

The AGW theory says that human GHG emissions are the main factor in warming observed since the Industrial Revolution.

No. There are no proofs in the natural sciences and one temperature on one day in one location barely qualifies as a fraction of an iota of evidence of global warming. And it says absolutely nothing about anthropogenicity. That makes this comment look very much like a lead in to another denier strawman argument.

Good. We seem to agree on something.

I'm surprised it was that long.

Did you mean to say "...IS a much bigger heat sink..." because heat sinks are not something you can get in and out of. But I agree that Tallahassee has lots more asphalt and lots more fuel combustion going on. But then, it also has almost constant coastal breezes. So... just as an aside, aren't humans responsible for making Tallahassee a larger heat sink than it was 80 years ago?

Tallahassee on that one day. No hotter. Check.

The rules here at USMB require that when you copy and paste something like this chart, you need to put up a link identifying its source. But be that as it may, let's talk about this graphic.

1) This is appears to be data from a Greenland ice core. Some Greenland ice cores are known for poorly representing abrupt glacial climate changes during precisely the period covered by your graphic. See Greenland ice core project - Wikipedia and then The anatomy of past abrupt warmings recorded in Greenland ice - Nature Communications
2) Typically, temperature data are acquired from ice cores by conducting an isotopic analysis of its water. The proportions of water molecules containing the oxygen 18 isotope and deuterium are temperature dependent because both, in water, require more energy to evaporate and less loss to precipitate. Since water vapor is a well-mixed gas, these temperatures are dependent on the global average temperature and do not reflect local conditions. The range of temperatures in your chart are certainly Celsius values local to central Greenland. I have looked for ways in which scientists might determine local temperatures from an ice core but have had no luck. So I would very much like to see the origin of this graphic.
3) AGW warming totals 1.1C. That would be roughly one-half of one minor division on this chart's vertical scale, yet no such rise is visible. That is very likely because it is not possible to get contemporaneous data from ice cores and, besides, the horizontal scale here is "Years BP". BP stands for "Before Present" and in this context, "Present" has a specific definition: 1950. So even had modern instrument data been appended, it would have shown only a small fraction of current warming.

Here is a temperature reconstruction created by scientists at the University of Arizona. It is discussed in a Phys.Org article at Global temperatures over last 24,000 years show today's warming 'unprecedented' while the study itself was published in Nature and is behind their paywall at Globally resolved surface temperatures since the Last Glacial Maximum - Nature, though, as usual, the Abstract is available.

 

[Crick]

I see you gave it just as much thought as did I.

 

[expat_panama]

The AGW theory says that human GHG emissions are the main factor in warming observed since the Industrial Revolution....

Some sources say the industrial revolution ended 1840. For your statement to make sense you'd have to be able to share your records on "GHG emissions" (natural and man made) for 1840 to the present by decade. Along w/ that you'd also have to be able to demonstrate that no similar increase in GHG emissions occurred from other sources over the past 100,000 years.

If you don't have this info then we have to realize that we can't confirm the AGW theory.

 

[Crick]

Some sources say the industrial revolution ended 1840. For your statement to make sense you'd have to be able to share your records on "GHG emissions" (natural and man made) for 1840 to the present by decade.

We can do better than that

CO2 since 1800

sealevel.info

Along w/ that you'd also have to be able to demonstrate that no similar increase in GHG emissions occurred from other sources over the past 100,000 years.

10,000 Years of Carbon Dioxide - Berkeley Earth

A graph reflecting atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the last 10,000 years.

berkeleyearth.org

CO2 Past

CO2.Earth connects the general public with the latest data and information for stabilizing earth's atmosphere, climate and living environments.

www.co2.earth

If you don't have this info then we have to realize that we can't confirm the AGW theory.

Who is "we"?

Just out of curiosity, you've seen those data here repeatedly. What made you think that they might not be readily available?

 

[expat_panama]

We can do better than that

CO2 since 1800

sealevel.info

10,000 Years of Carbon Dioxide - Berkeley Earth

A graph reflecting atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the last 10,000 years.

berkeleyearth.org

CO2 Past

CO2.Earth connects the general public with the latest data and information for stabilizing earth's atmosphere, climate and living environments.

www.co2.earth

Sounds good, exactly what I suggested. Our next step is to understand the green house process and it's possible affect on warming. You tell me, what is warming --are you saying that "the globe" is warming?

Who is "we"?

Good question. Who was the "we" you were talking about when you said--

We can do better than that...

 

[Hellbilly]

The AGW scam says that man has been the main factor in the planet getting hotter.

Today it was 100 F in Tallahassee Florida. Proof right?

Nope, not even close. The last time it was 100 F on this day was 80 years ago.

Not only that but the city of Tallahassee in a much bigger heat sink now than it was 80 years ago with a lot more construction and concrete going on nowadays.

So no warmer than 80 years ago, check

Tallahassee hits 100 degrees Friday, ties daily record high set over 80 years ago

Tallahassee ties a record-high setback in 1942.

www.wctv.tv

This puts this chart into perspective.

Climate Change is real and it’s here now

 

[Flash]

I love how these Environmental Wackos use daily records to imply this is some sort of unprecedented temperature.

Tallahassee has a record of 100 or more in 27/31 days for July with an overall record high for any day of 104 in 1932.

 

[Flash]

 

[ding]

The AGW scam says that man has been the main factor in the planet getting hotter.

Today it was 100 F in Tallahassee Florida. Proof right?

Nope, not even close. The last time it was 100 F on this day was 80 years ago.

Not only that but the city of Tallahassee in a much bigger heat sink now than it was 80 years ago with a lot more construction and concrete going on nowadays.

So no warmer than 80 years ago, check

Tallahassee hits 100 degrees Friday, ties daily record high set over 80 years ago

Tallahassee ties a record-high setback in 1942.

www.wctv.tv

This puts this chart into perspective.

Yes, much of the past 10,000 years was warmer than today. They don't want to acknowledge that.

 

[Innocynioc]

I find it bewildering that CO2 levels at Mona Loa seem to have become the world standard. Mona Loa is often very high in CO2 and other greenhouse gases as a result of emissions from two nearby active volcanoes. The miasma of volcanic gases at Mona Loa even has a name. It is called vog. If an honest accounting were desired wouldn't it make sense to take the readings at a sight almost anywhere else in the world with more average CO2 concentrations? I suspect this is just one more of the glaring dishonest factors that mar the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

 

[expat_panama]

I find it bewildering that CO2 levels at Mona Loa seem to have become the world standard. Mona Loa is often very high in CO2 and other greenhouse gases as a result of emissions from two nearby active volcanoes. The miasma of volcanic gases at Mona Loa even has a name. It is called vog. If an honest accounting were desired wouldn't it make sense to take the readings at a sight almost anywhere else in the world with more average CO2 concentrations? I suspect this is just one more of the glaring dishonest factors that mar the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

Of course what ur saying is absolutely correct, but at the same time we've yet to hear any reason higher levels of this trace atmospheric component is a bad thing. It's interesting that the graph Crick posted...

10,000 Years of Carbon Dioxide - Berkeley Earth

A graph reflecting atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the last 10,000 years.

berkeleyearth.org

...

--showed levels never getting very far below 200 ppm. The reason is that a longer term at such levels would kill all plant life which would kill all of us.

Personally, my take is we'd be far better off w/ CO2 levels we had about 70 million years ago-- it was five times higher than what we got now. Plant life flourished, so much that oxygen went up to 30% v. the 20% we got now. We had bugs w/ four foot wingspans from the extra oxygen, imagine what people could do w/ the extra energy...