Scientific opposition to climate change

[Saigon]

Wicked Jester -

If you can find any coherent and on-topic post from Oddball anywhere on this forum, I'd love to see it.

You won't find one.

But as for gullibility - I couldn't agree more. In many ways the key issue with climate scepticism is that people would rather believe nutcase blogs than they would listen to genuine scientific sources.

Ya' mean like the NASA study that completely blew the CO2 myth put out by the AGWer's completely out of the water?

Do you have a link you can share for that study?

Um....good luck with that!

 

[SSDD]

Ilar -

Actually, the evidence linking CO2 to climate change is overwhelming. It is complex, but there is no lack of data now - which is why no major scientific organisation questions the link at this point.

I am happy to post an overview of the science for you if you like.

Ok, here it is: How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

A blog entry is what passes for overwhelming evidence in your book? You get more rediculous with every post...And that so called evidence is anything but...

It claims actual measurements of downward LW radiation when no such measurements exist that have been taken at ambient temperature. The devices which have measured downdwelling radiation are, without exception, cooled to a temperature far below ambient.

If you knew the first thing about the second law of thermodynamics, you might begin to suspect why a device must be cooled to a temperature lower than the ambient to measure what is claimed to be happening at the ambient.

Here is an overlay of snapshots of outgoing long wave radiation taken in 1970 by the sattellite IRIS and in 1997 by the sattellite IMG in 1997. Both snapshots were taken over the central pacific at the same time of the year and under the same conditions.

The light colored line is the IRIS data collected in 1970 and the darker line is the IMG data from 1997. If AGW theory were correct, the IMG data from 1997 should show less outgoing longwave radiation than the IRIS data from 1970 as there is certainly more CO2 in the atmosphere in 1997 than there was in 1970. As you can see, the longwave radiation from the two separate snapshots is identical indicating no additional absorption of outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 wavelengths even though there is more CO2 in the atmosphere.

The next two images were taken by IRIS in 1970 and TES in 2006 respectively. In these graphs, the black line represents the actual measurement taken by the sattellite, the red line represents what the climate models predict and the blue line represents the difference between the model data and the actual data.

If you print the two graphs and overlay them, you will find them identical. No less outgoing LW radiation.

 

[Saigon]

A blog entry is what passes for overwhelming evidence in your book?

I am sorry I couldn't find a blog from a right wing politician!! I do know how you love those as sources.


The Sceptical Science pages do provide a good overview for people who just want to know the key issues. It also provides lots of studies people can then go on to read if they wish. We know you don't read those!

btw. There is also a page on the site which explains your error with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Here it is: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Second-law-of-thermodynamics-greenhouse-theory.htm

 

[IlarMeilyr]

johnosullivan.livejournal.com/38681.html] johnosullivan - New NASA Satellite Data Study Undermines Greenhouse Gas Effect

??

I can't post URL's here yet. So I just note what would be in the URL link.

 

[Saigon]

johnosullivan.livejournal.com/38681.html] johnosullivan - New NASA Satellite Data Study Undermines Greenhouse Gas Effect

??

I can't post URL's here yet. So I just note what would be in the URL link.

Please try and use genuine scientific sources. NASA might be a good place to start.

They say:

Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"1 -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.

Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the atmosphere, which do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as "forcing" climate change whereas gases, such as water, which respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are seen as "feedbacks."

Climate Change: Causes

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Please try and use genuine scientific sources. NASA might be a good place to start.

<<snipped>>

Instead of preaching about the status level of the material, maybe it would help if you could address what is said in the article or piece.

 

[SSDD]

I am sorry I couldn't find a blog from a right wing politician!! I do know how you love those as sources.

It must be tiring to keep up your never ending string of lies.

The Sceptical Science pages do provide a good overview for people who just want to know the key issues. It also provides lots of studies people can then go on to read if they wish. We know you don't read those!

Skeptical science providies nothing but misinformation. Credible scientists don't even visit that cesspool any more.

btw. There is also a page on the site which explains your error with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

I have made no error...your first error was taking anything you got from that scam site as fact.

 

[SSDD]

Please try and use genuine scientific sources. NASA might be a good place to start.

<<snipped>>

Instead of preaching about the status level of the material, maybe it would help if you could address what is said in the article or piece.

Funny how that liar suggests that you use genuine scientific sources while repeatedly posting trash from one of the most dishonest blog sites on the web. One whose reputation is so sullied that no credible scientist even vists any more.

 

[Saigon]

Funny how that liar suggests that you use genuine scientific sources while repeatedly posting trash from one of the most dishonest blog sites on the web. One whose reputation is so sullied that no credible scientist even vists any more.

As I said - I couln't find any blogs from politicians like the ones you use.

I can link that if you have "forgotten".

Scepetical Science provides excellent overviews of specific topics - and then links so that you can actually read the science. I suspect it is that last part that puts you off!!

 

[Wicked Jester]

johnosullivan.livejournal.com/38681.html] johnosullivan - New NASA Satellite Data Study Undermines Greenhouse Gas Effect

??

I can't post URL's here yet. So I just note what would be in the URL link.

It's as simple as googling "NASA study co2"....links to the study are all over the net, and it clearly shows that these computer models used by the AGWer's are manipulated to give the results they desire.....The actual satellite data is exposing the fraud for what it is, despite the attempts of the AGWer's to debunk it.

 

[Saigon]

It's as simple as googling "NASA study co2"....links to the study are all over the net, and it clearly shows that these computer models used by the AGWer's are manipulated to give the results they desire.....The actual satellite data is exposing the fraud for what it is, despite the attempts of the AGWer's to debunk it.

You have to laugh, don't you?

Come on Jester - try not to be QUITE so gullible! Especially when I just posted the links to NASA!

Why rely on that nutcase blogs tell you about the study - when you could read the study itself?

 

[Saigon]

Here is NASA's conclusion:

Water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect, but a new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide.

The study, conducted by Andrew Lacis and colleagues at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, examined the nature of Earth's greenhouse effect and clarified the role that greenhouse gases and clouds play in absorbing outgoing infrared radiation. Notably, the team identified non-condensing greenhouse gases -- such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons -- as providing the core support for the terrestrial greenhouse effect.

Without non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect. The study's results will be published Friday, Oct. 15 in Science.

A companion study led by GISS co-author Gavin Schmidt that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth&#8217;s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth&#8217;s greenhouse effect.

NASA - Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature

It's interesting that some of the articles claim that the CO2 leaking out of the atmosphere was much greater than "alarmists" predicted - what they don't tell you is that the levels were not much different from what most experts thought beforehand.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

johnosullivan.livejournal.com/38681.html] johnosullivan - New NASA Satellite Data Study Undermines Greenhouse Gas Effect

??

I can't post URL's here yet. So I just note what would be in the URL link.

It's as simple as googling "NASA study co2"....links to the study are all over the net, and it clearly shows that these computer models used by the AGWer's are manipulated to give the results they desire.....The actual satellite data is exposing the fraud for what it is, despite the attempts of the AGWer's to debunk it.

I am not a scientist. But I kind of grasp what's being claimed. The scientists who firmly believe that there is such a thing as AGW say that the studies of the critics constitute bad science.

The critics claim that the studies and papers of the AGW crowd are based on bad science. Since I am not a scientist and can only understand the criticism from a layman's perspective, I find it somewhat confusing.

For example, if the models used by the AGW scientists fail to include the fact that heat loss is more rapid at night, but instead that facet of the data is included in the model as existing in a world that doesn't have days and nights, then the data may be off. And the conclusions may be off.

If there are enough flaws of that kind in the studies, then maybe there is good reason to consider the AGW claims as being suspect.

 

[Saigon]

Ilar -

It is confusing. I totally agree. Both sides attack each other, and for those of us trying to make sense of it, it's hard work.

But when you consider 97%-98% of researchers who actually work in this fields believe human activity plays a role in changing the climate - I have to go with that.

Also, EVERY major scientific organisation (that's 50 - 60 organisations) back climate change - not one opposes.

That leads me to believe that what we have here is a very small, VERY vocal minority who in many cases have strong political views causing them to muddy the field. We see proof of that in the beginning of this thread, after all.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Saigon,

Science is not governed by "consensus."

If a majority of scientists with all good intentions are basing conclusions on defective "studies," but have not sweated the details enough to see the defects, then their consensus conclusion is still the product of bad science. Of course, the same could be said for the skeptics.

 

[Saigon]

Ilar -

I totally agree with you - but if I consult 100 doctors, and 97 tell me I have X, then in most cases they are going to be right.

I can't imagine many posters would consult 100 doctors and then dismiss the views of 97 of them as sceptics do here.

I've never understood why sceptics tend to dismiss the idea of scientific consensus - but still insist they are on the side of science. You can't have it both ways - either we value the opinions of scientists or we don't.

 

[PredFan]

AGW is a scam, always has been. That has been shown to be true time and time again, by many many more people than just Oddball.

Not that that will phase any of the Climate Change faithful.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Ilar -

I totally agree with you - but if I consult 100 doctors, and 97 tell me I have X, then in most cases they are going to be right.

I can't imagine many posters would consult 100 doctors and then dismiss the views of 97 of them as sceptics do here.

I've never understood why sceptics tend to dismiss the idea of scientific consensus - but still insist they are on the side of science. You can't have it both ways - either we value the opinions of scientists or we don't.

We get second opinions for a lot of reasons. Sometimes we get a few more than just two opinions. Sadly, sometimes that means we get LOTS of different opinions. The trouble is, if a majority agree, that is no assurance that they are the ones who have gotten ir right.

It all comes down to the data and the quality of the science. Bad data generally lead to lousy conclusions. But even good data can be applied poorly leading once more to poor conclusions.

 

[PredFan]

Longknife -

Wow. Investors.com.

Truly a trusted name and esteemed source of information on science.

Jesus wept....

Case in point. To the Climate Change faithful, anything that backs up their faith is a good and reliable source, anything that disputes it is a heretic and unworthy of respect.

 

[PredFan]

It's funny how Siagon's signature basically says that 97% of the people who's job it is to study climate change, accept that Climate Change exists.

The comedy writes itself.