Debunking the Deniers

[Oddball]

And the term talking points could just as easily be applied to most of the pro-AGW claims as well
-----------------------------------

What talking points have I presented? I speak for on one else but myself, so please limit it to that. I presented a logical syllogism, which can either be valid or invalid, if it has a flaw. If you can find it, please do, but don't dismiss it as a talking point. It's the way real scientists do real science. Talking points are the realm of the political flack and 99.9% of the AGW deniers.

The term "denier" is itself a talking point.

What you presented is projection, not syllogism, as the UN and IPCC are as political as you can get. Likewise, your claim that all the skeptics have are a few "stolen" e-mails is simplistic to the point of absurdity.

Like the bulk of anthropogenic global warming...er...."climate change" science fiction, it flunks the smell test in terms of both structure and content.

 

[Si modo]

And the term talking points could just as easily be applied to most of the pro-AGW claims as well
-----------------------------------

What talking points have I presented? I speak for on one else but myself, so please limit it to that. I presented a logical syllogism, which can either be valid or invalid, if it has a flaw. If you can find it, please do, but don't dismiss it as a talking point. It's the way real scientists do real science. Talking points are the realm of the political flack and 99.9% of the AGW deniers.

The term "denier" is itself a talking point.

What you presented is projection, not syllogism, as the UN and IPCC are as political as you can get. Likewise, your claim that all the skeptics have are a few "stolen" e-mails is simplistic to the point of absurdity.

Like the bulk of anthropogenic global warming...er...."climate change" science fiction, it flunks the smell test in terms of both structure and content.

Right. If folks want to play at discussing science, they really need to discuss science. The IPCC is a political unit.

 

[code1211]

Q&A: Debunking the Deniers :: PEJ News :: Stories, Features, Opinion and Analysis :: Peace, Earth & Justice News

(EXCERPT)
Q: Where is the vehement opposition to the very idea that we need to do something about climate change?

A: Some of it is ideological, part of a long history in the United States that equates environmental regulation as going down the slippery slope to socialism. And some is religious. Christian evangelicals don't like science in general and have found common cause with the coal industry as a way to be able to teach creationism. Obviously, the motivation of the coal industry is rather different but now these people have come together to undermine science in general.

As I've said before the deniers HAVE to make this a political fight, because they've lost the scientific fight. All they've got are stolen emails that they've purposely misinterpreted to give "The Cause" new life, temporarily, because eventually the public wises up.

Where You lose My support is the classification of CO2 as a Pollutant. Clean Coal Technology addressed the issues of Mercury and Lead which is a monumental improvement over the past. Your agenda stands in the way of science and reason. Your assumptions and profiling reveal little more than the root of your prejudices.

Salt is absolutely neccessary for life. But too much is salt, and it is a poison. Same for CO2. An atmosphere without CO2 would lead to a world with the oceans frozen over clear down to the equator. This has happened in the geological past.

An atmosphere with CO2 and CH4 added very quickly leads to adrupt climate changes, and feedback loops that poison the land and oceans, this has also happened in the past from natural causes.

Just because that we are the primary cause, does not change the laws of physics.

Two questions:

1. How many times has the "abrupt addition" of CO2 and CH4 started the poisening of land and air in the last 4.5 Billion years and how long ago was the last instance of it happening and, compared to our current climate, what was the global temperature and arrangement of the continents at the time it occurred?

2. When man is a contributor of 3% of CO2 which is itself about 3% of all GHG which are as a group only a small portion of the factors that affect climate, how can you claim that those emissions are "the primary cause"?

Honest answers to these questions will reveal that what you are talking about has no relation to the current situation.

 

[code1211]

reality

If you don't even know what the 'deniers' are denying (which I must assume you don't as I rarely get an answer), then it is idiotic to use the term.

It's a simple question, yet you and others cannot answer it. That's what those interested in honest discussion do. Clarify through questions and answers.

I wonder why this question baffles you.

I wonder why you have to be so damned disingenuous.

Some deny that the warming exists at all.

Some deny that CO2 is a GHG.

Some deny that even if it is, it has no major effect.

And all deny that addressing the issue would have any positive effect.

And all deny reality.

And yet the predictions the warmers make do not occur in reality. If something doesn't exist and one person says it doesn't exist while another says it does, which one is less, oh, what's the word... Insane?

 

[gslack]

Well thank you, I have been to other forums similar to this, I realized then it was best to just swing back poked... or poke em before the get ya!

No worries, I grew up in a huge family and got 3 kids of my own who will speak their minds any time... I got a thick skin...

Thick skull, also

g, even scientists with multiple degrees after their names give referances and sources when making a statement. When you make statements without a backup, my assumption is that you pulled them out of your ass.

WOW! Thick skull? Read much?

I thought the fact I was too new to put urls in my posts at that time was pretty clear SINCE I SAID SO AND ITS BEEN VERIFIED.......

I will repeat if you need it but its all right there and the conversation which you responded to was the result of it.....

 

[Intense]

Q&A: Debunking the Deniers :: PEJ News :: Stories, Features, Opinion and Analysis :: Peace, Earth & Justice News

(EXCERPT)
Q: Where is the vehement opposition to the very idea that we need to do something about climate change?

A: Some of it is ideological, part of a long history in the United States that equates environmental regulation as going down the slippery slope to socialism. And some is religious. Christian evangelicals don't like science in general and have found common cause with the coal industry as a way to be able to teach creationism. Obviously, the motivation of the coal industry is rather different but now these people have come together to undermine science in general.

As I've said before the deniers HAVE to make this a political fight, because they've lost the scientific fight. All they've got are stolen emails that they've purposely misinterpreted to give "The Cause" new life, temporarily, because eventually the public wises up.

Where You lose My support is the classification of CO2 as a Pollutant. Clean Coal Technology addressed the issues of Mercury and Lead which is a monumental improvement over the past. Your agenda stands in the way of science and reason. Your assumptions and profiling reveal little more than the root of your prejudices.

Salt is absolutely neccessary for life. But too much is salt, and it is a poison. Same for CO2. An atmosphere without CO2 would lead to a world with the oceans frozen over clear down to the equator. This has happened in the geological past.

An atmosphere with CO2 and CH4 added very quickly leads to adrupt climate changes, and feedback loops that poison the land and oceans, this has also happened in the past from natural causes.

Just because that we are the primary cause, does not change the laws of physics.

Hmmm..... What is the primary bi-product of plant life absent sunlight?

 

[Intense]

reality

If you don't even know what the 'deniers' are denying (which I must assume you don't as I rarely get an answer), then it is idiotic to use the term.

It's a simple question, yet you and others cannot answer it. That's what those interested in honest discussion do. Clarify through questions and answers.

I wonder why this question baffles you.

I wonder why you have to be so damned disingenuous.

Some deny that the warming exists at all.

Some deny that CO2 is a GHG.

Some deny that even if it is, it has no major effect.

And all deny that addressing the issue would have any positive effect.

And all deny reality.

Maybe You should just hold your breath?

 

[Intense]

I think that we need a new jogging, exercising, and golf tax.

Let's tax sex too.

 

[concept]

Q&A: Debunking the Deniers :: PEJ News :: Stories, Features, Opinion and Analysis :: Peace, Earth & Justice News

(EXCERPT)
Q: Where is the vehement opposition to the very idea that we need to do something about climate change?

A: Some of it is ideological, part of a long history in the United States that equates environmental regulation as going down the slippery slope to socialism. And some is religious. Christian evangelicals don't like science in general and have found common cause with the coal industry as a way to be able to teach creationism. Obviously, the motivation of the coal industry is rather different but now these people have come together to undermine science in general.

As I've said before the deniers HAVE to make this a political fight, because they've lost the scientific fight. All they've got are stolen emails that they've purposely misinterpreted to give "The Cause" new life, temporarily, because eventually the public wises up.

First off, your op is wrong on several levels.

No one is disputing climate change as that it what the climate does. It changes constantly. We've had 4 or 5 ice ages haven't we? Seperated by periods of warmth.

So why are you claiming "the deniers" deny climate change? The opposition is to AGW.
Why did you leave out the data that was also included in those emails? That is the real damaging evidence that global warming is a sham. You left out the disposed raw data. How convenient. What about the hockey stick graph?


Major fail there sparky.

 

[Old Rocks]

Where You lose My support is the classification of CO2 as a Pollutant. Clean Coal Technology addressed the issues of Mercury and Lead which is a monumental improvement over the past. Your agenda stands in the way of science and reason. Your assumptions and profiling reveal little more than the root of your prejudices.

Salt is absolutely neccessary for life. But too much is salt, and it is a poison. Same for CO2. An atmosphere without CO2 would lead to a world with the oceans frozen over clear down to the equator. This has happened in the geological past.

An atmosphere with CO2 and CH4 added very quickly leads to adrupt climate changes, and feedback loops that poison the land and oceans, this has also happened in the past from natural causes.

Just because that we are the primary cause, does not change the laws of physics.

Two questions:

1. How many times has the "abrupt addition" of CO2 and CH4 started the poisening of land and air in the last 4.5 Billion years and how long ago was the last instance of it happening and, compared to our current climate, what was the global temperature and arrangement of the continents at the time it occurred?

If you are really interested in the answer to your questions, you would have already researched them.

First, the adrupt addition of CO2 and CH4 have happened a number of times. Most notebly in the P-T extinction event, and most recently, in the PETM event.

A23A

2. When man is a contributor of 3% of CO2 which is itself about 3% of all GHG which are as a group only a small portion of the factors that affect climate, how can you claim that those emissions are "the primary cause"?

We have added nearly 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere in the last 150 years, as you well know. We have also increased the CH4 from 700 ppb to 1800 ppb. And we have added numerous industrial GHGs, some of which are more than 20,000 times as effective of a GHG as CO2. The cumulative effect is more that equal to the equivelant of 450 ppm of CO2 right now.

150 years ago, the CO2 level stood at 280 ppm. Today it stands at 385 ppm. That is a good deal more than 3%.

Honest answers to these questions will reveal that what you are talking about has no relation to the current situation.

You call for honesty when you lie about the amount of CO2 that we have added by burning fossil fuels?




How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?
How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?
Link to this pageThe skeptic argument..."The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a much more severe rise than anything we could produce." (Jeff Id)

What the science says...
The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. In fact, human emit 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year while CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by only 15 gigatonnes per year - much of human CO2 emissions is being absorbed by natural sinks.

 

[Old Rocks]

PETM. Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum

Then, 55 million years ago, the fossil record shows that an extraordinary drop in the ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 occurred, indicating that a massive amount of "light" carbon with low levels of the carbon-13 isotope was emitted into the atmosphere in a very short amount of time--just 500 - 20,000 years. The most likely source of carbon-13 depleted carbon would have been methane from ocean sediments or land vegetation. If it was methane, about 1,000 - 2,000 gigatons of carbon would have had to be injected into the atmosphere, in order to account for the observed fossil deposits. For comparison, the total amount of carbon in today's atmosphere, primarily as CO2, is a factor of two or three less--about 810 gigatons. The fossil record shows that extreme climatic warming occurred nearly simultaneously with this massive release of carbon into the atmosphere. Global average temperatures rose 9°F (5°C) in a geological instant--1,000 - 10,000 years (Sluijs et al., 2007). Average sea surface temperatures at the North Pole reached 74°F (23°C). The warmth lasted 120,000 - 220,000 years before weathering of silicate rocks was able to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere and return the climate to its former state. This was the largest global warming event since the time of the dinosaurs, 65 million year ago (Moran et al., 2006). The resulting impact on Earth's climate was so severe that a new geological era was born--the Eocene.

The rate change in the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere today exceeds that of this period. The continental positions were similiear to what they are today.

 

[Old Rocks]

If you don't even know what the 'deniers' are denying (which I must assume you don't as I rarely get an answer), then it is idiotic to use the term.

It's a simple question, yet you and others cannot answer it. That's what those interested in honest discussion do. Clarify through questions and answers.

I wonder why this question baffles you.

I wonder why you have to be so damned disingenuous.

Some deny that the warming exists at all.

Some deny that CO2 is a GHG.

Some deny that even if it is, it has no major effect.

And all deny that addressing the issue would have any positive effect.

And all deny reality.

Maybe You should just hold your breath?

Why don't you just get a brain?

 

[Old Rocks]

Where You lose My support is the classification of CO2 as a Pollutant. Clean Coal Technology addressed the issues of Mercury and Lead which is a monumental improvement over the past. Your agenda stands in the way of science and reason. Your assumptions and profiling reveal little more than the root of your prejudices.

Salt is absolutely neccessary for life. But too much is salt, and it is a poison. Same for CO2. An atmosphere without CO2 would lead to a world with the oceans frozen over clear down to the equator. This has happened in the geological past.

An atmosphere with CO2 and CH4 added very quickly leads to adrupt climate changes, and feedback loops that poison the land and oceans, this has also happened in the past from natural causes.

Just because that we are the primary cause, does not change the laws of physics.

Hmmm..... What is the primary bi-product of plant life absent sunlight?

My, you are a really stupid ass, are you not?

We know how many giga-tons of coal and petroleum are burned annually. So we are the primary contributor to the additional CO2 that we see in the atmosphere and oceans.

 

[Intense]

I wonder why you have to be so damned disingenuous.

Some deny that the warming exists at all.

Some deny that CO2 is a GHG.

Some deny that even if it is, it has no major effect.

And all deny that addressing the issue would have any positive effect.

And all deny reality.

Maybe You should just hold your breath?

Why don't you just get a brain?

Shouldn't You be checking in with the collective before using Yours comrade?

Individual thought causes Global Warming Proletarian, Haven't You gotten the memo? You have violated the prime directive. Report in to Your betters worm.

 

[Old Rocks]

If you don't even know what the 'deniers' are denying (which I must assume you don't as I rarely get an answer), then it is idiotic to use the term.

It's a simple question, yet you and others cannot answer it. That's what those interested in honest discussion do. Clarify through questions and answers.

I wonder why this question baffles you.

I wonder why you have to be so damned disingenuous.

Some deny that the warming exists at all.

Some deny that CO2 is a GHG.

Some deny that even if it is, it has no major effect.

And all deny that addressing the issue would have any positive effect.

And all deny reality.

And yet the predictions the warmers make do not occur in reality. If something doesn't exist and one person says it doesn't exist while another says it does, which one is less, oh, what's the word... Insane?

Playing at spinning reality again?

The Greenland and Antarctic Ice Caps are both losing ice by the giga-ton.

The majority of continental glaciers are receding at accelerating rates.

The Arctic Sea Ice Cap is melting at a rate that far exceeds even the most alarmist prediction in the IPCC.

We are seeing outgassing of clathrates in the Arctic Ocean, something not expected until much later in this century.

We are seeing massive releases of CO2 and CH4 from the permafrost of Siberia and North America.

Sea levels are rising at an accelerating rate, at the outlier of the curve of the predictions.

Yes, the scientists did miss in their predictions. Everything seems to be happening much faster than they predicted. Positive feedback loops that we did not know existed.

 

[Old Rocks]

Maybe You should just hold your breath?

Why don't you just get a brain?

Shouldn't You be checking in with the collective before using Yours comrade?

Individual thought causes Global Warming Proletarian, Haven't You gotten the memo? You have violated the prime directive. Report in to Your betters worm.

Mindless ridicule from the mindless.

You have yet to site a single scientific source for your crap.

 

[Intense]

Salt is absolutely neccessary for life. But too much is salt, and it is a poison. Same for CO2. An atmosphere without CO2 would lead to a world with the oceans frozen over clear down to the equator. This has happened in the geological past.

An atmosphere with CO2 and CH4 added very quickly leads to adrupt climate changes, and feedback loops that poison the land and oceans, this has also happened in the past from natural causes.

Just because that we are the primary cause, does not change the laws of physics.

Hmmm..... What is the primary bi-product of plant life absent sunlight?

My, you are a really stupid ass, are you not?

We know how many giga-tons of coal and petroleum are burned annually. So we are the primary contributor to the additional CO2 that we see in the atmosphere and oceans.

How many uncontrolled coal fires are burning as we speak? How many Forrest Fires have Your policies caused to burn uncontrolled sock puppet? Should We do as You say, not as You do? Hasn't it been that all along? I want a Jet like Pelosi and Gore, I want You to pay for it. I think You confuse annually with anally. Certain kinds of sex cause gas, which contributes more to global warming. Clean Coal Technology was a step forward, by derailing it You become part of the problem. Your Pavlovian Theology is a fraud, based on the lust for power and control, Charlot-en.

 

[Intense]

Controversial new climate change results
Press release issued 9 November 2009

New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.

This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.
The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.

The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.

This work is extremely important for climate change policy, because emission targets to be negotiated at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen early next month have been based on projections that have a carbon free sink of already factored in. Some researchers have cautioned against this approach, pointing at evidence that suggests the sink has already started to decrease.

So is this good news for climate negotiations in Copenhagen? “Not necessarily”, says Knorr. “Like all studies of this kind, there are uncertainties in the data, so rather than relying on Nature to provide a free service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the proportion being absorbed has not changed”.

Another result of the study is that emissions from deforestation might have been overestimated by between 18 and 75 per cent. This would agree with results published last week in Nature Geoscience by a team led by Guido van der Werf from VU University Amsterdam. They re-visited deforestation data and concluded that emissions have been overestimated by at least a factor of two.

Please contact Cherry Lewis for further information.
Bristol University | News from the University | Climate change

 

[Intense]

The Science of Global Warming
in Perspective



History of AGW Fraud. For most of the twentieth century, scientists were unconcerned about global warming, because carbon dioxide saturates (saturation explained below) and cannot do more heating. Whatever CO2 did in the past, adding more CO2 cannot change anything. But then global warming was dug up by environmentalists, and rationalizers took another look at the science and said, maybe saturation does not occur at the top of the atmosphere. As time went on, every element of the science was contrived to promote global warming alarmism.
History of AGW Fraud, by Marc Sheppard



Ice Ages. Ice ages occur every 100,000 years. The next one is scheduled to begin now. Oceans and temperatures rise before the ice ages begin.

Incongruous Atmosphere. The temperature of the atmosphere is not determined by the amount of heat entering it nor by the amount of heat leaving it but by an equilibrium between the two which nature establishes and humans cannot comprehend.

Temperature Gradient. The gradient of temperatures in the atmosphere is the signature of radiation going around the greenhouse gasses, not through them.

Zone of Emission Fraud. Fake scientists claim there is a zone in the atmosphere about five kilometers up and -19°C which emits radiation outward at the required rate to balance radiation inward from the sun. There is no such zone; and there is no way to keep radiation from being emitted from other parts of the atmosphere at different temperatures. Zone of Emission Fraud

Physics Contrived. Equations for calculating heat in the atmosphere do not apply for saturation. But to pretend otherwise, a fudge factor was contrived for fake calculations. The so-called settled science is nothing but a fudge factor.

Contradictions. Humans did not create enough supposed temperature increase in the past to point to the amount of temperature increase alarmists want to show for the future. But alarmists made the leap anyway, which resulted in Contradictions in the Fudge Factor.

Temperature Measurements Falsified. After all the claims of unquestionable science, the end result is based on one point only—thermometer measurements—because there is no physics which can resolve the complexities. Climategate files show what had already been established by critics: The temperature increase is fake. Satellite measurements show very little temperature increase (due to warming oceans, not CO2), but the satellite data was adjusted to fit the fake thermometer data. Fake Temperature Measurements

Second Climategate: An investigation shows NCDC and GISS faking temperature measurements to show an artificial increase.

Concept Analogy. Here's an analogy which conceptualizes the main issue, and it's a scientific exactitude, not a joke: To claim that carbon dioxide is a heat trapping gas is like setting a jar of pickles on the kitchen table and saying it absorbs heat, therefore it heats the kitchen; and if you remove the jar of pickles, the kitchen will be as cold as the outdoors. What it means is heat going into carbon dioxide comes from the environment and goes into the environment. It isn't an addition of heat, and it has nothing to do with the rate of heat escaping into space. Narrative on Absurdities

No Scientifically Valid Mechanism for CO2 Creating Global Warming. CO2 saturates absorbing the limited radiation available to it in about ten meters (Heinz Hug). An increase in CO2 only shortens the distance, which is not an increase in temperature. Since scientists know this, a fake mechanism is contrived for the top of the troposphere based on thin spectrum shoulders. But again, an increase in CO2 only shortens the distance radiation travels, which does nothing significant to increase the temperature. And there is no way to get heat from the top of the troposphere, which is very cold, to ground level. And since this is also known, some climatologists revert back to the near-earth analysis. They can't figure out where it is happening, but it has to be happening, god said so.
None Dare Call It Fraud — Paul Driessen

Arctic Ice. The first thing fakes point to when criticized is ice melting over the Arctic. Ice melts over the Arctic about once a century or more. A miniscule temperature increase in the atmosphere has no ability to melt Arctic ice; only warm ocean currents melt Arctic ice.

Faulty Logic: Media types keep saying the physics is beyond question: More CO2 will block more radiation. Wrong. Radiation goes around greenhouse gasses like a river, not through them like a window. It's like a River, not a Window

Disputed Zone. Only a miniscule fraction of the CO2 is in question to the increase in heat, as shown in the yellow zone below. And it is up high in the atmosphere, not at ground level. There is no mechanism for getting heat at the top of the troposphere to ground level. See The Disputed Area.





If the atmosphere were entirely nitrogen and oxygen with no so-called greenhouse gasses, the top of the troposphere would be slightly colder, and the near-surface would be almost the same temperature, because radiation goes around the greenhouse gasses. Even the first 10% of the greenhouse gasses did not create much heat, because the atmosphere functions like a river, not a window.

Nature shows that greenhouse gasses do nothing, because precipitation has been increasing, and any heating of the atmosphere due to greenhouse gasses would have decreased precipitation. Increased snow and ice over the centers of Antarctica and Greenland have caused oceans to stop rising over the past few years.

CO2 does not accumulate for centuries. The claim is that half of the CO2 humans put in the air goes into the oceans. That's 4.3 GTC/Y. In 1970, humans produced 4.3 GTC/Y. Before 1970, oceans should have been removing more than humans were adding. It's oceans warming and releasing more that has been causing the recent increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. See 30% Fraud.


Oceans determine humidity.
Water vapor swamps carbon dioxide.
Greenhouse gasses do almost nothing.

Humidity Fraud




There was 5 times as much CO2 in the air during the dinosaur years, and 20 times as much before that, because oceans absorb CO2 and tie it up as calcium carbonate in coral reefs gradually forming limestone. There is now 1/3 as much CO2 in the air as plants need to grow on. Words

Thirty one thousand scientists signed a petition saying humans are not the cause of global warming. External Link
See some of them here.

Climate is controlled by the oceans, not the atmosphere.
The oceans have 1,000 times more heat capacity than the atmosphere. It means oceans can heat the air far more than air can heat the oceans. And it means carbon dioxide is not heating the oceans. Solar and geothermal energy heat the oceans.

Hansen and the modelers forgot to take into account oceans, which control about 98% of climate variation.

The fraud by officials is spelled out and documented for Congress by Monckton - 3.5M pdf.
Presentation for Congress by Monckton, March 30, 2009
Another Summary by Monckton, pdf

Important Fact: Oceans overwhelm all other influences on climate. Oceans, being 70% of the earth's surface, are the climate regulators influencing air temperature, humidity and precipitation. Yet the IPCC did not account for the effects of oceans, because they had no data or theory to go by, and they couldn't handle that much complexity. The total fraud of the IPCC is demonstrated by this fact.

The air does not heat the oceans; the oceans heat the air; because the oceans have a thousand times as much heat capacity as the atmosphere. And the claimed 0.6°C increase in atmospheric temperature is not much heat to be adding to anything, while satellites show less temperature increase, unless Hansen is screwing around with the numbers as usual. Thermometer Fraud

Volcanoes put 2.3% as much CO2 into the air as humans every year (gov source). If CO2 could accumulate, the volcanic amount in 43 years would equal the human amount for one year. Volcanoes have been doing it for 5 billion years, and humans for only 150 years. The supposed total amount of human accumulation (240 GT) is put into the atmosphere by volcanoes every 1,200 years. See Delicate Balance Fraud

Where does the volcanic CO2 go, if the human amount accumulates? If it is acidifying the oceans, why didn't volcanoes acidify the oceans many times over? See Acid in the Ocean Fraud

Nature puts 26 times as much CO2 in the air through decay and respiration as humans do through energy sources.

Replacing coal with imported natural gas: Methane is 23 times as strong of a so-called greenhouse gas as CO2. If 5% is boiled off to cool cryogenic containers during shipping, that's 0.05 x 23 = 115% plus the original 100% = 215% x 66% as much CO2 in a power plant = 142% as much of a supposed greenhouse effect from shipped natural gas as from using coal to generate electricity. And the ship would burn about 20-50% as much energy as the methane being shipped. That's more kids and pets dying from shipped natural gas than burning coal would produce. But the whole greenhouse argument is fraud, and it doesn't make diddly what source of energy is used.

Most people don't realize that this subject is not about science. The propagandists were doing the same thing before carbon dioxide came along. They were using ozone and other environmental concerns as a pretext for lowering the population of the globe to one tenth. Carbon dioxide brought their cause out of obscurity. So they don't care what the science is; and in fact, they refuse to allow scientific evidence to interfere with their agenda—and this includes a large number of scientists.

How could all of those scientists be wrong? They get paid to be wrong through billions of dollars from the government; and they are not a consensus.
$79 billion spent on fraud
How the Firing Works

Surface Temperatures over 800,000 Years



Each large cycle is an ice age (occurring every 100,000 yrs).

Now is above the dotted line on the right side. Oceans have been heating continuously since the last ice age. (These are really ocean temperatures based on ice volume used to estimate surface temperatures.) My impression is that the smaller blips are caused by solar energy, and the larger cycles are caused by heat from within the earth, perhaps related to electromagnetic energy. (See Electric Universe by Talbott and Thornhill)

graph source one
graph source two

Study shows oceans are the cause of temperature increase.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oceans are Warming

Oceans are too complex and heterogeneous to determine averages, but nature shows the net effect.

There are two points of evidence indicating that oceans are warming: One is that precipitation is increasing, which means increased evaporation from warmer oceans; and the other is that ice is melting over oceans more than over land.

The oceans have a heat capacity 1,000 times that of the atmosphere. This means the air cannot easily heat the oceans, but oceans can easily heat the air. The atmosphere would have to heat a lot, before it could heat the oceans a little; yet the opposite is occurring. The atmosphere is only said to have warmed 0.6°C in recent times.

The ice which is suspended over the oceans is 90% submerged. To melt it, the water has to provide the heat, not the air. Not only is the water surrounding 90% of the ice, but water has the heat capacity needed to transfer a large amount of heat, while air has little heat capacity.

Ice is obviously melting rapidly at both north and south poles, but primarily over oceans. In localized areas, there is warming over land which is melting showpiece glaciers and northern tundra. But where it really matters, over the Antarctica land mass, ice is thickening. Over Greenland, both thickening and thinning of ice is occurring, but Greenland is small, and it's climate is influenced by an ocean current called the Gulf Stream.

(Over the past couple of years, the whole southern hemisphere has been cooling due to ocean currents shifting. Antarctic ice is re-accumulating, even over oceans around Antarctica, while the Arctic is melting rapidly.)

The ultimate test of whether the oceans or atmosphere is heating more is precipitation, and it is increasing. If the atmosphere were heating more than the oceans, there would be less precipitation, because warmer air holds more moisture. If the oceans are heating more than the air, more precipitation occurs, because evaporation increases, while there is less change in the amount of moisture the air will hold.

If the atmosphere heats more than the oceans, precipitation decreases.
If oceans heat more than the atmosphere, precipitation increases.

Fakes have been claiming that the miniscule 0.6°C (claimed) temperature increase is causing more water vapor to enter the air and creating extreme weather. Wrong. Air is almost never saturated, which means availability of water determines humidity, not air temperature. Furthermore, the claimed temperature increase is fraudulent.

Because of the increase in precipitation, ice is thickening over land at Antarctica and Greenland, as shown by satellites which use radar to measure thickness of ice. (Details and references are on Oceans Page).

Deep Ocean Heat Measured - (external)

Ice Ages

The present global warming is part of a natural ice age cycle. It's what always happens at the beginning of an ice age.

Ice ages cycle at precise 100 thousand year intervals. The next one is scheduled to begin now. The temperature reversal will begin between 100 and 200 years from now. The time can be determined from the amount of precipitation. Cold temperatures alone cannot create an ice age. There has to be more snow than can melt during the summer to create an accumulation of ice. There is not enough moisture in the air at this time to do that. But it's increasing. There should be enough precipitation in a century or two to produce more snow than can melt during the summers in low enough latitudes to reflect away enough solar energy to trigger an irreversible cool-down.

The amount of moisture in the air is increasing because oceans are warming. The warming of oceans is observable in the amount of ice melting at the poles. Measurement of long term trends show ocean temperatures to be peaking at a level where ice age reversals begin.

Such precise cycling of temperatures cannot be caused by environmental factors such as greenhouse gases, because there would be too many variations. The variations would be like trying to use the clouds for a calendar. The cause of ice ages must be some force which overrides environmental influences. Two possible sources are cyclic variation in solar energy and geothermal energy from inside the earth. An underlying factor is that ice age cycles correlate with a variable in the earth's orbit.

Orbital influences could explain either variations in solar energy or motion of a hot spot in the earth's core. No one has been able to clearly identify a factor in the orbit of the earth which would increase solar intensity in a way which correlates with ice age cycles, not the least reason being that there is a huge amount of complexity in several variables in the orbit of the earth. There are additional problems in explaining ice age cycles in terms of solar intensity. There are many environmental factors which interact with solar energy creating variations in the result. But it's not impossible that solar variations could override all environmental complexities and create the ice age cycles as shown on the graph.

There is however a clearer impression that the oceans are being heated from within the earth's core. The main factor creating this impression, besides total immunity of the cycles to environmental influences, is that all other changes show clear evidence of following the ocean temperature increases rather than responding to some other influence. The most significant factor is that precipitation is increasing.

Areas where weather patterns indicate warming are all microclimates resulting from nearby oceans being warmer. The most obvious example of this is Greenland and parts of Europe, which are warmed by the Gulf Stream. North America is showing milder winters due to less ice around Alaska, where the winter air often comes from. But satellite measurements show little warming in evaluating total global conditions. Global warming is occurring, but it's not the frying pan situation that it is portrayed as.

New Page: Ice Ages Re-evaluated
External links: Tilt in Earth's Orbit
Motion of Earth's Core

Milankovich Cycles

Deviations in the earth's orbit around the sun has a lot of complexities, which is sometimes given as an explanation for ice ages. A basic problem with that explanation is that the yearly average exposure to the sun is always about the same. Therefore, this concept implies that how the earth is exposed to the sun is more important than average exposure.

Here's a link which explains it as follows: When the northern hemisphere gets less exposure to the sun during the summer, there is less snow melting in the north. The accumulation of snow causes more sunlight to reflect away causing a global cool-down.

Those types of explanations seem too interpretive for the amount of complexity involved. Oceans currents are at least as significant as amount of solar energy in heating the Arctic, as recent melting indicates. Furthermore, it appears to be not cold temperatures but increased precipitation which triggers an ice age.

El Ninas (cold ocean water) create droughts, while El Ninos (warm ocean water) create floods. The oceans accumulate heat and release it as precipitation. So it could be increased solar energy that triggers the accumulation of snow rather than decreased solar energy.

Some Data

"Total human CO2 emissions primarily from use of coal, oil, and natural gas and the production of cement are currently about 5.5 GT C per year (giga tons of carbon per year). A recent update says 8.6 GT.

"To put these figures in perspective, it is estimated that the atmosphere contains 780 Gt C; the surface ocean contains 1,000 Gt C; vegetation, soils, and detritus contain 2,000 Gt C; and the intermediate and deep oceans contain 38,000 Gt C, as CO2 or CO2 hydration products. Each year, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an estimated 90 Gt C; vegetation and the atmosphere, 100 Gt C; marine biota and the surface ocean, 50 Gt C; and the surface ocean and the intermediate and deep oceans, 40 Gt C."

Notice that the oceans exchange ten times as much carbon with the atmosphere as humans produce (90GT vs. 8.6 GT). Exchange means regulation. And humans only add 1% as much CO2 to the atmosphere per year as already in it. If such a miniscule amount were as critical as propagandists claim, all life would have been destroyed long ago. Nature hasn't been sitting on a 1% knife edge for millions of years.

Reference:
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Cost of Global Warming Alarmism
From Marc Morano, Senate Staffer
October 19, 2007

The Lieberman-Warner bill will burden American families with additional energy costs and significantly harm the United States economy...

CO2 cap-and-trade schemes were exposed by a recent CBO (Congressional Budget Office) study as creating massive wealth redistribution from the poor and working class to wealthier Americans. Further, according to a MIT study released earlier this year, cap-and-trade legislation introduced earlier in the Senate this year by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Senator Boxer (D-CA) would cost energy sector consumers an amount equal to $4,500 per American family of four. The same study found a bill sponsored by Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain (R-AZ) would cost consumers $3,500 per family of four. And a new EPA analysis shows the Lieberman - McCain bill would cost up to half a trillion dollars by 2030 and $1.3 trillion by 2050 - and that was based on assumptions designed to low-ball the number, begging the question of how high the real figure would be.

[Note: That's just one congressional bill at the starting point. It doesn't begin to total the cost of removing carbon dioxide from the air, particularly since the underlying motive of the agitators is to reduce the population of the globe by 90%. GN]

[A recent UN study concluded that the cost would be $45 trillion to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to stated goals by 2050.]

Markley-Waxman Cap-and-Trade Bill: Money doesn't move from Wall Street to consumer; it moves the other way. So why would we want Wall Street buying and selling energy derivatives?

A 10% tax on energy would not reduce CO2 one iota. People would need to be shoved out of the economy and into the gutters to reduce CO2 production. People can't live in the gutters in northern states. There would have to be a mass migration from northern states to southern states, so people can live under the bridges and in the heat tunnels to remove CO2 from the air.

Cap and Trade Fraud


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Climate Change: The carbon creates the droughts, and the oxygen creates the floods. Since it does two things, they call it CO2. If you don't believe this, it's because you promote big oil and big tobacco and refuse to look at the science of the subject. The IPCC said so; and it's peer reviewed science.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The whole purpose of science was to get fraud out of our faces. Now we have to pretend the carbon dioxide fraud is science. It's not science, because it's not the procedure which eliminates fraud.
Why it is Happening




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

External Links:
Climate Depot - news updates by Marc Morano
Icecap - Scientists Criticizing
Science and Public Policy - Monckton Articles
Climate Realists - Piers Corbyn et al
Isherwood - Perpsective and Quotes
World Climate Report - Patrick Michaels
MasterResource - political level criticisms
It's An Expensive Urban Legend — Roy Spencer
Climate Physics - Ed Berry
Railroaded Science - By Richard Lindzen
Al Gore is Wrong - By Richard Lindzen
Fraudulent Consensus - By James Inhofe
CO2 Absorption at 15 µM - By Heinz Hug
More Oceans Heating
Latest on Ice Core Measurements
Jaworowski: critic of ice core measurements
Heat in Earth's Interior
Fred Singer's Web Site
CO2 Science Org
I Love My Carbon Dioxide
A look at the Numbers
High Levels of CO2
El Nino and CO2
Political Criticism. May 24, 2006
Bio fuels Destroy Environments
Historical Summary
Raw Data on CO2 in Air
Extremes in Past
Solar energy as Cause
Tilt in Earth's Orbit
Oceans Heating at Antarctica
Deep Ocean Heat
CO2 Criticisms—Segalstad
Thermodynamics - PDF — Gerlich and Tscheuschner
Oceanograhy Information — by Anthoni

More updates, news and opinions, on Links Page

Sign a petition to stop "cap-and-trade"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If you want to discuss this subject on discussion boards, Christopher Monckton is the incomparable reference. He takes up every element of this subject with exactitude and reliability, unlike the fakery of the alarmists. His material is found at Science and Public Policy Institute. Here are two good references of Monckton's:

Temperature Data and Criticism for Congress
Climategate: Caught Green-Handed





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saturation is a term physicists use when radiation of appropriate wavelength gets completely absorbed by a greenhouse gas, so adding more of such gas does nothing more. Radiation must travel a distance in the atmosphere before becoming completely absorbed. The more greenhouse gas there is, the shorter the distance radiation must travel to be completely absorbed by it. Heinz Hug stated in his study that carbon dioxide absorbs all radiation available to it at the center of its main absorption peak in 10 meters at ground level. Higher in the atmosphere, where pressure is one tenth, the distance would be 10 times as far, or 100 meters.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Citations:

Novak, G. E. (2005). The Science of Global Warming in Perspective. The Internet. nov55.com/gbwm.html (continuously edited).

Novak, G. E. (1997). Science is Broken. The Internet. nov55.com/index.html (continuously edited).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global Warming Science in Perspective. Earth Needs More CO2.

 

[saveliberty]

Nice night for using the front porch with the lights on.