MIT Scientist Debunks Global Warming Hysteria

[Crick]

Never going to happen. These projections are a joke and will be proven wrong within 10 years. Of course when that happens will probably just keep pushing the hockey stick further out into the future and argue it's coming.

And why do you believe they're never going to happen? The next glacial period?

Next Ice Age Delayed By Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels

Future ice ages may be delayed by up to half a million years by our burning of fossil fuels. Arguably, this work demonstrates the most far-reaching disruption of long-term planetary processes yet suggested for human activity. The researchers used a mathematical model to study what would happen...

www.sciencedaily.com

Global Warming Good News: No More Ice Ages

Carbon dioxide may stick around in atmosphere, delay next ice age.

www.livescience.com

Human-made climate change suppresses the next ice age

01/13/2016 - Humanity has become a geological force that is able to suppress the beginning of the next ice age, a study now published in the renowned scientific journal Nature shows. Cracking the code of glacial inception, scientists of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research found the...

www.pik-potsdam.de

 

[ding]

And why do you believe they're never going to happen? The next glacial period?

Next Ice Age Delayed By Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels

Future ice ages may be delayed by up to half a million years by our burning of fossil fuels. Arguably, this work demonstrates the most far-reaching disruption of long-term planetary processes yet suggested for human activity. The researchers used a mathematical model to study what would happen...

www.sciencedaily.com

Global Warming Good News: No More Ice Ages

Carbon dioxide may stick around in atmosphere, delay next ice age.

www.livescience.com

Human-made climate change suppresses the next ice age

01/13/2016 - Humanity has become a geological force that is able to suppress the beginning of the next ice age, a study now published in the renowned scientific journal Nature shows. Cracking the code of glacial inception, scientists of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research found the...

www.pik-potsdam.de

Because climate fluctuations are a hallmark of our bipolar glaciated world. Been going on for 3 million years.

 

[ding]

The next glacial period?

No. Natural variations of a bipolar glaciated world. No orbital forcing needed. Geologic record is littered with examples.

 

[Crick]

Because climate fluctuations are a hallmark of our bipolar glaciated world. Been going on for 3 million years.

By what logic or reason do you reject the possibility of something happening that hasn't happened before. This is precisely the "humans can't cause forest fires" gaffe.

 

[ding]

By what logic or reason do you reject the possibility of something happening that hasn't happened before. This is precisely the "humans can't cause forest fires" gaffe.

By the logic of correlation does not prove causation, multi-decadal warming and cooling trends occurred frequently in the past that were not driven by CO2 or orbital forcing, that they have to add climate sensitivity on top of the GHG to create a crisis, that climate sensitivity has no empirical basis, that their models have over emphasized the power of CO2 relative to all other factors such that no previous cooling trends can be explained and that the planet was 2C warmer in the past with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2.

 

[Crick]

Crick:

By what logic or reason do you reject the possibility of something happening that hasn't happened before. This is precisely the "humans can't cause forest fires" gaffe.​

By the logic of correlation does not prove causation

That has no bearing on this question.

multi-decadal warming and cooling trends occurred frequently in the past that were not driven by CO2 or orbital forcing

Forest fires occurred by the thousands in the distant past that preceded the appearance of humans and matches

that they have to add climate sensitivity on top of the GHG to create a crisis

Climate sensitivity is an inherent and inseparable factor of the greenhouse effect. It wasn't added to create a crisis

that climate sensitivity has no empirical basis

You don't seem to know the definition of "empirical"

that their models have over emphasized the power of CO2 relative to all other factors

On what do you base this claim?

such that no previous cooling trends can be explained and that the planet was 2C warmer in the past with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2.

So, you reject the correlation between temperature and CO2?

 

[ding]

That has no bearing on this question.

Of course it does. We are discussing CO2 as a cause for the recent warming trend. Correlation does not prove causation.

Forest fires occurred by the thousands in the distant past that preceded the appearance of humans and matches

And got much more severe when man interfered because he thought he knew better. Forrest fires serve a purpose. They kill off old growth so new growth can occur.

Climate sensitivity is an inherent and inseparable factor of the greenhouse effect. It wasn't added to create a crisis

Actually it's a totally separate phenomenon from the GHG effect, just as the the UHI effect is. The problem is that climate sensitivity is complex and they have it all wrong. It's not a positive feedback, it's a negative feedback as in self compensating.

You don't seem to know the definition of "empirical"

Sure I do. I'm an engineer. The geologic record contains empirical evidence. Climate models are not empirical evidence.

On what do you base this claim?

Ummmm... the positive feedback effect of CO2, the radiative forcing components that show CO2 is over emphasized relative to the other components, and the fact that their models can't history match past climates for all of said reasons.

So, you reject the correlation between temperature and CO2?

The correlation between temperature and CO2 was broken after the industrial revolution. And even then it was CO2 that correlated to temperature. Not the other way around.

 

[Crick]

That has no bearing on this question.​

DING: Of course it does. We are discussing CO2 as a cause for the recent warming trend. Correlation does not prove causation.

Wrong. The discussion was whether or not something can happen that hasn't happened before.

Forest fires occurred by the thousands in the distant past that preceded the appearance of humans and matches​

DING: And got much more severe when man interfered because he thought he knew better. Forrest fires serve a purpose. They kill off old growth so new growth can occur.

The forest fire comment was an analogy to show the illogic of your prior point (new things can't happen). I wasn't talking about actual fucking forest fires.

Climate sensitivity is an inherent and inseparable factor of the greenhouse effect. It wasn't added to create a crisis​

DING: Actually it's a totally separate phenomenon from the GHG effect, just as the the UHI effect is. The problem is that climate sensitivity is complex and they have it all wrong. It's not a positive feedback, it's a negative feedback as in self compensating.

The greenhouse effect says that greenhouse gases cause warming. Climate sensitivity is a determination of the amount of warming caused by a given amount of greenhouse gas. It is NOT a "totally separate phenomenon". It is well known that climate sensitivity is complex - that's why it is always given as a range and the topic sees a great deal of debate. And climate sensitivity may be AFFECTED by feedbacks but IT is NOT a feedback. That warming increases water vapor in the atmosphere is a fact and water vapor is the most potent of all greenhouse gases. Thus the warming of CO2 receives positive feedback from water vapor.

You don't seem to know the definition of "empirical"​

DING: Sure I do. I'm an engineer. The geologic record contains empirical evidence. Climate models are not empirical evidence.

I am also an engineer so I can tell you based on my experience that empiricism is not a process with which engineers have much experience. Empiricism is observation and experimentation. From Wikipedia's article on climate sensitivity: "Climate sensitivity is typically estimated in three ways: using direct observations of temperature and levels of greenhouse gases taken during the industrial age, using indirectly-estimated temperature and other measurements from the Earth's more distant past, and computer modelling the various aspects of the climate system with computers.". The determination of climate sensitivity includes empirical processes.

On what do you base this claim? ["that their models have over emphasized the power of CO2 relative to all other factors"]​

DING: Ummmm... the positive feedback effect of CO2, the radiative forcing components that show CO2 is over emphasized relative to the other components, and the fact that their models can't history match past climates for all of said reasons.

Climate models do quite well at hindcasting. You have presented zero evidence that "CO2 is over emphasized relative to the other components". Just saying it doesn't make it so. Warming from ANY CAUSE will produce a positive feedback from increased water vapor. However, radiative forcing factor breakdowns do not include feedback for any components.

So, you reject the correlation between temperature and CO2?

DING: The correlation between temperature and CO2 was broken after the industrial revolution. And even then it was CO2 that correlated to temperature. Not the other way around.

Correlations are not directional in any case. Due to two entirely different mechanism (the Greenhouse Effect and the temperature dependence of Henry's solubility constant, CO2 is produced by warming and produces warming. However, I truly want to know HOW you believe the correlation between temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere was "broken" by the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

 

[ding]

Wrong. The discussion was whether or not something can happen that hasn't happened before.

You asked me by what logic or reason do I reject the possibility of something happening that hasn't happened before. I said by the logic that correlation does not prove causation. You said, that has no bearing on the question. I said of course it does. We are discussing CO2 as a cause for the recent warming trend. Correlation does not prove causation. You said wrong, the discussion was whether or not something can happen that hasn't happened before. But that wasn't the discussion. You asked me by what logic do I reject the possibility of something happening that hasn't happened before, my logic and reasoning for rejecting AGW - which is something that has not happened before - is that correlation does not prove causation. In other words, you have not proven your case. You have only shown a correlation. Which I reject on the grounds that correlation does not prove causation. Now do you understand?

 

[ding]

The forest fire comment was an analogy to show the illogic of your prior point (new things can't happen). I wasn't talking about actual fucking forest fires.

Yes, I know. I took the opportunity to point out that man gets shit wrong when he tries to play God.

 

[ding]

The greenhouse effect says that greenhouse gases cause warming. Climate sensitivity is a determination of the amount of warming caused by a given amount of greenhouse gas. It is NOT a "totally separate phenomenon". It is well known that climate sensitivity is complex - that's why it is always given as a range and the topic sees a great deal of debate. And climate sensitivity may be AFFECTED by feedbacks but IT is NOT a feedback. That warming increases water vapor in the atmosphere is a fact and water vapor is the most potent of all greenhouse gases. Thus the warming of CO2 receives positive feedback from water vapor.

Climate sensitivity is not the GHG effect and I object to lumping it into something it's not. I also object to lumping in the UHI effect and calling that the GHG effect too.

For the sake of transparency everything needs to be accounted for separately.

 

[ding]

I am also an engineer so I can tell you based on my experience that empiricism is not a process with which engineers have much experience. Empiricism is observation and experimentation.

Any good engineer will always learn lessons from his experiences which leads to doing things different. How is that not observation and experiment based?

 

[ding]

Due to two entirely different mechanism (the Greenhouse Effect and the temperature dependence of Henry's solubility constant, CO2 is produced by warming and produces warming.

If that were true the planet would have never cooled over the last 50 million years as CO2 was at a much greater atmospheric concentration than today.

 

[ding]

However, I truly want to know HOW you believe the correlation between temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere was "broken" by the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Easy. You can see it with your own eyes.How is it possible for the planet to be 2C colder with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than the past?

 

[Crick]

Easy. You can see it with your own eyes.How is it possible for the planet to be 2C colder with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than the past?

View attachment 649932

Here's why. You failed to note that this graphic shows a CO2 level that wasn't attained till May of 2013 while showing end temperature and sea level values surpassed over a century ago. The vertical rise of CO2 at the right side of the graph has been added to a graph of ice core data to which it did not belong. Actual temperatures should show at least a 1.2C rise over the period corresponding to that rise in CO2. This is precisely the sort of thing you and yours jump all over Michael Mann for, except Mann clearly identified the instrumented data he added to his chart and explained why he had done it.

And, just as importantly, can you tell us what the baseline - the zero value - of the temperature anomaly and sea level data might be? Without them, those data are utterly worthless.

 

[ding]

Here's why. You failed to note that this graphic shows a CO2 level that wasn't attained till May of 2013 while showing temperature and sea level values surpassed over a century ago. The vertical rise of CO2 at the right side of the graph has been added to a graph of ice core data to which it did not belong. Actual temperatures should show at least a 1.2C rise over the period corresponding to that rise in CO2. This is precisely the sort of thing you and yours jump all over Michael Mann for, except Mann clearly identified the instrumented data he added to his chart and explained why he had done it.

And, just as importantly, can you tell us what the baseline - the zero value - of the temperature anomaly and sea level data might be? Without them, those data are utterly worthless.

That's incorrect. The last temperature point corresponds to 400 ppm. I'm not sure of the exact reference date for the zero line but it is definitely in the Holocene which is the current interglacial cycle, so within the last 10,000 years. The chart is based on the work of Dr. James Hansen and Makiko Sato.

 

[Crick]

That's incorrect. The last temperature point corresponds to 400 ppm. I'm not sure of the exact reference date for the zero line but it is definitely in the Holocene which is the current interglacial cycle, so within the last 10,000 years. The chart is based on the work of Dr. James Hansen and Makiko Sato.

The temperature was in the Holocene? In the last 10,000 years. Well that really narrowing it down. If that temperature graph corresponded with the full display of CO2 there should be a nearly vertical 1.3C uptick at the end and there is not. You've seen these before. The question is why have you repeatedly posted a graphic that does NOT include these data and they ask US why it looks the way it does. Not good.

Global Temperature Report for 2018 - Berkeley Earth

Berkeley Earth, a California-based non-profit research organization, has been preparing independent analyses of global mean temperature changes since 2013. The following is our report on global mean temperature during 2018. We conclude that 2018 was likely the fourth warmest year on Earth since...

berkeleyearth.org

 

[ding]

The temperature was in the Holocene? In the last 10,000 years. Well that really narrowing it down. If that temperature graph corresponded with the full display of CO2 there should be a nearly vertical 1.3C uptick at the end and there is not. You've seen these before. The question is why have you repeatedly posted a graphic that does NOT include these data and they ask US why it looks the way it does. Not good.

View attachment 650064

Global Temperature Report for 2018 - Berkeley Earth

Berkeley Earth, a California-based non-profit research organization, has been preparing independent analyses of global mean temperature changes since 2013. The following is our report on global mean temperature during 2018. We conclude that 2018 was likely the fourth warmest year on Earth since...

berkeleyearth.org

The chart came from John Englander is based on the work of Dr. James Hansen and Makiko Sato.

You do realize the present temperature is about a half a degree warmer than the warmest point in the Holocene, right?

It's hilarious you are criticizing a chart by John Englander, James Hansen and Makiko Sato. If you take exception with the reference date, take it up with them. It's their chart.

But regardless of what the reference date for the zero line is the data clearly shows a past temperature which is 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today.

 

[ding]

If that temperature graph corresponded with the full display of CO2 there should be a nearly vertical 1.3C uptick at the end and there is not. You've seen these before. The question is why have you repeatedly posted a graphic that does NOT include these data and they ask US why it looks the way it does. Not good.

Again... the chart ends at 400 ppm and the data is from John Englander, James Hansen and Makiko Sato. If you take exception with the temperature data, take it up with them. It's their chart.

 

[ding]

The temperature was in the Holocene? In the last 10,000 years. Well that really narrowing it down. If that temperature graph corresponded with the full display of CO2 there should be a nearly vertical 1.3C uptick at the end and there is not. You've seen these before. The question is why have you repeatedly posted a graphic that does NOT include these data and they ask US why it looks the way it does. Not good.

View attachment 650064

Global Temperature Report for 2018 - Berkeley Earth

Berkeley Earth, a California-based non-profit research organization, has been preparing independent analyses of global mean temperature changes since 2013. The following is our report on global mean temperature during 2018. We conclude that 2018 was likely the fourth warmest year on Earth since...

berkeleyearth.org

Nice graph of the urban heat island effect