[_ Old Earth _] Global Warming comment from Co-founder of TWC.

[tim-from-pa]

Not everyone who denies the presence of global warming is necessarily fringe. There's well-known people and respectable scientists out there who see through all this (IMO) hype.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/05...tructive-episode-of-bad-science-gone-berserk/

 

[Obadiah]

It's all about fearmongers spreading fear for profit, isn't it?

 

[Barbarian]

Actually, the article fudges the RSS Data. Here's that data, with several other sets. Notice they all pretty much align.

Averaging the five datasets:

You can do a regression analysis, but you'll find all datasets show the planet to be warming. If you want to look up the actual data, you'll find these graphs are correct. Even many deniers have since agreed that warming is a fact.

 

[tim-from-pa]

So, what causes the supposed warming?

 

[Barbarian]

So far, increases in carbon dioxide. They correlate very nicely, and the fact that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation at wavelengths not absorbed by other greenhouse gases explains why it has such an effect.

 

[tim-from-pa]

Well, the truth is, the other planets are warming, too. Supposedly. Oh, but they say, we don't have enough evidence of that since we don't know their history. So in spite of the fact I can show you just as impressive charts that the planets are warming, the same people will tell you why they aren't warming and something as powerful as the sun (e.g. solar output is lower) can't do that to earth or the other planets while it's in the realm of puny little man to be able to allow that to happen to the earth.

So, I have the right, too to explain away charts that go up and up. One thing I learned about statistics is you can make the data say anything you want, given the right conditions.

The purveyors of this global warming myth are the same establishments and administration that brings us health advice (incl big Pharma), teaches evolution, along with the world's messed up governments and the like of other useless things. I've been lied to so many times why should I even consider what they say? Oh, but they will force their philosophy down my throat -- starts innocently like the CF light, because they are the ones in power. And what they say ceases to be science, but consensus "science" that popular vote (or the best charts) win.

 

[Barbarian]

Well, the truth is, the other planets are warming, too.

Pluto was warming, but is now apparently getting colder. Venus apparently is exactly where it's normally, for the particular place in its orbit. Mars... (Barbarian checks)

Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted. The observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing. There is a slight irony in people rushing to claim that the glacier changes on Mars are a sure sign of global warming, while not being swayed by the much more persuasive analogous phenomena here on Earth…
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/

Read the article; it's interesting that Mars has a much more complex climate variability than Earth, mostly because of sensitivity to large dust storms. And apparently, the winds there sometime approach the local speed of sound, which is pretty slow, because of the low density of the atmosphere. (Barbarian goes on...)

• Jupiter: the notion that Jupiter is warming is actually based on predictions, since no warming has actually been observed. Climate models predict temperature increases along the equator and cooling at the poles. It is believed these changes will be catalysed by storms that merge into one super-storm, inhibiting the planet’s ability to mix heat. Sceptical arguments have ignored the fact this is not a phenomenon we have observed, and that the modelled forcing is storm and dust movements, not changes in solar radiation.
• Mars: the notion that Mars is warming came from an unfortunate conflation of weather and climate. Based on two pictures taken 22 years apart, assumptions were made that have not proved to be reliable. There is currently no evidence to support claims that Mars is warming at all.
• Neptune: observations of changes in luminosity on the surface of both Neptune and its largest moon, Triton, have been taken to indicate warming caused by increased solar activity. In fact, the brightening is due to the planet’s seasons changing, but very slowly. Summer is coming to Neptune’s southern hemisphere, bringing more sunlight, as it does every 164 years.
• Pluto: the warming exhibited by Pluto is not really understood. Pluto’s seasons are the least understood of all: its existence has only been known for a third of its 248 -year orbit, and it has never been visited by a space probe. The ‘evidence’ for climate change consists of just two observations made in 1988 and 2002. That’s equivalent to observing the Earth’s weather for just three weeks out of the year. Various theories suggest its highly elliptical orbit may play a part, as could the large angle of its rotational axis. One recent paper suggests the length of Pluto’s orbit is a key factor, as with Neptune. Sunlight at Pluto is 900 times weaker than it is at the Earth.http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-jupiter.htm

Supposedly. Oh, but they say, we don't have enough evidence of that since we don't know their history. So in spite of the fact I can show you just as impressive charts that the planets are warming, the same people will tell you why they aren't warming and something as powerful as the sun (e.g. solar output is lower) can't do that to earth or the other planets while it's in the realm of puny little man to be able to allow that to happen to the earth.

We have a load of data on that, so it's not surprising we can detect the affect of massive releases of CO2.

So, I have the right, too to explain away charts that go up and up. One thing I learned about statistics is you can make the data say anything you want, given the right conditions.

If you take some shortcuts with the math, you can. But if you know what you're doing, you can usually catch people doing that. Deniers have been busted playing fast and loose with GISS data ("we've been cooling off since 1998") with lower tropospheric measurements (conflating data from probes that didn't shield probes from sunlight, with those that did), and so on.

The purveyors of this global warming myth are the same establishments and administration that brings us health advice (incl big Pharma), teaches evolution, along with the world's messed up governments and the like of other useless things.

The same people who accurately predicted the rate of warming (even tossed in a scenario with a major volcanic eruption, which was the scenario that actually happened). Same people who figured out how to make computers out of dirt. Those guys. Arguing against evolution is pretty much as futile as arguing against gravity. Actually, more futile. We know why evolution happens, but we're still not exactly sure why gravity happens.

I've been lied to so many times why should I even consider what they say? Oh, but they will force their philosophy down my throat -- starts innocently like the CF light, because they are the ones in power. And what they say ceases to be science, but consensus "science" that popular vote (or the best charts) win.

The "philosophy" is a simple one: uniformitarianism. The idea that we live in a consistent and knowable universe that has worked by the same rules since the beginning. So far, it's always been the case.

 

[Obadiah]

...The same people who accurately predicted the rate of warming (even tossed in a scenario with a major volcanic eruption, which was the scenario that actually happened).

Since you brought up a volcano, I'm curious, how much greenhouse gas is released when a volcano erupts. Or how much is released per day in the case of one that erupts constantly for a long period like that one in Hawaii? It seems you've done a lot of study on this so I assume you know the answer to this or at least know where to look for it. I haven't got a clue.

In comparison, how much greenhouse gas is released per day (or per any time period) by man made things such as automobiles, jet planes, etc? Since you've already studied this, where do we find accurate statistics on this to show how man has produced so much more greenhouse gas than nature would have produced if we were not here that it has made this detrimental effect on our entire planet?

See, Ive heard it said that one volcano eruption produces more greenhouse gases then man has produced in all history. For global warming caused by people to be true there must be something to show this volcano claim isn't true or something that shows people's production of greenhouse gases is so vast compared to all natural phenomena that it has tipped the scales over the edge to the destruction of the environment as we know it. You seem to have studied all this rather extensively so it seems you are the one to know where to find that data?

 

[Barbarian]

Since you brought up a volcano, I'm curious, how much greenhouse gas is released when a volcano erupts.

Very little. In fact, a major volcanic eruption will tend to cool the atmosphere, since it releases a lot of gases and ash that reflect solar radiation back into space. Hanson's second scenario (which turned out to be very close to what actually happened) included one major volcanic eruption that would moderate the warming trend.

Or how much is released per day in the case of one that erupts constantly for a long period like that one in Hawaii? It seems you've done a lot of study on this so I assume you know the answer to this or at least know where to look for it. I haven't got a clue.

Hawaiian volcanoes are basically from "hot spots" (places where the mantle punches a hole in the crust) the magma from that is from the mantle, mostly olivine and basalt, and is very much unlike the magma from volcanoes at subduction zones, which is mostly from less-dense crustal rock. The thing is, hot spot volcanoes tend to ooze a thick lava with not much of anything put into the upper atmosphere, while volcanoes like those in the Pacific Northwest tend to explode in "Plinian eruptions" that blow huge quantities of gas and dust into the upper atmosphere. The Mt. Pinatubo blast was one such, and the sulfuric acid it released had a profound cooling effect.

In comparison, how much greenhouse gas is released per day (or per any time period) by man made things such as automobiles, jet planes, etc? Since you've already studied this, where do we find accurate statistics on this to show how man has produced so much more greenhouse gas than nature would have produced if we were not here that it has made this detrimental effect on our entire planet?

Volcanic eruptions release material that tends to counteract greenhouse gases. Some indicator of how much we're changing the climate can be gained from the record of the last sunspot minimum, one of the most profound minimums on record. These are usually accompanied by marked cooling. Instead, it merely moderated the rise in temps.

Because carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation at wavelengths other greenhouse gases do not, any significant increase in CO2 will have a relatively large effect on global temperatures.

See, Ive heard it said that one volcano eruption produces more greenhouse gases then man has produced in all history.

Actually, it works the other way. As Hanson predicted, a large eruption reduced the effect of human generated CO2.

For global warming caused by people to be true there must be something to show this volcano claim isn't true or something that shows people's production of greenhouse gases is so vast compared to all natural phenomena that it has tipped the scales over the edge to the destruction of the environment as we know it. You seem to have studied all this rather extensively so it seems you are the one to know where to find that data?

There are many reasons that large volcanic eruptions have such far-reaching effects on global climate. First, volcanic eruptions produce major quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2), a gas known to contribute to the greenhouse effect. Such greenhouse gases trap heat radiated off of the surface of the earth forming a type of insulation around the planet. The greenhouse effect is essential for our survival because it maintains the temperature of our planet within a habitable range. Nevertheless, there is growing concern that our production of gases such as CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels may be pushing the system a little too far, resulting in excessive warming on a global scale. There is no doubt that volcanic eruptions add CO2 to the atmosphere, but compared to the quantity produced by human activities, their impact is virtually trivial: volcanic eruptions produce about 110 million tons of CO2 each year, whereas human activities contribute almost 10,000 times that quantity.

By far the more substantive climatic effect from volcanoes results from the production of atmospheric haze. Large eruption columns inject ash particles and sulfur-rich gases into the troposphere and stratosphere and these clouds can circle the globe within weeks of the volcanic activity. The small ash particles decrease the amount of sunlight reaching the surface of the earth and lower average global temperatures. The sulfurous gases combine with water in the atmosphere to form acidic aerosols that also absorb incoming solar radiation and scatter it back out into space.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-volcanoes-affect-w/

 

[Obadiah]

Interesting. That's the first time Ive heard it explained that way or with those statistics. But then, like I said, I'm no expert on it. thanks for the link. Going to read now.

 

[tim-from-pa]

Like I said, long verbose spins exactly as I predicted. The other planets warming? naw. The earth warming? Why of course. Now if we lived on Mars we would also say by the same data it's warming (if I was smart I'd bet my retirement account double or nothing so that I could retire comfortably). But alas, there's no colonies on Mars yet for the leftists to cry doomsday. The WTC man, however, is accusing the global warming believers of doing the very same thing with the math that the nonbelievers are accused of doing. Like I said, you can make statistics say anything you want. And there's well-educated experts on both sides.

This has been going on in the medical world with drugs we all "need" and here's the statistics to prove it, and even math is redefined such as idiotic Common Core and I'm wondering if they know how to do math any longer which is why I don't trust the mathematical conclusions with such a mind-set.

A definition of statistics:

The 'mathematical' science that convinces us what is obviously untrue to be true (with impressive calculations and establishment experts). And I guess a good donation and agenda also helps.

 

[Barbarian]

Like I said, long verbose spins exactly as I predicted. The other planets warming? naw.

Some are. Others haven't changed much. Some are getting colder. It varies by conditions on each planet, and where they are in their orbits (most planets have more elliptical orbits than Earth does)

The earth warming? Why of course.

Yep. There are natural cycles that moderate the anthropogenic factors, but so far, they have only slowed or accelerated the change.

Now if we lived on Mars we would also say by the same data it's warming

On Mars, it depends primarily on the extent and frequency of seasonal dust storms:
As observed by the Viking spacecraft from the surface,[21] "during a global dust storm the diurnal temperature range narrowed sharply, from fifty degrees to only about ten degrees, and the wind speeds picked up considerably—indeed, within only an hour of the storm's arrival they had increased to 17 m/s (61 km/h), with gusts up to 26 m/s (94 km/h). Nevertheless, no actual transport of material was observed at either site, only a gradual brightening and loss of contrast of the surface material as dust settled onto it." On June 26, 2001, the Hubble Space Telescope spotted a dust storm brewing in Hellas Basin on Mars (pictured right). A day later the storm "exploded" and became a global event. Orbital measurements showed that this dust storm reduced the average temperature of the surface and raised the temperature of the atmosphere of Mars by 30 °C.[22] The low density of the Martian atmosphere means that winds of 18 to 22 m/s (65 to 79 km/h) are needed to lift dust from the surface, but since Mars is so dry, the dust can stay in the atmosphere far longer than on Earth, where it is soon washed out by rain. The season following that dust storm had daytime temperatures 4 °C below average. This was attributed to the global covering of light-colored dust that settled out of the dust storm, temporarily increasing Mars' albedo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Mars

(if I was smart I'd bet my retirement account double or nothing so that I could retire comfortably). But alas, there's no colonies on Mars yet for the leftists to cry doomsday.

See above. As on the Earth, climate changes for reasons. We know some of the main ones.

The WTC man, however, is accusing the global warming believers of doing the very same thing with the math that the nonbelievers are accused of doing. Like I said, you can make statistics say anything you want. And there's well-educated experts on both sides.

Fact is, the data is very clear and impressive. This is why the vast majority of climate scientists (in spite of lavish rewards promised by denier organizations for any scientist willing to deny warming) accept the fact of anthropogenic warming.

This has been going on in the medical world with drugs we all "need" and here's the statistics to prove it, and even math is redefined such as idiotic Common Core

I'm looking at the common core standards, and I don't see any redefinitions. Could you start another thread, and we'll talk about it?

A definition of statistics:
The 'mathematical' science that convinces us what is obviously untrue to be true (with impressive calculations and establishment experts). And I guess a good donation and agenda also helps.

I notice marketing people, insurance companies, and political advisors use statistical inferences with great confidence. I happen to have a master's degree in systems, and it's very clear that statistical analysis is valuable and mathematically valid. However, there are often people who throw numbers around without regard for the mathematical validity of the conclusions they draw.

My daughter is finishing up a degree in actuarial science and is interning for an insurance company. The tables they draw up are the difference between profit and loss for them, so they take those calculations very seriously.[/QUOTE]