Jump to content


Photo

Global Warming Falsified


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#21 Minnemooseus

Minnemooseus

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Duluth, Minnesota
  • Age: 56
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Duluth, Minnesota

Posted 07 January 2013 - 06:07 PM

Perhaps global warming was responsible for this? Posted Image/> Posted Image/> http://au.news.yahoo...outh-australia/ Our Summer should be starting in a week


At the risk of being a total jerk, how's that non-global warming going down there?

“Never before in recorded history has Australia experienced 5 consecutive days of national-average maximum temperatures above 39C. Until today. And this heat is expected to continue for another 24-48 hours, extending the new record run to 6 or even 7 days. For context, the previous record of 4 days occurred once only (1973) and 3 days has occurred only twice (1972,2002).”


Above quoted from http://scienceblogs....-bigaussieheat/

Moose

#22 Minnemooseus

Minnemooseus

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Duluth, Minnesota
  • Age: 56
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Duluth, Minnesota

Posted 14 March 2013 - 08:24 PM

Australia breaks hottest summer record
http://www.abc.net.a...-record/4547746

The climate change denier cricket effect must have been chirping pretty fast down there.

Moose

Edited because a bunch of html code appeared out of nowhere.

Edited by Minnemooseus, 14 March 2013 - 08:27 PM.


#23 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,299 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 03 April 2014 - 12:35 PM

In case anyone wants to know where the 98% consensus of global warming came from, I found it in a recent article.

...

Here is another good explanation:

Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements
Fuhai Hong⇑ and Xiaojian Zhao
+ Author Affiliations

Fuhai Hong is an assistant professor in the Division of Economics, Nanyang Technological University. Xiaojian Zhao is an assistant professor in the Department of Economics, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
Correspondence may be sent to: fhhong@ntu.edu.sg.
The authors thank Larry Karp, Madhu Khanna, Jinhua Zhao, two anonymous referees, and participants in the Conference on Global Environmental Challenges: the Role of China for their helpful comments.

Abstract

It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare. From the ex ante perspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous.
http://ajae.oxfordjo...aau001.abstract



#24 FaithfulCenturion

FaithfulCenturion

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New York

Posted 05 December 2014 - 02:34 AM

I hate to resurrect a dead thread, but I found this article, and had a thought.

http://www.scientifi...-than-expected/

Considering our EM field is that which protection ts us from solar radiation, and solar radiation is the thing that keeps our planet from being a frozen ice ball, would it not stand to reason, that if "global warming" were true, that it would be due to a weakening of said EM field? It would be like placing several layers of insulation between yourself and a heater. As you remove layers of insulation, more heat will get through. True, some may go back into space, but as was pointed out in a thread on the Hydroplate theory, it wouldn't be enough, fast enough, to make a significant difference.

#25 Argyle

Argyle

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 131 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorchester

Posted 07 December 2014 - 09:55 AM

I hate to resurrect a dead thread, but I found this article, and had a thought.

http://www.scientifi...-than-expected/

Considering our EM field is that which protection ts us from solar radiation, and solar radiation is the thing that keeps our planet from being a frozen ice ball, would it not stand to reason, that if "global warming" were true, that it would be due to a weakening of said EM field? It would be like placing several layers of insulation between yourself and a heater. As you remove layers of insulation, more heat will get through. True, some may go back into space, but as was pointed out in a thread on the Hydroplate theory, it wouldn't be enough, fast enough, to make a significant difference.


The heat energy of the sun is carried by photons. Photons lack charge so are not affected by a magnetic field. The Earth's EM field protects us from charged particles (protons and electrons in the solar wind) and cosmic rays (protons and atomic nuclei from supernovae etc.). These particles do not influence climate.

#26 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 08 December 2014 - 06:33 AM

From this website I took a snapshot of this graph of survey results. Look at the bottom entry for "climate change". Good news.

It is survey of most important issues.

climateCNG-low_zps618d1cad.jpg

#27 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 26 September 2015 - 06:27 AM

NASA to Make Mystery Announcement about Mars on Monday [Sept. 27]
.
I'm betting that the announcement will be that Mars is an example of what can happen to us if we don't "do something" about "global warming", a.k.a. climate change.

That would be the Papal spin.

#28 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,934 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 26 September 2015 - 11:25 AM

I don't see how there can be any serious dispute that global warming is a fact, whether or not human activity is responsible.  The only question is what, if anything, can we do about it.



#29 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 26 September 2015 - 12:03 PM

I don't see how there can be any serious dispute that global warming is a fact, whether or not human activity is responsible. The only question is what, if anything, can we do about it.

.
Proposition: A state of happiness should be created by a climate that is warming.

"...whether or not human activity is responsible"

What is there to do in the case of not responsible?

Do you prefer global cooling?

#30 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,299 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 26 September 2015 - 04:44 PM

Climate changes - that's not in dispute. 
Global warming is actually in dispute and that's why they changed their trade name to "Climate change" It's a one fits all, unless the climate stays EXACTLY the same. 

What is in dispute is the claim that human activity is the main contributing factor to global warming (and subsequently we'd need a world government to regulate and restrict human activities on Earth). It's no coincidence that most "Climate Change" supporters do have strong left, socialist leanings. 

 

Actually global warming and increase in carbon dioxide could be a good thing since it makes plants grow more, the increased biomass could help solving problems. 



#31 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,934 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 26 September 2015 - 11:00 PM

Climate changes - that's not in dispute. 
Global warming is actually in dispute and that's why they changed their trade name to "Climate change" It's a one fits all, unless the climate stays EXACTLY the same. 

Global warming is a fact.  It is the only reasonable explanation for virtually every glacier on the planet receding and rising oceans.  We are in a series of record setting global warm temperatures and, with the extremely strong el Nino, next year will certainly set another global temperature record.

 

What is in dispute is the claim that human activity is the main contributing factor to global warming 

Agreed.  At this point, it is largely irrelevant. 

 

IMHO, we have passed the "tipping point" and there is nothing we can (or will) do to change the situation.  The question now is what, if anything, can be done to prepare for the consequences.

 

...(and subsequently we'd need a world government to regulate and restrict human activities on Earth). It's no coincidence that most "Climate Change" supporters do have strong left, socialist leanings. 

I don't see humanity achieving enough unity of purpose for a world government to take place.  The "rich" nations intend to maintain their standard of living and the "poor" nations want to catch up.... which cannot be done (today) without huge consumption of carbon fuels.  The "climate control treaties" in place are symbolic and will do nothing to change anything.

 

Actually global warming and increase in carbon dioxide could be a good thing since it makes plants grow more, the increased biomass could help solving problems. 

I have heard that argument.  However, global warming will also change weather patterns.  Areas that are current "breadbaskets" may become deserts.  It is possible some deserts may become breadbaskets, but there will be huge displacements of population.

 

Rising sea levels will also cause major problems.  Many of the world's major cities will be flooded by a significant increase of sea level.



#32 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,140 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 27 September 2015 - 12:35 AM

Agreed.  At this point, it is largely irrelevant. 

 

97% of climate scientists believe that climate change (global warming, same thing) is due to human activity. http://climate.nasa....ific-consensus/

 

I have heard that argument.  However, global warming will also change weather patterns.  Areas that are current "breadbaskets" may become deserts.  It is possible some deserts may become breadbaskets, but there will be huge displacements of population.

 

Rising sea levels will also cause major problems.  Many of the world's major cities will be flooded by a significant increase of sea level.

 

Increased CO2 in the lower atmosphere can promote plant growth, however increased CO2 in higher regions of the atmosphere (where fossil fuel CO2 goes) does not help plants at all since it is not in contact with plants for them to utilize. 

 

It is very interesting to hear military personnel talk about climate change. According them climate change is a threat to national security for a variety of reasons from rising sea levels threatening navy bases to rising sea levels and food shortages prompting mass migration and regional wars. 

 

That said, and I loathe to bring it up as people will take away the wrong message, but our money is best spent on other issues besides climate change such as global poverty, starvation, and combating various diseases like malaria on a global scale. Take the same amount of money to combat these global problems than to mitigate/slow-down climate change, and you will go a lot farther in creating an ideal world. However, we still need to address climate change and our role in impacting the global climate. If we do nothing we may end up leaving future generations with a planet that is virtually uninhabitable. 



#33 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 27 September 2015 - 04:06 AM

Global warming is a fact.  It is the only reasonable explanation for virtually every glacier on the planet receding and rising oceans.  We are in a series of record setting global warm temperatures and, with the extremely strong el Nino, next year will certainly set another global temperature record.
 
Agreed.  At this point, it is largely irrelevant. 
 
IMHO, we have passed the "tipping point" and there is nothing we can (or will) do to change the situation.  The question now is what, if anything, can be done to prepare for the consequences.
 
I don't see humanity achieving enough unity of purpose for a world government to take place.  The "rich" nations intend to maintain their standard of living and the "poor" nations want to catch up.... which cannot be done (today) without huge consumption of carbon fuels.  The "climate control treaties" in place are symbolic and will do nothing to change anything.
 
I have heard that argument.  However, global warming will also change weather patterns.  Areas that are current "breadbaskets" may become deserts.  It is possible some deserts may become breadbaskets, but there will be huge displacements of population.
 
Rising sea levels will also cause major problems.  Many of the world's major cities will be flooded by a significant increase of sea level.

.
The answer is to embrace the warming as the alternative is much, much worse.

#34 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,934 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 27 September 2015 - 07:03 PM

97% of climate scientists believe that climate change (global warming, same thing) is due to human activity. http://climate.nasa....ific-consensus/

I understand that, but don't see that it really matters.

 

If the warming is the result of our CO2 emissions, it will take us decades (at least) to change our additions of CO2 to the atmosphere and more decades before the temperatures begin to respond.  By that time, the north polar ice cap will probably be gone which will increase the amount of solar energy absorbed by Earth rather than reflected to space.

 

In other words, we are past the "tipping point" where we could do anything about it.  All we can do is prepare.

 

It is very interesting to hear military personnel talk about climate change. According them climate change is a threat to national security for a variety of reasons from rising sea levels threatening navy bases to rising sea levels and food shortages prompting mass migration and regional wars. 

Yes to all of the above.  Not only that, rising sea levels don't only threaten navy bases .... they endanger seaports all over the world.  There will be a disruption of commerce and distribution of goods on a global scale that will further compound the problems.

 

That said, and I loathe to bring it up as people will take away the wrong message, but our money is best spent on other issues besides climate change such as global poverty, starvation, and combating various diseases like malaria on a global scale. Take the same amount of money to combat these global problems than to mitigate/slow-down climate change, and you will go a lot farther in creating an ideal world. However, we still need to address climate change and our role in impacting the global climate. If we do nothing we may end up leaving future generations with a planet that is virtually uninhabitable. 

I understand the focus on more immediate issues.

 

On a global scale, mankind lacks the unity of purpose and selfness to do what is necessary to take any meaningful action to address climate change.  If the climate scientists are right and increasing CO2 is the cause of global warming, it's going to get very, very, very bad in the next 100-200 years.



#35 FaithfulCenturion

FaithfulCenturion

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New York

Posted 28 September 2015 - 04:10 PM

I understand that, but don't see that it really matters.

If the warming is the result of our CO2 emissions, it will take us decades (at least) to change our additions of CO2 to the atmosphere and more decades before the temperatures begin to respond. By that time, the north polar ice cap will probably be gone which will increase the amount of solar energy absorbed by Earth rather than reflected to space.

In other words, we are past the "tipping point" where we could do anything about it. All we can do is prepare.

Yes to all of the above. Not only that, rising sea levels don't only threaten navy bases .... they endanger seaports all over the world. There will be a disruption of commerce and distribution of goods on a global scale that will further compound the problems.

I understand the focus on more immediate issues.

On a global scale, mankind lacks the unity of purpose and selfness to do what is necessary to take any meaningful action to address climate change. If the climate scientists are right and increasing CO2 is the cause of global warming, it's going to get very, very, very bad in the next 100-200 years.


I'm just gonna leave this here: http://www.forbes.co...ding-after-all/
  • Schera Do likes this

#36 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,934 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 29 September 2015 - 05:44 AM

I'm just gonna leave this here: http://www.forbes.co...ding-after-all/

Interesting.

 

So far as I know, the article is correct in that we've only had really good records of polar ice caps since 1979.  There is other evidence Arctic sea ice is being lost.  For example, the fabled "Northwest Passage" has had less ice than what has been recorded in hundreds of years of trying to use it for maritime traffic.

 

Also, that is only one of the three (or four) indicators I've pointed out.  Others are the global retreat of glaciers; increasing sea levels; and a large number of record world-wide (monthly and annual) temperatures.  I did read that these temperatures have been kept since something like 1880 and in that time, we have had one record cold month and several dozen record warm months.... and years.

 

The trend is clear.  The responsibility is (pretty much) irrelevant.

 

I hope the "nay sayers" are right and this is just a temporary blip in global temperatures.  I fear they are wrong and mankind is in for a very bumpy road.



#37 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,140 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 29 September 2015 - 08:12 AM

I'm just gonna leave this here: http://www.forbes.co...ding-after-all/

 

The people that actually did the research had this to say about the article: 

 

"Global sea ice totals vary from one year to the next. When looking for impacts of global warming, climate scientists take a longer-term view. The long-term record of global sea ice (illustrated below) shows a long-term decline of global sea ice of about 5.5%. One is free to argue whether this decline in global sea ice is important, or whether it is a result of human impacts on the climate; however, it is misleading to claim that polar sea ice has not decreased over the historic record. In his last paragraph, Taylor correctly asserts that receding polar ice caps are an expected result of a warming planet. In fact, the data shows that this is exactly what is happening. The rest of Taylor’s article is just whitewash intended to distract readers from these facts." - https://www.atmos.il...le.response.pdf



#38 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 29 September 2015 - 03:43 PM

Interesting.

So far as I know, the article is correct in that we've only had really good records of polar ice caps since 1979. There is other evidence Arctic sea ice is being lost. For example, the fabled "Northwest Passage" has had less ice than what has been recorded in hundreds of years of trying to use it for maritime traffic.

Also, that is only one of the three (or four) indicators I've pointed out. Others are the global retreat of glaciers; increasing sea levels; and a large number of record world-wide (monthly and annual) temperatures. I did read that these temperatures have been kept since something like 1880 and in that time, we have had one record cold month and several dozen record warm months.... and years.

The trend is clear. The responsibility is (pretty much) irrelevant.

I hope the "nay sayers" are right and this is just a temporary blip in global temperatures. I fear they are wrong and mankind is in for a very bumpy road.

.
From the link content to which you began with "Interesting":
 

The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.

.
"Embrace the warming, as the opposite is...", I quote myself.

This is not something to lose sleep over, which is something that any genuine fear will produce. The problem, is that once one is relieved of that burden, then one moves on to worry about what havoc, chaos and even mayhem the radical green (read Socialist) are going to wreak--and this is a good word, as there is a vengence in their passion.

#39 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 02 October 2015 - 06:46 PM

The people that actually did the research had this to say about the article: 

 

"Global sea ice totals vary from one year to the next. When looking for impacts of global warming, climate scientists take a longer-term view. The long-term record of global sea ice (illustrated below) shows a long-term decline of global sea ice of about 5.5%. One is free to argue whether this decline in global sea ice is important, or whether it is a result of human impacts on the climate; however, it is misleading to claim that polar sea ice has not decreased over the historic record. In his last paragraph, Taylor correctly asserts that receding polar ice caps are an expected result of a warming planet. In fact, the data shows that this is exactly what is happening. The rest of Taylor’s article is just whitewash intended to distract readers from these facts." - https://www.atmos.il...le.response.pdf

 

...... When one reads your article all it really does is complain that the Forbes article was "cherry picking", yet not once did I see any evidence provided for such an accusation... I DID see cherry picking which was their attempt at "evidence"

Looking at the graph it seems like it doesn't take into account the increase from 2014 onwards... If you look at the start and end points of the graph itself there is practically no change, so what we see is OSCILLATING change over time, but no NET change....

 

So yes "climate change" happens, it just changes back again later, and then it changes again, and changes back later....


Any mention to Al Gore's prediction that there would be no ice caps in 2014? What does a failed prediction do for a hypothesis?... Hmmm, I wonder...

http://www.dailymail...E-FREE-now.html
 


  • FaithfulCenturion likes this

#40 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,934 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 03 October 2015 - 12:23 AM

Any mention to Al Gore's prediction that there would be no ice caps in 2014? What does a failed prediction do for a hypothesis?... Hmmm, I wonder...

Excuse me.

 

A failed "prediction" about climate change from the politician who claimed he invented the internet.  Seriously?  Can anyone say "argument from authority fallacy?"

 

 

Looking at the graph it seems like it doesn't take into account the increase from 2014 onwards... If you look at the start and end points of the graph itself there is practically no change, so what we see is OSCILLATING change over time, but no NET change....

 

http://www.dailymail...E-FREE-now.html

 

There is difference between climate and weather.  Weather can take wide swings from year to year and even over a range of a few years.  An "increase from 2014 onwards" is only one year, so in terms of long term change, it really doesn't mean a lot, but let's look at your article.

The most widely used measurements of Arctic ice extent are the daily satellite readings issued by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, which is co-funded by Nasa. These reveal that – while the long-term trend still shows a decline - (emphasis Pi's) last Monday, August 25, the area of the Arctic Ocean with at least 15 per cent ice cover was 5.62 million square kilometres.

This was the highest level recorded on that date since 2006 (see graph, right), and represents an increase of 1.71 million square kilometres over the past two years – an impressive 43 per cent.

The key to the climate issue is long term .... not a few years.   

 

Like this:

 
BlackJackWeb.jpgjakobshavn_retreat.jpeg
 
 
griesgletscher_klein.jpggrinnell-glacier.png?w=1000
 
We don't have real good data on Arctic ice levels going back a hundred years or more .... but we have lots of records and pictures of glaciers.  Almost without exception, they show significant glacial retreat over a period of a century or so. 
 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users