Strange New Climate Change Spin

[Kade]

We do not need to go back that far. What is your explanation for lack of temperature increase between 1940 and 1980 despite raising CO2 levels ??? Have you ever looked at the actual data from the last 100 years ?

Global temperature increased between 1915-2015 (100 years being your marker), in science we normally don't take a block of data randomly if we are trying to help us understand a trend. That your have arbitrarily chosen 1940-1980 (the only period of time where average bumped down, because of the 1940 fluke spike) shows that you have not yourself "Looked at the actual data". (raw source)

Wherever you got the arbitrary excitement over the 1940-1980 data is not a source that should be celebrated or taken seriously. The equivalent would be if I only took the same chunk in span say 1975-2015 to show an enormous trend towards warming, it is not accurate, and does not give a good estimate, and no fair minded person upon seeing this data set would agree. The argument of global temperature increasing is not even debated among serious skeptics.

 

[Acala]

Current levels of Carbon Dioxide are close to 400 ppmv (source)


From 1751-1900 12 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide release from carbon from the burning of fossil fuels.

From 1901-2015 that number is 337 gigatonnes. (Raw Data Source)

Airborne Fraction is the ration of the increase in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, counting for removed emissions from biosphere and water bodies.
Humans are emitting ~30 million tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere a year. 43% remains in the atmosphere, accounting for the Airborne Fraction, net CO2 is highest it has been in at least 15 million years, and net CO2 is SIGNIFICANTLY higher since 1950 (Source) (source)(source)

I won't dispute your figures for release. I DO question where you think you get reliable data for CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere 15 million years ago. Care to share?

In any event, CO2 concentration does not necessarily equal global warming. If you were to proffer as your scientific statement that "increases in CO2 concentration always lead to increases in global temperature in a linear or otherwise predictable way." That statement would be falsified by the universal failure of climate scientists to make such predictions.

So what IS your scientific statement of global warming?

 

[Acala]

Global temperature increased between 1915-2015 (100 years being your marker), in science we normally don't take a block of data randomly if we are trying to help us understand a trend. That your have arbitrarily chosen 1940-1980 (the only period of time where average bumped down, because of the 1940 fluke spike) shows that you have not yourself "Looked at the actual data". (raw source)

Wherever you got the arbitrary excitement over the 1940-1980 data is not a source that should be celebrated or taken seriously. The equivalent would be if I only took the same chunk in span say 1975-2015 to show an enormous trend towards warming, it is not accurate, and does not give a good estimate, and no fair minded person upon seeing this data set would agree. The argument of global temperature increasing is not even debated among serious skeptics.

And no serious scientist makes the mistake of assuming climate should be stable when it never has been in even short geological time frames. So what?

 

[Kade]

I won't dispute your figures for release. I DO question where you think you get reliable data for CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere 15 million years ago. Care to share?

In any event, CO2 concentration does not necessarily equal global warming. If you were to proffer as your scientific statement that "increases in CO2 concentration always lead to increases in global temperature in a linear or otherwise predictable way." That statement would be falsified by the universal failure of climate scientists to make such predictions.

So what IS your scientific statement of global warming?

I don't have a 'scientific statement of global warming', nor am I quite sure what should be done about climate change, I leave that up to you guys, the liberty policy experts.

The sentences I wrote, which took me all lunch btw =P, were scientifically stated... if you wanted to get more technical we could try to prove the null hypothesis.

The argument about CO2 not equaling temperate is accurate but highly misleading. There is in fact correlation between temperature and co2, (when accounting for water vapor) (source Massive List of Papers.

The reason for the lagging equivalency ( like the year 2007) is because of a mechanism called climate variability, or a form of internal variability for statisticians. It is really just a short term variance that equals out after long term trend is analyzed. The long term trend is a solid, undeniable correlation of CO2 net levels and Global temperature increasing.

I know why you guys are skeptical, perhaps we could just loosen up a bit and accept that this isn't some sort of government conspiracy, and that nobody really knows what to do about the problem. You are always free to say that climate change is real, and you would rather just ignore it.

 

[dannno]

The last time atmospheric CO2 was at this level was 129 million years ago. It took over 60 millions years to change from 485 ppmv to 385 ppmv. It took 150 years to go from 280 ppmv to nearly 400 ppmv.

This is fact. This is damning. There is not much movement to go in any direction from this...

That's bullshit, the last time CO2 levels were higher than today was during the Medieval Warming period.. when temps were also higher than they are today.

 

[Kade]

And no serious scientist makes the mistake of assuming climate should be stable when it never has been in even short geological time frames. So what?

Climate change is occurring at a rate significantly faster than even the most destructive rates of change in Earth's history. The ends of the Permian, Triassic and mid-Cambrian rates of change were on par, and all of those directly led to mass extinction events.

 

[Kade]

That's bullshit, the last time CO2 levels were higher than today was during the Medieval Warming period.. when temps were also higher than they are today.

The Medieval Warm period saw unusual temperature increases in some areas (causes being solar radiation and low volcanic activity), but overall the planet was cooler than currently. Global temperatures are warmer than they have been during the last 2,000 years. (Source)

 

[timosman]

Global temperature increased between 1915-2015 (100 years being your marker), in science we normally don't take a block of data randomly if we are trying to help us understand a trend. That your have arbitrarily chosen 1940-1980 (the only period of time where average bumped down, because of the 1940 fluke spike) shows that you have not yourself "Looked at the actual data". (raw source)

Wherever you got the arbitrary excitement over the 1940-1980 data is not a source that should be celebrated or taken seriously. The equivalent would be if I only took the same chunk in span say 1975-2015 to show an enormous trend towards warming, it is not accurate, and does not give a good estimate, and no fair minded person upon seeing this data set would agree. The argument of global temperature increasing is not even debated among serious skeptics.

You do not understand formal logic. You are trying to prove the following conjecture - "CO2 increase always causes temperature increase" - then for me to disprove this statement it is sufficient to find one counterexample, which I just gave you, the period from 1940 to 1980. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_quantification#Negation in case you missed that class in school.

 

[Kade]

Where is the evidence of CO2 levels 129 million years ago? Or 60 million years ago?

Sorry, I forgot to answer this one. There are multiple ways to measures gas levels from different periods of time. One of the best ways is to
measure the level in gas bubbles trapped in ice sheets. Carbon and Boron isotope half-life measurements from sediment is also very accurate. Other methods I believe include identifying structures in fossilized leaves that can give an estimation (stomata).

 

[Kade]

You do not understand formal logic. You are trying to prove the following conjecture - "CO2 increase always causes temperature increase" - then for me to disprove this statement it is sufficient to find one counterexample, which I just gave you, the period from 1940 to 1980. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_quantification#Negation in case you missed that class in school.

I never said or 'conjectured' that "CO2 increase always causes temperature increase", I said there was a correlation, which is a broad statistical relationship involving dependence. It is important that you maintain focus here and it is probably best to avoid debating logical fallacies with me, because I love to haunt threads looking for people who want to use them against me.

Stay on topic, and avoid the dark pathways my friend, you can do this, I believe in you.

 

[timosman]

I never said or 'conjectured' that "CO2 increase always causes temperature increase", I said there was a correlation, which is a broad statistical relationship involving dependence. It is important that you maintain focus here and it is probably best to avoid debating logical fallacies with me, because I love to haunt threads looking for people who want to use them against me.

Stay on topic, and avoid the dark pathways my friend, you can do this, I believe in you.

So what are you trying to prove here - "a broad statistical relationship involving dependence" ? Are you trying to be funny ?

 

[Kade]

So what are you trying to prove here - "a broad statistical relationship involving dependence" ? Are you trying to be funny ?

I'm going to let this one just hang out there, because I am vastly more persuasive when I let the interlocutor's own words echo over the audience.

 

[timosman]

I'm going to let this one just hang out there, because I am vastly more persuasive when I let the interlocutor's own words echo over the audience.

That's probably your best bet given you have no arguments. Let's see how well it plays out.

 

[dannno]

The Medieval Warm period saw unusual temperature increases in some areas (causes being solar radiation and low volcanic activity), but overall the planet was cooler than currently. Global temperatures are warmer than they have been during the last 2,000 years. (Source)

Not sure if I buy that.. I've been arguing this for years and scientists and people just deny that the evidence exists.. then the scientists finally come out with a bunch of nonsense to explain something that earlier they said never existed. Same with this situation in the OP.

This gets proven correct:

Study: Earth (or at least Europe) was warmer in Roman, Medieval times

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/13/study-earth-was-warmer-in-roman-medieval-times/#ixzz3n45V3x00


So then a bunch of scientists get paid by the government to make up a bunch of numbers and print up some papers that show the rest of the planet was cooler.. how convenient. I don't buy it. The problem is that climate science is more of a political science nowadays than actual science..

The other huge issue I have is that if you look at the raw temp data for the last 80+ years and you look at the adjusted data, then take the difference between the two and graph that, there is a nice clear exponential curve that is formed.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?479627-Mind-Blowing-Temperature-Fraud-At-NOAA

Look at climategate, you had clear fraud occuring in plain english and the media tried to convince people that it was all "scientific" and you have to be a scientist to understand.. It was such bullshit, you don't need to be a scientist to understand english and what they said in the emails was very clear.

 

[Kade]

Not sure if I buy that.. I've been arguing this for years and scientists and people just deny that the evidence exists.. then the scientists finally come out with a bunch of nonsense to explain something that earlier they said never existed. Same with this situation in the OP.

This gets proven correct:

Study: Earth (or at least Europe) was warmer in Roman, Medieval times

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/13/study-earth-was-warmer-in-roman-medieval-times/#ixzz3n45V3x00


So then a bunch of scientists get paid by the government to make up a bunch of numbers and print up some papers that show the rest of the planet was cooler.. how convenient. I don't buy it. The problem is that climate science is more of a political science nowadays than actual science..

The other huge issue I have is that if you look at the raw temp data for the last 80+ years and you look at the adjusted data, then take the difference between the two and graph that, there is a nice clear exponential curve that is formed.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?479627-Mind-Blowing-Temperature-Fraud-At-NOAA

Look at climategate, you had clear fraud occuring in plain english and the media tried to convince people that it was all "scientific" and you have to be a scientist to understand.. It was such bullshit, you don't need to be a scientist to understand english and what they said in the emails was very clear.

The list of sources I posted still iterates the point that the medieval warm period was still cooler than today, despite the fact that there were some unusual warming areas.

Investigators from "Climategate" were cleared, but that was not as big a story.

I don't quite understand what your differential graph is suppose to show... you'll have to explain those better.

 

[dannno]

Investigators from "Climategate" were cleared, but that was not as big a story.

Of course they were cleared by the establishment, but the emails were public and clearly indicated that fraud was going on in order to preserve a fictional narrative.

I don't quite understand what your differential graph is suppose to show... you'll have to explain those better.

It represents the adjustments made to the raw temperature data. They are adjusting the older data downard and adjusting the newer data upward.

I would expect with these type of adjustments to see something like, well, we started measuring the temperature a different way in 1980, so we are going to make an adjustment of 1 or 2 degrees - you would see a stair-step pattern in the adjustment of the data. Seeing that there is an exponential curve upward suggest that they are attempting to "fit" the data to what they want to see - an exponential upward curve.

Like I said before - climate science is more political science than anything. Same thing with vaccines. I think some good has from vaccines, but there are also a lot of issues with them. The conclusion I've come to is that both vaccines and many other medical breakthroughs have helped decrease the amount of certain diseases - but - the vaccine industry is also a business entrenched in government. Government is flawed, of course.. and in order to make a company like Merck the monopoly provider of vaccines, they were required to ensure that their vaccines maintained a certain effectiveness over the years. As the years went by, the vaccines naturally became less effective. In order to continue to sell the vaccines, they had to make them more effective just to be able to continue to produce and sell vaccines. That's where I think a lot of the toxic ingredients came in, they were added to increase the effectiveness. But I also think these substances have caused problem like brain damange and most likely autism in some people. The vaccine industry then has to produce studies disproving a link between these substances and brain damage or autism - they have been caught doing fraudulent research and trying to hide links between vaccines and autism. They also have to turn out fraudulent studies making the vaccines seem more effective than they actually are - the purpose of this is to maintain their multi-billion dollar empire over vaccine sales, because government regulations require that the effectiveness of the vaccines is maintained. They have been caught doing this as well. So excuse me if I don't trust entrenched establishment scientists very much.

 

[dannno]

Here is a good example of this happening in other areas:

Intel Analysts: US Fixing Facts Around Policy
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?482817-Intel-Analysts-US-Fixing-Facts-Around-Policy

 

[Acala]

I don't have a 'scientific statement of global warming', nor am I quite sure what should be done about climate change, I leave that up to you guys, the liberty policy experts.

Look, YOU are the guy who charged in here ready to bash everyone for being unscientific. So let's get scientific. Unless and until you can make a genuine scientific statement (that Popper would agree is a true scientific statement) you should pipe down and not pretend you are a font of scientific knowledge. Make a genuine falsifiable scientific statement and we can all evaluate it.

Just spouting evidence and claiming consensus does not prove anything. Global warming is a THEORY. State it as such and we will see if it holds up against the evidence.

 

[Acala]

The reason for the lagging equivalency ( like the year 2007) is because of a mechanism called climate variability, or a form of internal variability for statisticians. It is really just a short term variance that equals out after long term trend is analyzed. The long term trend is a solid, undeniable correlation of CO2 net levels and Global temperature increasing.

Otherwise known as a fudge factor.

There is NO established track record of predicting climate over even the very short term.

The hyper-sensitivity to initial conditions - and inherent unpredictability - of chaotic systems, was literally discovered in the context of computer modeling of weather patterns. Computer modeling of weather and climate is utterly useless. It is nothing more than guess work. Once you throw that out, all that is left is some short term temperature measurements, short term CO2 measurements, and the theory of the greenhouse effect. What scientists DON'T know about climate is about ten times what they think they DO know. Under circumstances such as this, a scientist who claims he can predict the climate thirty years from now should be flogged out of the room.

 

[Danke]

"
The ridiculous assumption that the complicated and ever changing climate of this planet rests upon the fallacy of a carbon dioxide induced greenhouse effect and the hysterical indictment of a single parameter of 0.04% (400ppm) of Carbon Dioxide (CO2), which amounts to nothing more than 1 molecule of CO2 out of every 2500 molecules that comprise the atmosphere, of which only .0016% (16ppm) or 4% of the total Atmospheric CO2 has been attributed to human influence, which the Catastrophic Global Warming Fanatics and Lunatics would now have everyone believe precipitates Climate Change is not only absurdly implausible it is absolutely ludicrous,