Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global Warming a Hoax?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Poor Old Spike View Post
    Global warming a hoax? This chap might not think so-


    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...%3D63120082_uk
    Interesting that the article provide no useful information.

    Just a whaaa, whaaa, whaaa, crybaby whine about climate change that has been going on for 5 billion years...

    Why exactly can't the polar bear eat now that it no longer lives in a barren ice field? Why can't the bear migrate north to follow the climate and food source?

    Is this just a stupid bear looking for a Darwin Award? Likely....
    Battles are dangerous affairs... Wang Hsi

    Comment


    • This bear has a problem with just right.

      https://polarbearscience.com/2015/04...ence-suggests/
      We hunt the hunters

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
        Edited post.


        Have you read the actual science? Given that the paper is available under the fossil fuel lobby funded https://wattsupwiththat.com/ site, we can be sure that the climate skeptics approve of this science.

        Original paper under discussion here: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpr..._mcnider-1.pdf

        The paper states that once you have removed the natural elements that cause climate change, the planet is still warming. If natural effects are not warming the planet, then it must be unnatural effects, ie manmade causes.

        Any intelligent scientist would realise this.
        How about presenting the abstract of the paper;

        Abstract:
        We identify and remove the main natural perturbations
        (e.g. volcanic activity, ENSOs) from the global mean lower
        tropospheric temperatures (TLT) over January 1979 - June 2017 to
        estimate the underlying, potentially human-forced trend. The unaltered
        value is +0.155 K dec1 while the adjusted trend is +0.096 K dec1,
        related primarily to the removal of volcanic cooling in the early part
        of the record. This is essentially the same value we determined in
        1994 (+0.09 K dec1, Christy and McNider, 1994) using only 15
        years of data. If the warming rate of +0.096 K dec1represents the
        net TLT response to increasing greenhouse radiative forcings, this
        implies that the TLT tropospheric transient climate response (ΔTLT
        at the time CO2 doubles) is +1.10 ± 0.26 K which is about half of the
        average of the IPCC AR5 climate models of 2.31 ± 0.20 K. Assuming
        that the net remaining unknown internal and external natural forcing
        over this period is near zero, the mismatch since 1979 between
        observations and CMIP-5 model values suggests that excessive
        sensitivity to enhanced radiative forcing in the models can be
        appreciable. The tropical region is mainly responsible for this
        discrepancy suggesting processes that are the likely sources of the
        extra sensitivity are (a) the parameterized hydrology of the deep
        atmosphere, (b) the parameterized heat-partitioning at the ocean-
        atmosphere interface and/or (c) unknown natural variations.
        ...
        https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpr..._mcnider-1.pdf

        1) It seems the original paper still up at What's Up With That.

        2) Only known and MAIN natural cooling and flux factors have been removed. Many other natural factors, warming and cooling, haven't been removed.

        3) They acknowledge there are likely unknown natural variations and other factors.

        4) IPCC models are doubling the warming factor = gross mathematical error (mis-representation).

        5) "extra sensitivity" has to do to natural processes in the ocean that may not be properly measured or factored in.

        6) Bottom line,
        A) the paper doesn't rule out all natural factors (known).
        B) The models(calcs) of IPCC are greatly exaggerated and inaccurate.
        C) The CO2 factor per IPCC is twice what this science shows (see B) ).
        D) The paper does not confirm that current CO2 levels are the driving factor in 'Global warmin'/'Climate Change'.

        "ENSOs" =
        El Niño-Southern Oscillation
        https://www.climate.gov/enso
        Last edited by G David Bock; 10 Dec 17, 22:59.
        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
        “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
        Present Current Events are the Future's History

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Poor Old Spike View Post
          Global warming a hoax? This chap might not think so-


          http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...%3D63120082_uk
          100% fake science.

          "When the animal first got up and we could see that he was actually in the late stages of starvation. It was incredibly shocking," SeaLegacy co-founder Cristina Mittermeier told As It Happens guest host Jim Brown.

          She said she suspects the animal's condition is linked to climate change, but says she can't be certain.

          "It is impossible to tell why he was in this state. Maybe it could've been because of an injury or disease," Mittermeier said.

          In the video, the bear makes its way to a trash bin and pulls out its meal.
          http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/...orth-1.4439616

          The video (now removed from the article) was shot on Nunavut Island in August when Polar Bears are normally at their "fattest" in August. It's impossible that this bear wasn't sick, injured, old or just being out-compteted by healthy bears. Polar Bears, in general, are thriving, particularly in parts of the Arctic that have experienced the most warming.

          Furthermore, this photo, also from the HuffPo article, is a Photoshop product:



          The exact same fake ice flow has been used for propaganda photos of penguins too.



          https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/...-the-dailykos/
          Last edited by The Doctor; 11 Dec 17, 06:57.
          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

          Comment


          • Guys, guys, if global warming is a hoax, who are the hoaxers and what's their motive?
            I emailed polar explorer Dr. Mike Stroud earlier this year and asked him if GW was fact or fiction, and he simply replied "The glaciers are melting".
            Was he making it up or what?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Poor Old Spike View Post
              Guys, guys, if global warming is a hoax, who are the hoaxers and what's their motive?
              I emailed polar explorer Dr. Mike Stroud earlier this year and asked him if GW was fact or fiction, and he simply replied "The glaciers are melting".
              Was he making it up or what?
              It doesn't have to be a hoax to be fundamentally flawed science.

              The climate is simply far less sensitive to CO2 than the climate models are.

              Regarding Polar Bears, all of the global warming stories are either propaganda or simply written by idiots (like the Huffington Post author).

              Polar Bears evolved 110-130 thousand years ago. They thrived through the much warmer Eemian integlacial and Holocene Climatic Optimum.

              Genetically, Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus) aren't even a distinct species. They can breed with brown bears (Ursus arctos). They should be classified as a subspecies of Ursus arctos because the plot the ABC bear group.

              Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
              This is not exactly new news. Interbreeding between brown bear subspecies and Polar Bears has been going on as long as there have been Polar Bears...



              Setting aside the fatally flawed premise that Arctic Sea ice is vanishing and ignoring the fact that Polar Bears sailed right on through the much warmer Holocene Climatic Optimum... If Polar Bears and Grizzlies can interbreed, producing genetically viable offspring, they are of the same species. Therefore, as long as Grizzlies, Kodiaks and other brown bears live, Polar Bears, as a species, cannot go extinct.

              The traditional definition of "species" as applied to sexually reproducing animals is: If two animals can mate and produce genetically viable offspring, they are of the same species.

              A horse and a donkey can mate and produce a mule; which normally cannot reproduce. A mule is not genetically viable. Therefore horses and donkeys are separate species.

              A Collie and a Dachshund can mate and produce a really odd looking dog; which can reproduce. Collies and Dachshunds are of the same species.

              Using the traditional definition, Polar Bears and Grizzlies are of the same species.

              The modern, revisionist definition of species is: If two organisms would not normally mate and produce offspring; they are of separate species. Using the modern, junk science definition. Roseanne Barr is of a different species than 99.9999% of all human males.

              The "experts" classified Polar Bears as a unique species because they looked and acted different than Brown Bears. This was a mistake...


              Polar Bears probably evolved as a distinct subspecies of Brown Bears because a group of Sangamonian (Eemian) brown bears headed north during warm phases of the last interglacial, just like these Grizzlies are...


              If Polar Bears and Grizzlies are different species, then Chihuahuas and Siberian Huskies are different species.

              If you look at Fig. 1 of Miller et al., 2006, you'll see that Polar Bears fit right into Clade 2 with the ABC Islands Brown Bears (ursus arctos sitkensis). Barnes et al., 2002 featured a similar diagram that included fossil subspecies of ursus arctos; once again, Polar Bears fit right into ursus arctos...



              CLICK FOR LARGER IMAGE

              There has never been any scientific basis to categorize Polar Bears as a distinct species. It is clearly a subspecies of ursus arctos.
              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                ..The climate is simply far less sensitive to CO2 than the climate models are..
                But can we trust the scientists who say that?
                How do we know they're not secretly on the payroll of industrial giants and car manufacturers, paid to say that to play down the effects of factory and vehicle emissions?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Poor Old Spike View Post
                  But can we trust the scientists who say that?
                  How do we know they're not secretly on the payroll of industrial giants and car manufacturers, paid to say that to play down the effects of factory and vehicle emissions?
                  Carl Mears and Ben Santer are certified Gorebots and they even admit that the models overestimate the warming. They refer to this as "a small discrepancy between the model predictions and the satelllite observations." However, in the real world (the world of scientists with real jobs "on the payroll of industrial giants," if reality tracks near the bottom of your 95% probability band, your forecast is worthless. If the climate models were accurately reflecting the climate's sensitivity to CO2, the temperature observations would track near the middle of the 95% band, not at the edge of it...
                  But....
                  • The troposphere has not warmed quite as fast as most climate models predict. Note that this problem has been reduced by the large 2015-2106 El Nino Event, and the updated version of the RSS tropospheric datasets
                  .


                  To illustrate this last problem, we show several plots below. Each of these plots has a time series of TLT temperature anomalies using a reference period of 1979-2008. In each plot, the thick black line are the results from the most recent version of the RSS satellite dataset. The yellow band shows the 5% to 95% envelope for the results of 33 CMIP-5 model simulations (19 different models, many with multiple realizations) that are intended to simulate Earth's Climate over the 20th Century. For the time period before 2005, the models were forced with historical values of greenhouse gases, volcanic aerosols, and solar output. After 2005, estimated projections of these forcings were used. If the models, as a whole, were doing an acceptable job of simulating the past, then the observations would mostly lie within the yellow band.



                  Fig. 1. Global (70S to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time. The black line is the time series for the RSS V4.0 MSU/AMSU atmosperhic temperature dataset. The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations. The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen. Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be in the lower part of the model distribution, indicating that there is a small discrepancy between the model predictions and the satelllite observations.(All time series have been smoothed to remove variabilty on time scales shorter than 6 months.)

                  [...]

                  Why does this discrepancy exist and what does it mean? One possible explanation is an error in the fundamental physics used by the climate models. In addition to this possibility, there are at least three other plausible explanations for the warming rate differences. There are errors in the forcings used as input to the model simulations (these include forcings due to anthropogenic gases and aerosols, volcanic aerosols, solar input, and changes in ozone), errors in the satellite observations (partially addressed by the use of the uncertainty ensemble), and sequences of internal climate variability in the simulations that are difference from what occurred in the real world. We call to these four explanations “model physics errors”, “model input errors”, “observational errors”, and “different variability sequences”.

                  [...]

                  RSS
                  Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                    100% fake science.

                    "When the animal first got up and we could see that he was actually in the late stages of starvation. It was incredibly shocking," SeaLegacy co-founder Cristina Mittermeier told As It Happens guest host Jim Brown.

                    She said she suspects the animal's condition is linked to climate change, but says she can't be certain.

                    "It is impossible to tell why he was in this state. Maybe it could've been because of an injury or disease," Mittermeier said.

                    In the video, the bear makes its way to a trash bin and pulls out its meal.
                    http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/...orth-1.4439616

                    The video (now removed from the article) was shot on Nunavut Island in August when Polar Bears are normally at their "fattest" in August. It's impossible that this bear wasn't sick, injured, old or just being out-compteted by healthy bears. Polar Bears, in general, are thriving, particularly in parts of the Arctic that have experienced the most warming.

                    Furthermore, this photo, also from the HuffPo article, is a Photoshop product:



                    The exact same fake ice flow has been used for propaganda photos of penguins too.



                    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/...-the-dailykos/
                    Insult to injury, penguins don't live in the North Pole region, only the South Pole, where polar bears don't live.
                    Last edited by G David Bock; 11 Dec 17, 16:48.
                    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                    “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
                    Present Current Events are the Future's History

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Poor Old Spike View Post
                      Guys, guys, if global warming is a hoax,
                      Taking a line from Monty Python and the Holy Grail;
                      Natural or Human Caused (Anthropogenic) "Global Warming"(Climate Change)?
                      Interestingly, most pro-ACC/AGW advocates usually fail to be precise and then use this blurring of distinction to rail against "doubters" and "skeptics" failing to note that most of us accept that Climate is always in flux, Naturally, but the human caused factor is the one disputed.

                      Originally posted by Poor Old Spike View Post
                      who are the hoaxers and what's their motive?
                      Like anyone whom works for a living to support themselves, "scientists" also want a paycheck. If the available grants and funding are for "research" to support/"prove" ACC/AGW then we can expect some "scientists" will step up to massage the data and stack the formulas to "prove" the agenda of their funding.

                      "The motive" is an anti-Capitalism/Anti-Western Civ/anti-industrialization attitude intended to increase population control via repressive legislation that constrains and reduces current production and economic methods that sustain present conditions. The "Environmentalist" movement has a number of well funded organizations willing to "pay" those whom will help their agenda.

                      Add to this the numerous companies looking to get a piece of the guv'mint funding potential for carbon(dioxide) sequestrations systems, a chance to gouge the taxpayers more. Cheaper, more effective solution to this non-problem/crisis would be to increase the Flora portion of the planetary biomass to absorb the alleged "excess" CO2 rather then extreme and expensive efforts to reduce emissions.


                      Originally posted by Poor Old Spike View Post
                      I emailed polar explorer Dr. Mike Stroud earlier this year and asked him if GW was fact or fiction, and he simply replied "The glaciers are melting".
                      Was he making it up or what?
                      He's being selective in the information that supports his pro-ACC/AGW agenda. In some parts of the planet we still see glaciers growing.

                      And again, as pointed out here and in many similar threads, the geological and hydrosherical records show that over the hundreds of millions of years since the Cambrian Explosion, the planet's climate has cycled between much colder and much warmer than we experience now. Global Climate is not a thermostat that can be set and held constant to a desired temperature range. It is either cooling towards an Ice Age, or warming away from one. Hopefully we are still warming away from another Ice Age.
                      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                      “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
                      Present Current Events are the Future's History

                      Comment


                      • Thanks guys, the bottom line is that we all know global warming does occur naturally in cycles, (or else the Ice Ages would still be around), but the big concern is whether modern emissions are speeding up the current warming cycle at a rate faster than animals and the planet can adapt to it.
                        As a matter of interest, have scientists decided yet whether the stuff spewed out by factories and vehicles accelerates the warming or doesn't it?...



                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Poor Old Spike View Post
                          Thanks guys, the bottom line is that we all know global warming does occur naturally in cycles, (or else the Ice Ages would still be around), but the big concern is whether modern emissions are speeding up the current warming cycle at a rate faster than animals and the planet can adapt to it.
                          As a matter of interest, have scientists decided yet whether the stuff spewed out by factories and vehicles accelerates the warming or doesn't it?...

                          [IMG...http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/factory.jpg[/IMG]

                          [IMG...http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/stink.jpg[/IMG]
                          As a matter of interest, have scientists decided yet whether the stuff spewed out by factories and vehicles accelerates the warming or doesn't it?


                          Some "stuff spewed out by factories and vehicles accelerates the warming" and stuff spewed out by factories and vehicles accelerates the cooling.

                          A recent survey published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society found that about 2/3 of atmospheric scientists think that think that human greenhouse gas emissions are the cause of at least half of the warming that occurred since 1950. However, there was wide disagreement as to whether or not this poses a threat or how to deal with it.

                          Surveys of geoscientists consistently demonstrate that less than half think that human greenhouse gas emissions are the primary driver of recent climate variations.

                          However, science is not a democracy. The warming effect of greenhouse gases is logarithmic. Each doubling of the atmospheric concentration, leads to a linear warming trend. 30 years ago, the models assumed that each doubling of CO2 would yield 4.5 C of warming. These models proved to be totally wrong. Recent models put the climate sensitivity a about 3 C per doubling. These models have consistently overestimated the warming.

                          Recent observation-based estimates of climate sensitivity put the transient climate response (TCR) at less than 1.5 C and the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) at about 2 C. TCR is the important number. That is the warming that would occur in direct response to increasing CO2. The difference between TCR and ECS (~0.5 C) would occur over hundreds of years as carbon cycle returned to equilibrium.
                          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                            This bear has a problem with just right.

                            https://polarbearscience.com/2015/04...ence-suggests/
                            Now that is a paper with some real scientific content!
                            Battles are dangerous affairs... Wang Hsi

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                              Some "stuff spewed out by factories and vehicles accelerates the warming" and stuff spewed out by factories and vehicles accelerates the cooling.
                              Science is about measurement, not assumption.

                              There is an assumption in climate science that humans have far more effect on global heating than global cooling.

                              All measurements have noise. Given the natural variability of climate, and our general lack of understanding as to what drives those large fluctuations, we can't measure the TINY "net" human effect on the climate.

                              We can only measure the gross short term fluctuations and compare them to "time averaged proxy data".

                              *Proxy data is not a direct measurement for comparison.
                              *Time averaged is taking a 1000 years of average temperature and comparing it to a yearly average.

                              This is how you "lie" with statisitics.

                              --------

                              So, for the few of us scientists that dare to speak out with actual science (I have been verbally attacked by actual Ph.D. scientists because they couldn't refute my facts.) we are shouted down by those with an agenda.

                              Let us look at some actual facts:
                              *No one has ever died of "climate change" and if they have, you can't prove it. (You can't outrun the ocean rising at 3" per century?)

                              *CO2 stimulates plant growth. Green houses with supplemental CO2 are typically ~1300 pp which is 3x what the Earth's atmosphere is at. Every plant on Earth benefits from an increase in CO2. This helps feed humanity!!!


                              *A warmer Earth will further increase land accessibility (think Siberia and Canada) and create massive farming regions in Northern latitudes to feed the next 10's of billions of humans live on this planet.

                              *Would you prefer a mini-iceage instead, because some stupid humans try to manipulate our climate?

                              *25% of human produced CO2 if from humans BREATHING!

                              *100% of the rest of human produced CO2 is for HUMANS, so they can live and breed!

                              ***Are we really trying to save the planet???***

                              Oh, and another thing, H20 drives our climate. We live on a water world where climate is DEFINED by the amount of water. That is the difference between a desert climate and a tropical jungle.


                              Pour water on the desert and you get a golf course. THAT is climate change on a local scale. You can do it on the large scale as well. Try using CO2 to make a golf course in the desert!


                              Likewise, CO2 has 1000 times the warming effect on the planet than CO2 and human produce a LOT more water vapor (complete combustion produces 2xH20 per CO2).

                              ***However, H20 is not a Anthropogenic Greenhouse gas according to the IPCC.***

                              However, Methane of neglidgilble amounts, is a problem.

                              Hence the Hoax.
                              Battles are dangerous affairs... Wang Hsi

                              Comment


                              • ^^^
                                Mostly spot on.

                                However...
                                25% of human produced CO2 if from humans BREATHING!

                                When we burn fossil fuels, we are taking carbon out of geologic sequestration and putting it into the active carbon cycle. This does have a cumulative effect. Respiration does not.
                                Likewise, CO2 has 1000 times the warming effect on the planet than CO2 and human produce a LOT more water vapor (complete combustion produces 2xH20 per CO2).

                                I think you meant "H2O has 1000 times the warming effect on the planet than CO2."

                                Coal is carbon. When you oxidize coal, you get C02 and C (carbon dust). Impurities in the coal and steam from cooling do add some water vapor.

                                However, water vapor can become clouds, precipitation or hang around in the air as a GHG.

                                While CO2 and H2O are GHG's and human emissions do have an effect on the climate, there is no evidence that it is significant or that the climate is behaving any differently than it has over the last 2,000 years. And the Earth is currently cooler and more icy than most of the Holocene.

                                The crazy thing, is that the Warmunists generally reject the only viable pathway to low-carbon energy: Natural gas to nuclear power (N2N). Even if AGW was a serious problem, the Gorebots reject the only solution.
                                Last edited by The Doctor; 12 Dec 17, 10:40.
                                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X