Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global Warming a Hoax?

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

  • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    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
    I've noticed that you've highlighted elements to produce a different conclusion than the paper actually states .

    The paper actually states AGW is real, but not as great as the IPCC models predict.
    How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
    Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Pirate-Drakk View Post
      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.
      Excellent and what I've tried to express often, in this thread and similar ones.
      Too soon to rep you again, must spread more ...
      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 The Doctor View Post
        ^^^
        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.
        Also tend to overlook that increasing Flora biomass to recycle CO2 is a lot cheaper and more effective than emission reductions.

        BTW, a few decades back the major concern with carbon fuels, especially coal, was the Sulfur Dioxide(SO2)(cause of "acid rain") content in the smoke/flue going out the stacks. This resulted in efforts to use scrubbers to reduce the SO2, FGD;
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flue-gas_desulfurization
        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 Nick the Noodle View Post
          I've noticed that you've highlighted elements to produce a different conclusion than the paper actually states .

          The paper actually states AGW is real, but not as great as the IPCC models predict.
          This is a step back from claims in your earlier posts, but you may want to reread that conclusion closer.

          IPCC "models" more than doubled the effect of CO2 so either the IPCC engaged bad math or deliberate distortion.
          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 G David Bock View Post
            Also tend to overlook that increasing Flora biomass to recycle CO2 is a lot cheaper and more effective than emission reductions.
            Just pump it back into old oil fields.
            OCTOBER 31, 2017
            Petra Nova is one of two carbon capture and sequestration power plants in the world



            The Petra Nova facility, a coal-fired power plant located near Houston, Texas, is one of only two operating power plants with carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the world, and it is the only such facility in the United States. The 110 megawatt (MW) Boundary Dam plant in Saskatchewan, Canada, near the border with North Dakota, is the other electric utility facility using a CCS system.

            […]



            The carbon dioxide captured by Petra Nova’s system is then used in enhanced oil recovery at nearby oil fields. Enhanced oil recovery involves injecting water, chemicals, or gases (such as carbon dioxide) into oil reservoirs to increase the ability of oil to flow to a well.

            […]

            EIA

            The captured CO2 from Petra Nova is pipelined to West Ranch oil field…
            The CO2 captured from Petra Nova is used for EOR at the West Ranch Oil Field, which has increased oil production from 300 barrels per day when it began operations to about 4,000 barrels per day today.

            Petra Nova was selected as POWER magazine’s plant of the year for 2017.

            DOE

            3,700 bbl/day of increased oil production at $50/bbl is worth $67.5 million per year. They expect to ultimately bring production up to 15,000 bbl/day and recover about 60 million barrels of oil that would otherwise have been left in the ground.

            At $50/bbl, 60 million barrels is worth $3 billion. The entire cost of the project is estimated to be about $1 billion, (with the DOE (AKA taxpayers) chipping in $190 million). Better than 3:1 simple ROIC, not bad for a pilot project. NRG expects to be able to bring the cost down in the future.

            Currently, about 300,000 bbl/d of US oil production is due to CO2 EOR



            DOE estimates that CO2 EOR could recover about 85 billion barrels of oil from existing U.S. oil fields:






            Originally posted by G David Bock
            BTW, a few decades back the major concern with carbon fuels, especially coal, was the Sulfur Dioxide(SO2)(cause of "acid rain") content in the smoke/flue going out the stacks. This resulted in efforts to use scrubbers to reduce the SO2, FGD;
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flue-gas_desulfurization
            Sulfur aerosols, formed from SO2, are the "stuff spewed out by" power plants that accelerates cooling.
            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

            Comment


            • "Disaster" is a bit hyperbolic, premature, and politically charged term to describe the current CO2 situation with regards to "climate change", but still an interesting article on some "carbon capture" tech ...
              The Dirty Secret of the World’s Plan to Avert Climate Disaster

              https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/to...ge=BBGu7DI_1|1
              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 G David Bock View Post
                This is a step back from claims in your earlier posts, but you may want to reread that conclusion closer.

                IPCC "models" more than doubled the effect of CO2 so either the IPCC engaged bad math or deliberate distortion.
                My original reply quoted below, which is not a step back :

                Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View 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.
                The IPCC model is not totally correct, just as Newtons Laws are not totally correct. This does not make them fundamentally wrong, just a case of fine tuning being required.
                How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                Comment


                • Returning to the earlier pics of an allegedly starving polar bear and one allegedly stranded on an ice floe, it's pretty certain they were faked by the global-warming crowd, which brings me back to asking WHY did they fake the pics, what was their agenda and motive for lying to us like that?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Poor Old Spike View Post
                    Returning to the earlier pics of an allegedly starving polar bear and one allegedly stranded on an ice floe, it's pretty certain they were faked by the global-warming crowd, which brings me back to asking WHY did they fake the pics, what was their agenda and motive for lying to us like that?
                    They are convinced that global warming is such a severer threat to the planet, that lying is justified. It's just that most of them are so scientifically illiterate that they can't lie very well... like the DailyKos image of a penguin on an ice floe in the Arctic.

                    They also think that they have to terrify people in order to get them to pay attention:

                    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...or-humans.html

                    http://www.slate.com/articles/health...te_change.html

                    https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envir...oom-journalism

                    There's just no evidence that it is a serious problem or will become a serious problem in the near future. Almost all of the doomsday stories relate back to predictions made by climate models. Recent models are run with a range of "representative concentration pathways," RCP's...



                    Greenhouse gas emissions are tracking close to RCP6. Temperatures are tracking below RCP4.5. The doomsday predictions are almost always based on RCP8.5, a scenario which is pretty well physically impossible.
                    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                    Comment


                    • Edited post.
                      Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                      They are convinced that global warming is such a severer threat to the planet, that lying is justified.
                      DailyKos is about politics and not worth mentioning here on a science thread. They are truly awful. The fact they used a penguin on a icesheet in the North Pole means they want input from the extreme right, and only proves they are as bad as the mercenary climate skeptics employed by the fossil fuel industry.

                      However, back to the relevant paper at hand, what do you make of the fact these people produced a paper that dismisses its own claims. Was it an error? Either Wattsupwiththat agrees with AGW, didn't read the paper clearly enough, or tried to hide science with BS.

                      https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpr..._mcnider-1.pdf
                      How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                      Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                        The IPCC model is not totally correct,

                        just as Newtons Laws are not totally correct.

                        This does not make them fundamentally wrong, just a case of fine tuning being required.
                        Except that Newton's Laws got us to Luna and back and have been rigorously tested with scientific "experimentation".

                        There is no such thing as "experimental climate science" because you can't "poke" a planet and see what happens.

                        We have some significant observational data from one planet in the entire universe. We can barely measure the weather on other planets in our Solar System, and we have NO DATA on planets in other Solar Systems.

                        So, we basically have a graph with 1 data point. When you fit a curve to 1 data point, you can fit ANY curve. That is "climate science".


                        Make the curve fit the Socialist agenda!
                        Battles are dangerous affairs... Wang Hsi

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Poor Old Spike View Post
                          Returning to the earlier pics of an allegedly starving polar bear and one allegedly stranded on an ice floe, it's pretty certain they were faked by the global-warming crowd, which brings me back to asking WHY did they fake the pics, what was their agenda and motive for lying to us like that?
                          Taxes. Carbon Tax is a means of dispersing wealth from the rich oil/coal companies to government. It also provides leverage to create alternatives to oil/coal whether or not they are economically viable.

                          The level was once air pollution, that problem went away so now it's CO2 (in spite of the compelling effects of water).

                          This all leads to governmental control over industry, which is a precursor to creating a Socialist State.

                          USA or USSA? It's about 50/50 right now...
                          Battles are dangerous affairs... Wang Hsi

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Pirate-Drakk View Post
                            Except that Newton's Laws got us to Luna and back and have been rigorously tested with scientific "experimentation".

                            There is no such thing as "experimental climate science" because you can't "poke" a planet and see what happens.

                            We have some significant observational data from one planet in the entire universe. We can barely measure the weather on other planets in our Solar System, and we have NO DATA on planets in other Solar Systems.

                            So, we basically have a graph with 1 data point. When you fit a curve to 1 data point, you can fit ANY curve. That is "climate science".


                            Make the curve fit the Socialist agenda!
                            Talk about using a worn out method of repudiation .



                            Newton is not wrong, as my post clearly states, except at relativistic velocities. For some people, it appears that having another brain cell would make it lonely.
                            How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                            Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Pirate-Drakk View Post
                              Taxes. Carbon Tax is a means of dispersing wealth from the rich oil/coal companies to government. It also provides leverage to create alternatives to oil/coal whether or not they are economically viable.

                              The level was once air pollution, that problem went away so now it's CO2 (in spite of the compelling effects of water).

                              This all leads to governmental control over industry, which is a precursor to creating a Socialist State.

                              USA or USSA? It's about 50/50 right now...
                              Hmm...if the government is using the GW "myth" as an excuse to squeeze taxes from the big oil/coal companies, why don't the companies hit back by commissioning teams of scientists to prove it is just a myth?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Poor Old Spike View Post
                                Hmm...if the government is using the GW "myth" as an excuse to squeeze taxes from the big oil/coal companies, why don't the companies hit back by commissioning teams of scientists to prove it is just a myth?
                                Because they can't. Instead they use the same tactic, and in many cases, the same people, as the tobacco industry did. It worked for decades before, and has worked again.

                                The problem this time is that everyone is now effected.

                                Fortunately, the problem is not as great as the IPCC predicts, but the problem still remains that main is effecting the environment faster than very many species can cope with.
                                How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                                Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X