cobran20

Debunking The Man-Made Global Warming Myth Consensus

202 posts in this topic

5 hours ago, Solomon said:

I just wanted to ask what happened in the lead up to previous ice ages of planet earth. (I don't dispute their existence) How does any hot planet cool sufficiently to enter an ice age? Where does the heat go? I would have also thought this is not dependent upon the planet itself, but its external source of heat. In our case the sun. Wouldn't such previous periods  of heating and cooling have been dependent upon the activity, or lack of, of the sun.

Is the sun a constant, or is it, as I am led to believe, a dynamic heat/energy source, where the sun goes through periods of high and low activity?

 

At a guess I think you'll find the normal explanation is that yes the sun has differing outputs (and our own volcanic activity, ice coverage, plant coverage etc can also be a factor) and if you get lucky/unlucky earths climate is so complex and has so many different feedback loops you can get runaway feedbacks causing things like ice ages.

For example, Sun is a bit weak (output or our distance from the sun or something) at the same time there is increased volcanic activity, the reflective property of the earth changes to reflect more heat away from earth, temperatures drop enough that you get more ice forming which reflects more heat, sun goes back to normal but we are now stuck in a more reflective state which increases the ice and reflection and we get an ice age. Wait a while til you get the lucky event the other way and then the ice age goes away. Ice age goes away, heat increases, more water in the atmosphere from melting ice and plants go mental changing it all again.

Also I suspect we don't have to emit all the energy into space, we can turn it into stuff. You and I are walking wobbly bits of energy which mostly started from the sun, by storing the energy there is less heat available to the overall system I'd guess.

(none of the above is likely to be completely true, just vague recollections from primary school)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30 November 2016 at 8:17 PM, cobran20 said:

Nature magazine requires registration. So you can do that and then search for it.

In the meantime, the article seems to also have been published in The Cryosphere, which I understand to also be a reputable scientific journal.

The article you posted is a credible source so thanks for the link C. It doesn't refute global warming however. On the contrary, it states that sea ice has retreated by 0.41 degrees latitude since the 'heroic age'. It does infer that the predictive models for the antarctic aren't terribly accurate and says further work is needed. I don't see this as anything other than science once again being honest and providing those with an agenda using it as 'proof' that global warming isn't happening.

It is hypocritical to dismiss climate science as a government funded, left wing conspiracy and then use the same scientific research because it happens to point out uncertainty about models. Surely, if you slander climate science in general you can't use it to support your opinions? The same models are accurate in far more cases than not.

In any case, as paper points out the Antarctic sea ice is growing by ~7500 sq miles/km p/a as opposed to the Arctic shrinking by ~20000 sq miles/km p/a. A consistent net loss over the period. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1 December 2016 at 2:15 AM, tor said:

If my "seems" is incorrect please explain how your inability to just say yes or no is harder than your tortured phrasing and qualifications. What in the hell are you so afraid of that you can't just say "nah it's sh*t" and you always want weasel words so you can back out of anything? Scared your kids are going to find an archive of this in 30 years and you want to have the opportunity to say "but see I said I wasn't qualified to have an opinion so I just joined in to spread information"?

You make an excellent point tor. History will be the judge as it's such a slow moving train wreck that most of us will be long dead before the consequences are fully evident. I personally don't believe I'm chicken little and as far as I know you are in the same boat. I have no kids. I'm astounded that those that do aren't more concerned. Your bubble reference for the crazies puts me in mind of a whole bunch of people that expect to be protected from their own choices a la brexit and Trump. I understand the exasperation and the desire to blow things up but damn I didn't think it would come to a point where self interest would be so utterly sacrificed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1 December 2016 at 2:35 AM, AndersB said:

Here is the Nature paper:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature20136.html

Here is a key statement in the abstract:

"Here we show that the present thinning and retreat of Pine Island Glacier in West Antarctica is part of a climatically forced trend that was triggered in the 1940s"

In the article the authors state:

"This finding provided the first hint that the recent retreat could be part of a longer-term process that started decades or even centuries before satellite observations became available."

and

"Our core data—constraining the opening of an ocean cavity to 1945—provide the first quantitative support for the idea that the changes we observe currently in the Amundsen Sea were triggered by a climatic anomaly in the late 1930s to 1940s, a link that has, until now, remained largely speculative."

Anders is this a knockout blow? I can only see the abstract and I'm not paying 22 squid for one paper. I freely admit there's stuff we don't know. The equation is and always has been risk based. What if the overwhelming body of evidence is right? Boy are you guys going to look silly.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1 December 2016 at 9:51 AM, Solomon said:

And how do those who claim man-made gases were the culprits to the recent spike in global warming respond to that?

I have a couple of questions as well.

I notice that in the operation of my air conditioner and fridge; both of which are designed to cool temperatures, a large proportion of heat is produced. That heat has to be dispelled in order to gain and maintain the cold. I understand the earth emits infrared energy as a way of staying cool, otherwise our planet would simply get hotter and hotter.

I just wanted to ask what happened in the lead up to previous ice ages of planet earth. (I don't dispute their existence) How does any hot planet cool sufficiently to enter an ice age? Where does the heat go? I would have also thought this is not dependent upon the planet itself, but its external source of heat. In our case the sun. Wouldn't such previous periods  of heating and cooling have been dependent upon the activity, or lack of, of the sun.

Is the sun a constant, or is it, as I am led to believe, a dynamic heat/energy source, where the sun goes through periods of high and low activity?

What is the normal lag time for such events of the sun, for impact upon the earth? Days, weeks, months, years? Its only 8 minutes!!

Just pondering.

I guess that's me. Though tor gave a pretty good summary I have to add. 

There have been 5 ice ages. We're in one now and have been since about a couple of million years ago on a cycle of about 40000 years. The previous ice age was several hundred million years ago. The main drivers have been the gas content of the atmosphere sol. Which are influenced by the factors tor mentioned.

 The sun hits the earth and we reflect more or less heat based on whether we have 'greenhouse gases' in the atmosphere. (those that trap heat) CO2 is a major one but there are others. There are theories that when massive oxygen levels were achieved by a bunch of creatures pumping it out on a vast scale back in the day that life was 'allowed' to evolve. The history of the earth in a post. Dragonflies with 4 foot wing spans. If you think that climate science is uncertain try looking back through time...

We have been pumping out a lot CO2 since the industrial revolution in the time between glaciations than we have ever done. It's not the levels that will cause extinctions. Life will survive. It's gone through worse. It's the rate of change which is worrisome. See previous post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, staringclown said:

Anders is this a knockout blow? I can only see the abstract and I'm not paying 22 squid for one paper. I freely admit there's stuff we don't know. The equation is and always has been risk based. What if the overwhelming body of evidence is right? Boy are you guys going to look silly.

 

 

We may look silly if we're wrong. But if we're right, those who squandered squillions on a bogus theory should be hanged for the opportunity cost of all that wasted money. As I said before, those least able to afford the extra cost will be the most impacted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cobran20 said:

We may look silly if we're wrong. But if we're right, those who squandered squillions on a bogus theory should be hanged for the opportunity cost of all that wasted money. As I said before, those least able to afford the extra cost will be the most impacted.

 

 

So it's war, famine, pestilence and mass migration of those that can least afford it versus developing alternative energy sources that we'll need when the fossil fuels run out anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, staringclown said:

 

 

So it's war, famine, pestilence and mass migration of those that can least afford it versus developing alternative energy sources that we'll need when the fossil fuels run out anyway?

exactly how many centuries in the future before we run out of those fossil fuels and how many technological changes in between until the fossil fuels are no longer available?

This concept of running out of energy has been spouted forever, only to be proven false each time by technological changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/12/2016 at 2:26 PM, cobran20 said:

exactly how many centuries in the future before we run out of those fossil fuels and how many technological changes in between until the fossil fuels are no longer available?

This concept of running out of energy has been spouted forever, only to be proven false each time by technological changes.

So we should stop subsidising those technological advances and finally prove the doomsday prophesies correct. Righto, it is about time the "keep the status quo" guys got a win. Been a hard decade for them so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/12/2016 at 7:44 AM, cobran20 said:

Seriously Tor, you need help. Since I presume you're in Japan, try here for a start.

Still won't answer a pretty simple question then I guess. No issues. Should we treat your inability to answer a simple question "Do you think global climate change is happening and exacerbated because of human activity?" as being worse than the alcoholism you ascribe to me?

Personally I'd prefer to be accused of a being an alcoholic than being unable to state my opinion on something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, tor said:

Still won't answer a pretty simple question then I guess. No issues. Should we treat your inability to answer a simple question "Do you think global climate change is happening and exacerbated because of human activity?" as being worse than the alcoholism you ascribe to me?

Personally I'd prefer to be accused of a being an alcoholic than being unable to state my opinion on something.

I have answered your simple question in a straightforward, simple manner ... multiple times. Just read the latest here.

If you can't understand my response, then perhaps comprehension classes may help.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, tor said:

So we should stop subsidising those technological advances and finally prove the doomsday prophesies correct. Righto, it is about time the "keep the status quo" guys got a win. Been a hard decade for them so far.

technological advances that are worthwhile stand on their own merit without endless government assistance. When the energy source moved from steam to the internal combustion motor, how much in government subsidy monies were sunk?

Wind and solar, after all this time & money, are still complementary sources of energy. South Australia is testament to that. Without fossil fuel backup, the state is cactus.

If NSW choose to go that way, there will be a shortage of portable, backup generators!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, cobran20 said:

technological advances that are worthwhile stand on their own merit without endless government assistance. When the energy source moved from steam to the internal combustion motor, how much in government subsidy monies were sunk?

 

Does building all the roads and highways count as government monies being sunk into a project? I'd say yes (the cars needed them, the government paid).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, tor said:

Does building all the roads and highways count as government monies being sunk into a project? I'd say yes (the cars needed them, the government paid).

They are also a one-off cost, mostly known ahead. Subsidies are supposed to be for a finite period, to get an industry started. With alternate energies, it has been provided long past when the industry was in its infancy. It has been like the car industry - a bottomless hole for tax payers monies to be lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cobran20 said:

They are also a one-off cost, mostly known ahead. Subsidies are supposed to be for a finite period, to get an industry started. With alternate energies, it has been provided long past when the industry was in its infancy. It has been like the car industry - a bottomless hole for tax payers monies to be lost.

So you'll be happy to see the back of fuel rebates, tax cuts for exploration, government loans to the tune of 4 billion a year?

If we actually got the coal industry to pay for the negative externalities they produce like health costs and air pollution (aside from the C02) you'd be OK with that?

They're not an industry in their infancy. They're 250 years old and should be able to stand on their own two feet correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, staringclown said:

So you'll be happy to see the back of fuel rebates, tax cuts for exploration, government loans to the tune of 4 billion a year?

If we actually got the coal industry to pay for the negative externalities they produce like health costs and air pollution (aside from the C02) you'd be OK with that?

They're not an industry in their infancy. They're 250 years old and should be able to stand on their own two feet correct?

No argument from me. Remove all subsidies and let the most cost effective, reliable source of energy stand on its own. The market will quickly make that decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/2/2016 at 11:57 AM, staringclown said:

Anders is this a knockout blow? I can only see the abstract and I'm not paying 22 squid for one paper. I freely admit there's stuff we don't know. The equation is and always has been risk based. What if the overwhelming body of evidence is right? Boy are you guys going to look silly.

No, I don't think it is a knockout blow.

My general views on climate change are:

  • Naturally, climate changes all the time - nobody in their right mind can dispute that. Just look at all the ice ages throughout history
  • The anthropogenic component of climate change is uncertain. It could be a lot - or it could be insignificant. It is strange that there is so little research done on establishing the size of this component.
  • The relationship between CO2 and global warming is not linear. There are feedback loops and second (and further) order effects - both amplifying and stabilising global temperatures that make the relationship complex.
  • This makes the lag relationship between CO2 and global temperatures also a complex thing. There are different lag effects for different time scales.
  • Most predictions of climate models have failed, and are increasingly divergent with measured data
  • New models will be better

In summary - climate is a very, very complex system and can exhibit some quite surprising effects in short, medium, and long term timescales.

Edited by AndersB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Investing in solving a problem which if it does exist is potentially super catastrophic and if it doesn't we get cool sh*t (or all die anyway) seems the best bet to me in such a scenario.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, tor said:

Investing in solving a problem which if it does exist is potentially super catastrophic and if it doesn't we get cool sh*t (or all die anyway) seems the best bet to me in such a scenario.

 

I doubt those struggling to pay their energy bills or the unemployed miners share your sentiment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, tor said:

Investing in solving a problem which if it does exist is potentially super catastrophic and if it doesn't we get cool sh*t (or all die anyway) seems the best bet to me in such a scenario.

As an engineer, I would of course be keen for transferring a lot of funding from climate science research (some has been dodgy) and allocate the money to more engineering research for mitigation and renewable energy. In my view, apart from the pollution aspects of oil consumption, there are just way too many wars being fought over oil and the sooner we can stop depending on that stuff the better.

Good luck getting support for that!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-11/csiro-boss-larry-marshall-defends-controversial-shake-up/7157650

We need more solutions and less argy-bargy about global climate chaotic systems hypotheses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something that got my attention - if you look at this graph of Global Land–Ocean Temperature Index (published on wikipedia so I can't vouch for the accuracy), there was a sharp spike around the mid 1940's, followed by a sharp drop. So what caused that sharp spike - man made events or just a cycle in nature? If this was a stock chart, the current rate of climb is strongly suggesting another spike blowoff top like the mid 1940's, followed by a dramatic fall.

Also that graph show 1910 as being one of the coldest years, yet glaciers were melting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2016 at 8:59 PM, cobran20 said:

How you like to misquote Tor. I've consistently said that whilst I'm not a scientific expert on the matter, I have my serious doubts. I personally have not seen an increase in the heat in Australia over the last 40 years or so. The local expert (Tim Flannery) has had enough egg on his face regarding his predictions to make an omelette to feed an army. I also can't help noticing that many of the climate alarm organisations receive government monies for funding. So it pays to keep the concern! As a contrarian, I expect the sheeple will have been conned. If so, it will come at a major cost of wasted funds.

What a surprise! So has Sydney really been suffering from global warming in between?

Sydney weather: Coming hot spell to nudge records not seen since the 1970s

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

report shows green levies backed by government will cost the economy £319bn by 2030

Quote

...despite years of promises by Labour, Coalition and Tory governments, the radical shift to ‘green’ renewable energy will have cost the economy £319 billion by 2030 – three times the annual NHS budget for England.
Instead of cutting energy bills, the policy will be adding an average burden of £584 a year to every household by 2020, and £875 by 2030. Yet this is only the start. By 2050, green energy policy will be costing every household £1,390 a year, based on 2014 prices.
The report’s calculations are derived entirely from official figures issued by Government departments and the Office for Budget Responsibility. They reveal for the first time the true cost of levies on bills to fund the shift to renewable energy....

Quote

...New official data issued by the Met Office confirms that world average temperatures have plummeted since the middle of the year at a faster and steeper rate than at any time in the recent past.
The huge fall follows a report by this newspaper that temperatures had cooled after a record spike. Our story showed that these record high temperatures were triggered by naturally occurring but freak conditions caused by El Nino – and not, as had been previously suggested, by the cumulative effects of man-made global warming....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30 November 2016 at 7:59 AM, cobran20 said:

I personally have not seen an increase in the heat in Australia over the last 40 years or so.

Why would you as a human notice? You can move into air con. You're like the apocryphal "boiling frog". Other species are noticing. Plenty of interest in Tasmanian vineyards for example. Apparently, the cool climate wines are ripening two weeks earlier each year. 

Quote

In Victoria, where it's warm, we are up in the mountains getting up towards snow country and that's about as cool as it gets on the mainland.

"And yet we are still being pressured by warming conditions, every year we find the fruit is getting riper a couple of weeks earlier.

"We wanted to find a cooler site, we looked throughout Victoria and finished up in Tasmania."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now