The Problem With Science: It's Not Credible

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Please give feedback on your view of the politics.

He doesn't see it as political. But when their solution is to tax people I really have to wonder.

 

How is taxing some one a solution to "climate change".

 

I even gave them the benefit of the doubt that GW is happening just as they claim. What is the solution? They don't really have one.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[ERayR]

 

I care about serious scientific research. I was a CO2 caused skeptic, but the evidence forced me to changed my mind.

I don't care about feeling warm and fuzzy, what about you?

 

 

Sure, I voted for Mitt in 2012, I am not a Democrat. I am independent, but I don't mix science and politics.

The skeptics always talk about the politics, not me. 

 

 

I don't care about Al Gore, in fact I disagree with him because he exaggerated the Global Warming effects.  

 

What if you are wrong? Are you open to that possibility? 

 

In 1896, Dr. Svante Arrhenius demonstrated CO2 caused global warming to be plausible. 

In the 1950s, important papers where published 

 

"Effect of carbon dioxide variations on climate" GN Pass - American Journal of PHysics, 1956

""Carbon dioxide exchanged between atmosphere and ocean and the question of an increase of atmospheric CO2 during the past decades" R Revelle 1957

and a lot more 

 

Here is a 1958 video about Global Warming 

 

 

1) The evidence forced nothing.  It was the interpretation of the data that you chose to accept that drives your obsession.

 

2)  Global climate change is all about mixing science with politics so don't blow your wacky smoke at me.

 

3)  Is that video peer reviewed?

Edited March 25, 2015 by ERayR

[gclayjr]

I FOUND IT!

 

I think I should get a Nobel Prize. Global Warming is caused by the number of Mormon Church Members!

 

 

Regards,

 

George Clay

 

 

 

[pogi]

If you would bother to understand what I am trying to tell you, the NASA chart is about the ocean-land temperatures. 

Your were talking about the air surface temperatures when you said, "You will also see that there has been no global warming for the past 18 years" 

 

 

No, I cited 3 scientific papers that researched the scientific literature, I proved that there is no significant debate. 

 

 

I did know of the few papers that challenge global warming, but the papers are not successful because they did not pass the test of time

None of your papers offer a new theory that explains all the data. 

 

 

"clearly"? Now you are talking with 100% certainty. 

It is true that solar cycles have affected temperatures in the past, but it is currently not the case. Solar cycle length as a proxy for solar activity tells us the sun has had very little contribution to global warming since 1975.  I keep telling you that your "no warming for the past 18 years" for air surface temperatures challenges your solar cycle theory, why are you ignoring that? 

 

Read, they do cite the scientific literature, and please check it. 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycles-global-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycle-length.htm

 

 

CountryBoy,

I think it is good to point out that most pseudoscience creationists are also global warming skeptics. 

 

 

Yes, I am watching it, they are talking about the "importance" of internet blogs, why don't they talk about the scientific literature? 

I will like to see them debate climate researchers, because I think their "evidence" is out of context as usual. 

 

"John Casey and Craig Rucker Debunk The Hoax" there is no room for that title in a scientific debate, where is the open mind? 

The first speaker is not a climate researcher, I will not be surprise if no one is. 

 

 

 

thesometimesaint, 

 

Nice link, but many here already decided that the consensus is wrong before reading the scientific literature. 

For many, blogs are far more important.  

 

So much to respond to, so little time.

 

You keep accusing me of posting a chart that only included "air temperatures".  That simply is not true, READ THE TITLE OF THE CHART I POSTED.  It corresponds with NASA's chart here:

 

 

 

The last 18 years has shown no mean global increase in temperature.  The warming that we have seen since the 1900's corresponds with the solar cycles.  Look at the chart from the ice caps.  The recent warming is entirely predictable and not out-of-the-ordinary, but corresponds to natural cycles. 

 

You said that the first speaker in the video (John Casey) is not a climate researcher.  Are you sure you are watching the right video?

Mr. John L. Casey is a former White House space program advisor, consultant to NASA Headquarters, and a senior field engineer on the Space Shuttle program. He is one of America’s most successful climate change researchers and climate prediction experts.  He has published peer reviewed climate articles about solar cycles in journals.  Guess what - he predicted that the temperature would stop climbing when it did.  It corresponds perfectly to the 206 year bicentennial cycle.  There are at least 73 researchers with 40 peer reviewed papers that have similar conclusions in regards to the effects of the 206 year solar cycle minimum. Sixteen separate scientists predicted the coming cold period.

 

Casey says that the changes are cyclical and predictable with better than 90% accuracy, whereas the climate models that predicted rising temperatures due to increasing levels of greenhouse gasses have already failed because they did not predict the current pause in the warming trend, while he did by watching the sun and its historical cycles. 

 

P.S.

No, I cited 3 scientific papers that researched the scientific literature, I proved that there is no significant debate. 

 

 

That is a crock.  Why is there no debate, because a global warming enthusiasts wrote a paper telling you that there is no debate?  Can't you do your own research and make your own conclusions?   Reading 3 papers from global warming enthusiasts who tells you that there is "nothing behind the curtain", does not qualify as researching both sides.  You are being fed whatever they want you to hear and have not researched the other side at all.  That is blind trust.  Have you watched all the videos yet?

Edited March 25, 2015 by pogi

[pogi]

Don't be fooled by the chart above.  To the undiscerning eye and lay person, it would appear as if global warming is obviously happening.  Just look how much the temp has gone up from the early 1900's!!!  Misleading politicians and scientists only show you that chart without the context of history.

 

Here is what the ice caps have shown us:

 

 

Do you see a trend?

 

Which way are we beginning to trend?  And we are still 4 degrees centigrade cooler than previous peaks in history.  That means that if our earth warms up 4 degrees centigrade, it still would not be unusual.  Misleading scientists and politicians would have you believe that it is the end of the world.

 

How far do we have to drop before we hit the bottom of the trend.  Look at the past. That is like a 10 degree celsius drop we are facing.

 

From this perspective, I don't see any signs of unusual warming or upward trend.

 

All I can say is that I hope C02 will warm us up a little, because that looks cold!

 

Guess what else this shows?  C02 has never driven climate change in the history of the planet

Edited March 25, 2015 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

There has been no pause in Global Warming.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/has-global-warming-paused/

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

There has been no pause in Global Warming.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/has-global-warming-paused/

Nope, none at all. Convincing. I wonder who really is the ostrich here? 0 response to what Pogi just posted. Just a website, that if I did bother wasting my time to read I bet it would not even address what Pogi posted. Why don't you actually try posting the parts you think rebut his point rather than just a website.

[pogi]

There has been no pause in Global Warming.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/has-global-warming-paused/

 

Yes there is a pause.  You can't use a chart to "prove" that global warming is real, then dismiss the very same chart when it doesn't do what you predicted it would.

 

You really believe that increased C02 in the atmosphere is going to warm the ocean at depths "below 2,300 feet" below the surface with no change in surface temperature whatsoever?  Is this a joke?  I thought C02 was supposed to "trap" heat in the atmosphere, not 2,300 feet below the surface of the ocean.  This is getting ridiculous the excuses they come up with.  The fact is, they can't explain the pause in temperature climb.  Their models did not predict it, but John Casey's model did predict it.  Give him some credit.

 

Do a simple experiment - put a heat lamp over a large tub of water.  If the water warms up from the bottom with no temperature change on the top, I will give you 1 million dollars. 

Edited March 25, 2015 by pogi

[ERayR]

 

So much to respond to, so little time.

 

You keep accusing me of posting a chart that only included "air temperatures".  That simply is not true, READ THE TITLE OF THE CHART I POSTED.  It corresponds with NASA's chart here:

 

 

 

The last 18 years has shown no mean global increase in temperature.  The warming that we have seen since the 1900's corresponds with the solar cycles.  Look at the chart from the ice caps.  The recent warming is entirely predictable and not out-of-the-ordinary, but corresponds to natural cycles. 

 

You said that the first speaker in the video (John Casey) is not a climate researcher.  Are you sure you are watching the right video?

Mr. John L. Casey is a former White House space program advisor, consultant to NASA Headquarters, and a senior field engineer on the Space Shuttle program. He is one of America’s most successful climate change researchers and climate prediction experts.  He has published peer reviewed climate articles about solar cycles in journals.  Guess what - he predicted that the temperature would stop climbing when it did.  It corresponds perfectly to the 206 year bicentennial cycle.  There are at least 73 researchers with 40 peer reviewed papers that have similar conclusions in regards to the effects of the 206 year solar cycle minimum. Sixteen separate scientists predicted the coming cold period.

 

Casey says that the changes are cyclical and predictable with better than 90% accuracy, whereas the climate models that predicted rising temperatures due to increasing levels of greenhouse gasses have already failed because they did not predict the current pause in the warming trend, while he did by watching the sun and its historical cycles. 

 

P.S.

 

That is a crock.  Why is there no debate, because a global warming enthusiasts wrote a paper telling you that there is no debate?  Can't you do your own research and make your own conclusions?   Reading 3 papers from global warming enthusiasts who tells you that there is "nothing behind the curtain", does not qualify as researching both sides.  You are being fed whatever they you want you to hear and have not researched the other side at all.  That is blind trust.  Have you watched all the videos yet?

 

 

I would make one correction.  Hope it meets your approval.

Edited March 26, 2015 by ERayR

[ERayR]

There has been no pause in Global Warming.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/has-global-warming-paused/

 

Still with the inane websites and videos. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

You said that the first speaker in the video (John Casey) is not a climate researcher.  Are you sure you are watching the right video?

Mr. John L. Casey is a former White House space program advisor, consultant to NASA Headquarters, and a senior field engineer on the Space Shuttle program. He is one of America’s most successful climate change researchers and climate prediction experts.  He has published peer reviewed climate articles about solar cycles in journals.  Guess what - he predicted that the temperature would stop climbing when it did.  It corresponds perfectly to the 206 year bicentennial cycle.  There are at least 73 researchers with 40 peer reviewed papers that have similar conclusions in regards to the effects of the 206 year solar cycle minimum. Sixteen separate scientists predicted the coming cold period.

 

Casey is a retired engineer, having worked on the space shuttle at NASA for most of his career. Post-retirement, he now describes himself as a climatologist, claiming on his website that he is "one of America's most successful climate change researchers and climate prediction experts." Luongo parroted that line, word-for-word, without attribution, in his "newsletter." So, what is Casey's claim to fame in the realm of climatology? That the sun exhibits cycles of activity. No. Really. That is Casey's main thesis from his 2008 paper "The existence of relational cycles of solar activity on a multidecadal to centennial scale as significant models of climate change on Earth." Casey makes the claim that his paper was peer-reviewed but a quick search for the paper title and author on Google Scholar shows that it has never been published anywhere other than his own website. A quick review of his website shows that this is the only formal paper Casey has written on the subject beyond various "Global Climate Status Reports" available for $8.95. Looking at the free summaries of his status reports shows that they're largely a continuation of claims made in his 2008 paper. Casey used a C14 calibration curve from Reimer et al. (2004) as a proxy for solar activity, analyzed it for cycles in an unspecified way, then eyeballed the graph to find the local minima that matched the cycles he found. He then eyeballed graphs of HadCRUT3 (AD 1860-2000, his Figure 5), continental US temperatures from NOAA (AD 1895-2006, Figure 6), and mainland Chinese temperatures from 1 BC to AD 2000 (Casey's Figure 7, Yang et al. 2002) for local minima. He then presented the results of that "analysis" in Table 2 on page 5. Here is his table:

 

 

Taking just the data in Table 2, Casey computed the correlation between temperature lows and solar activity, finding that there was a high correlation between the two. On the basis of the computed correlation and the cycles he found in solar activity, Casey then predicted that a) solar activity is entering a new low starting with cycle 24 which will b) cause global temperatures to plummet by 1 to 1.5ºC by AD 2031. Unfortunately for his "theory," Casey ignores multiple problems with his analysis. First, continental China, which he used for temperatures back to 1 BC, does not represent the entire planet anymore than the continental US or central England represents the entire planet. The only global temperature data set he used started in 1850—meaning that he doesn't have global temperatures before then. So really, his global analysis covered only the last 150 years of his time period. Before that his analysis just covered a single country. That makes me question his 4A point in his Table 2, as it occurred decades before either of the two data sets (HadCRUT3, USA) he used began. Second, his own Table 2 reveals that there are multiple instances when temperatures bottomed out before solar activity did (e.g. 3, 4B, 6, 7, 8, 13) or that temperatures rose before the solar minimum ended (e.g. the Maunder Minimum (5) and the Wolf Minimum ( 8 ) ). That means his supposed cause came after its supposed effect. Third, his correlation calculation on page 5 is a joke. He totaled the number of solar minima (N), then counted the number of temperature minima which (approximately) coincided with those minima ®, then calculated the correlation as R/N = 0.93. However, as I noted above, there are 6 instances where the effect (temperature) was first, which is impossible. Using N = 13 (removing 4A due to the fact it comes before his data sets began), that means R = 7, which means that R/N would be 0.54, far below his calculated value. To get a value of 0.93 given N = 14, R must equal 13, so he included most of the instances where his proposed effect came before his proposed cause. Completely bogus. If you want to calculate the correlation between two variables, you use linear or nonlinear regression to calculate the correlation between the entirety of both data sets, not just timing of the local minima. Fourth, Casey ignored all the research published by 2008 that showed that the current global warming is not due to the sun (e.g. Meehl et al. 2004, Solanki et al. 2004, Usoskin et al. 2005, Scafetta and West 2006, Ammann et al. 2007, Lockwood and Fröhlich 2007, Lean and Rind 2008). He didn't even acknowledge any of those papers which makes me wonder if he bothered to read of any of those papers. Last, he gives no indication how he concluded that a drop in solar activity starting in cycle 24 would cause global temperatures to drop by 1 to 1.5ºC by AD 2031. No calculations, no models, nothing. No way to double check his conclusion. Not only are his conclusions uncheckable, his conclusion was debunked by Fuelner and Rahmstorf (2010), who found that a new Maunder Minimum over the next century would have little effect on global temperatures, cutting only 0.3ºC of an expected increase of 4ºC. Given that I've already published my own analysis of where temperatures are headed by 2030, we'll get to see who is correct.

 

In short, Casey's main "analysis" is a joke, much as the rest of the "science" Tom Luongo claimed to learn from him.

Edited March 26, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

The graph below, which is based on ice core data, shows CO2 concentrations and temperature from 400,000 years ago to the present. You can't see the 1°F to 3°F differences in global temperature that we are concerned with today because the temperature estimates shown in this graph are local for Antarctica, which has experienced less warming than the global average. Still, it shows that temperature has varied greatly over time, and this variation is strongly correlated with CO2 concentrations.

Data Sources for CO2: Vostok ice core, Law Dome ice core, and Mauna Loa air samples.

Data Source for Temperature: Vostok ice core.

The major dips in the graph are ice ages, caused by shifts in the Earth's orbit around the sun. The warming from the change in how sunlight hits the Earth is amplified by an increase in CO2 concentration. The sequence goes like this:

1. Orbital changes trigger an initial, relatively small temperature change on Earth.
2. Melting permafrost and other changes caused by the warming release CO2 into the atmosphere.
3. Since CO2 is a greenhouse gas, increased CO2 concentrations cause more global warming.

You also can see smaller ups and downs before modern times. These were caused primarily by variations in solar output and volcanic activity.

Now look at CO2 and temperature in the recent past – the far right of the graph. See how CO2 is rocketing up, and higher today than it's been in the last 400,000 years? Actually, CO2 concentrations are higher today than they've been in the last 650,000 years – this graph just doesn't go back that far.

Let's focus in on more recent history so we can get a better look. The graph below zooms in on just the last 1000 years, using temperatures for the whole Northern Hemisphere, not just Antarctica.

Data Sources for CO2: Law Dome ice core and Mauna Loa air samples.

[pogi]

TheSkepticChristian,

 

Thanks for the analysis.  It is good to speak with someone who actually is willing to research both sides (or perhaps you are only researching someone else's research of the opposing view - I can't tell).  You can say what you want about Casey's credentials, but "there are at least 73 researchers with 40 peer reviewed papers that have similar conclusions in regards to the effects of the 206 year solar cycle minimum. Sixteen separate scientists predicted the coming cold period."  I believe that longview posted some of that research on post #417.

 

Given that I've already published my own analysis of where temperatures are headed by 2030, we'll get to see who is correct.

 

 

Are you a climate researcher?  Where are your predictions published?

 

Another thing to consider in regards to Casey - The global warming promoters' (scientist's) models failed to predict the pause in temperature climb over the last 18 years.  They are now trying to recalibrate everything and figure out where the heat is going, while Casey's model was successful in predicting it, along with those 17 other scientists.  That says something, no?  Their models simply failed, leading one to question the actual, and not theorized, sensitivity and correlation of C02 to global temps. 

 

Regarding the ice-caps chart. You mention that there is a "correlation" between temps and C02.  Correct.  Just what is that correlation?  The correlation is that temperature changes have historically preceded changes in C02 by hundreds of years.  As you say, orbits around the sun cause drops, and rises in temperature.   These orbits and solar phenomenon are the dominant trend setters in global temperature.  These temperature changes don't seem to be effected by the C02 AT ALL.  At the peaks, the temperatures reach a point and start to drop, despite the ever climbing C02.  At the bottom, the temperature changes start to climb, despite the ever falling C02 levels.  This proves that temp is more affected by the sun and our relation to it, than C02.  The orbits cause peaks and valleys like giant ocean waves, while C02 might cause small ripples.  That's what the charts show. 

 

While the chart might be for Antartica only.  The solar orbits which caused the peaks and valleys in Antartica would cause a world-wide effect, as Antartica does not orbit independent of the rest of the globe.  Follow the trend on that chart.  Which way is the temperature trending?  Clearly it has a strong trend downward, despite the skyrocketing C02. It appears to me that we are headed for a 10-15 degree dip over the next several thousand years.  It appears that we have reached the point of no return.  If anything, C02 might counter balance that severe drop over time.  That would be a good thing in my book.  But who knows, it is evident that global temps are not as sensitive to atmospheric C02 as previously thought. 

 

Finally, the last chart you posted is misleading and doesn't tell me much.  The temperature graph and the C02 graph are not calibrated the same to make it appear as if the temp is following the C02.  Also, with the industrial revolution, we have obviously artificially increased atmospheric C02 beyond what would naturally occur.  So it WILL appear as if C02 is leading any increase in temperature because C02 is always climbing, but that is not necessarily the case and cannot be proven.  Any natural increase in temp caused by the sun will appear to be "caused" by C02, but there is no way to demonstrate that.  One thing is sure, the temperatures have not been following the C02 for the last 18 years.  This coincides perfectly with Casey's predictions however. 

Edited March 26, 2015 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

I FOUND IT!

 

I think I should get a Nobel Prize. Global Warming is caused by the number of Mormon Church Members!

 

 

Regards,

 

George Clay

Ice core samples show that we are going back to the way the climate was 11 thousand years ago, warmer than today. That period was caused by all those Jaredites driving to church all the time. It is a proven fact.

[TheSkepticChristian]

 I believe that longview posted some of that research on post #417.

 

The first two in the list 

 

Dr Abdussamatov’s stature is of importance to deniers. Even the denier ‘pal-review’ online ‘science’ journal Principia Scientific International admits Principia Scientific International has already issued a correction saying that in fact “Dr Abdussamatov is actually head of space research of the Sun Sector at the Polkovo Observatory and head of the Selenometria project on the Russian segment of the International Space Station.

 

David Archibald, Geology BA [so technically a scientist] Australia. Geologist with Summa Development Limited. Associated with Australia’s Lavoisier Group, which was established specifically to be skeptical of climate change. The group receives funding from the coal and oil industry. He believes the ‘sun wot dun it’- has written papers that cite each other- “Solar Cycles 24 and 25 and Predicted Climate Response” in Energy and Environment in 2006 , considered to be the worst paper in scientific history [link] uses a few temperature locations and in one case just one that just happen to correlate to solar variance and then uses this as proof that the world is cooling. Energy and Environment Journal is supposedly a peer reviewed science journal yet is not rated internationally and the publication of choice for sceptics who can’t find a proper journal to publish their work

 

 

One thing is sure, the temperatures have not been following the C02 for the last 18 years.  This coincides perfectly with Casey's predictions however. 

 

The answer is into the deep oceans. Here is a graphic showing where the heat is currently going From Nuccitelli et.al (2012)

The way heat moves in the deep oceans is not well understood. Improvements in measurement techniques have allowed scientists to more accurately gauge the amount of energy the oceans are absorbing.

The Earth’s climate is a complex system, acting in ways we can’t always predict. The energy that man-made CO2 is adding to the climate is not currently showing up as surface warming, because most of the heat is going into the oceans. Currently, the heat is moving downwards from the ocean surface to deeper waters. The surface gets cooler, humidity reduces (water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas), and air temperatures go down.

The rate at which surface temperatures go up is not proportional to the rate of CO2emissions, but to the total amount of atmospheric CO2 added since the start of theindustrial revolution. Only by looking at long-term trends - 30 years is the standard period in climate science - can we measure surface temperature increases accurately, and distinguish them from short-term natural variation.

[longview]

TheSkepticChristian,

 

- - -

   - - - So it WILL appear as if C02 is leading any increase in temperature because C02 is always climbing, but that is not necessarily the case and cannot be proven.  Any natural increase in temp caused by the sun will appear to be "caused" by C02, but there is no way to demonstrate that.  One thing is sure, the temperatures have not been following the C02 for the last 18 years.  This coincides perfectly with Casey's predictions however. 

 

Interesting points but could not astronomers precisely measure the output of the sun on a continual basis?  Most light will pass through the atmosphere to the ground (ocean) without being absorbed by the atmosphere.  Only after hitting the ground (ocean) do some of the light convert to heat (infrared radiation), some of which is absorbed by greenhouse gasses and the rest are reflected to outer space.  The amount of light falling on land, atmosphere (with or without clouds, visible or nonvisible water vapors), and oceans could be determined.  Three things can happen:  1- absorption into land or ocean, 2- reflected back into outer space, and/or 3 - trapped by gasses in the atmosphere.

 

I have read somewhere that CO2 can only adsorb radiant heat up to a certain point then the rest escapes into outer space.  It is strange to me that no mention (or very little) is made of water vapor that has the ability to retain radiant heat many times greater than CO2.

[thesometimesaint]

Yes there is a pause.  You can't use a chart to "prove" that global warming is real, then dismiss the very same chart when it doesn't do what you predicted it would.

 

You really believe that increased C02 in the atmosphere is going to warm the ocean at depths "below 2,300 feet" below the surface with no change in surface temperature whatsoever?  Is this a joke?  I thought C02 was supposed to "trap" heat in the atmosphere, not 2,300 feet below the surface of the ocean.  This is getting ridiculous the excuses they come up with.  The fact is, they can't explain the pause in temperature climb.  Their models did not predict it, but John Casey's model did predict it.  Give him some credit.

 

Do a simple experiment - put a heat lamp over a large tub of water.  If the water warms up from the bottom with no temperature change on the top, I will give you 1 million dollars. 

 

I actually like your experiment. You are starting to sound like a non scientist thinks a scientist sounds like. That's a big improvement, and I admire your bravado in wanting to give me $1 million if I somehow prove your experiment.

 

Unfortunately how science really works is to try to duplicate as much as possible large scale effects from small scale experiments. So to be accurate you'll have to duplicate the natural environment, as much as possible. You will have to change that tub to a circulating one (Ocean currents), and put a nice blanket (CO2 )  over that tub, with a fan to move the air( Wind currents) around.

SEE http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/11/17708881-where-did-global-warming-go-the-deep-ocean-experts-say?lite

 

Really, I don't want your money but an acknowledgement of your error will suffice.

[pogi]

I actually like your experiment. You are starting to sound like a non scientist thinks a scientist sounds like. That's a big improvement, and I admire your bravado in wanting to give me $1 million if I somehow prove your experiment.

 

Unfortunately how science really works is to try to duplicate as much as possible large scale effects from small scale experiments. So to be accurate you'll have to duplicate the natural environment, as much as possible. You will have to change that tub to a circulating one (Ocean currents), and put a nice blanket (CO2 )  over that tub, with a fan to move the air( Wind currents) around.

SEE http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/11/17708881-where-did-global-warming-go-the-deep-ocean-experts-say?lite

 

Really, I don't want your money but an acknowledgement of your error will suffice.

 

Unfortunately, ocean currents cannot explain the "deep-sea warming".  There has been no shift or change in currents so we can exclude that variable completely as a contributing factor.  What is their theory for how the deep sea  (2000 + feet below the surface) suddenly started warming -  shifts in surface winds.  

 

D.H. Douglas and R.S. Knox of the Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY published a paper in The International Journal of Geosciences, 2010, vol. 1, no. 3 (November) stating that there is no "missing energy", the deep sea is not warming. PDF (119 K) - Scientific Research Publishing or http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf

There is also this about Nuccitelli: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/25/dana-nuccitelli-misleads-and-misinforms-in-his-first-blog-post-at-the-guardian/

 

Ok, if you want to be more precise -  get a tub of water to a smaller scale of the ocean, get a fan to a scale with the wind.  Get a heat lamp to a scale of the suns energy on the water, turn on one fan for a set amount of time and measure changes in surface and deep water temperatures.  Now turn off that fan and turn on a second fan in scale with the "shift in winds", let that run for the same amount of time and measure for surface and deep water temps.  

 

"Shifting winds", really?  That is the best they got?  Shifting winds, with no measured change in ocean currents cannot transfer heat from the surface of the ocean to the deep ocean.  That is a joke.  

 

No need for a "blanket of C02" because the C02 level in the air is what it is, no need to add more. 

Edited March 26, 2015 by pogi

[pogi]

The Earth’s climate is a complex system, acting in ways we can’t always predict. The energy that man-made CO2 is adding to the climate is not currently showing up as surface warming, because most of the heat is going into the oceans. Currently, the heat is moving downwards from the ocean surface to deeper waters. The surface gets cooler, humidity reduces (water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas), and air temperatures go down.

The rate at which surface temperatures go up is not proportional to the rate of CO2emissions, but to the total amount of atmospheric CO2 added since the start of theindustrial revolution. Only by looking at long-term trends - 30 years is the standard period in climate science - can we measure surface temperature increases accurately, and distinguish them from short-term natural variation.

 

The part in red is false.  The surface temperatures are staying about the same, not getting cooler.  If you ask MFT, they are getting warmer (chuckle).  There is no reduction in water vapor.  The atmospheric C02 continues to climb, yet no increase in air temperatures.  Strange eh?  How is it exactly that all of the heat from the atmosphere, land surfaces, and ocean surfaces all got sucked into this vacuum that trapped it 2,000+ feet below the ocean surface?  Shifting winds is a poor theory for explaining the oceans, it is an even worse theory for explaining land surface temps. 

 

I agree with the part in blue to a point.  Long-term trends are critical.  30 years is insufficient though.  Look at the 400,000 year trend.  We have started a trend downward.  A short-term 30 year increase in temp says nothing of the overall trend downward. 

Edited March 26, 2015 by pogi

[ERayR]

The part in red is false.  The surface temperatures are staying about the same, not getting cooler.  If you ask MFT, they are getting warmer (chuckle).  There is no reduction in water vapor.  The atmospheric C02 continues to climb, yet no increase in air temperatures.  Strange eh?  How is it exactly that all of the heat from the atmosphere, land surfaces, and ocean surfaces all got sucked into this vacuum that trapped it 2,000+ feet below the ocean surface?  Shifting winds is a poor theory for explaining the oceans, it is an even worse theory for explaining land surface temps. 

 

I agree with the part in blue to a point.  Long-term trends are critical.  30 years is insufficient though.  Look at the 400,000 year trend.  We have started a trend downward.  A short-term 30 year increase in temp says nothing of the overall trend downward. 

 

I don't know if it is important but I thought that heat rises and cold falls.

[pogi]

I don't know if it is important but I thought that heat rises and cold falls.

 

I think it is important.  The only way that the heat from the entire ocean surface could get to the deep ocean is if the warm water from the entire surface of the ocean got sucked down through a current.  That hasn't happened.  The surface water and surface temperature has remained on the surface where it belongs and has always existed.  No shifting surface winds can create a current that effects the entire surface of the ocean.  I doubt that even hurricane strength winds could get surface water down 2,000+ feet deep. 

Edited March 26, 2015 by pogi

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

No need for a "blanket of C02" because the C02 level in the air is what it is, no need to add more. 

I was thinking about CO2 being a green house gas and a "major contributor" to the "rise in temps". What is the percent of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is something like .0397%. It really is miniscule.  It is not even a 10th of a percent. Some one compared that if we don't do something we will be like Venus. Which is 96.5%. That really is a joke. I think MFT stated it. The reason Venus is a "green house" is because is mostly CO2. So points given that if we had that same atmosphere then yeah, we would heat up quite a bit. There is no comparison to our atmosphere and Venus.

 

 

I confess to not knowing what earths CO2 content was until now. But I find it absolutely astounding that something so miniscule is given so much credit for supposed warming. CO2 is a minor minor minor factor in warming. The biggest is water vapor. We could increase our CO2 out put 10 times and I doubt it would do much in terms of heating I doubt you would be able to scientifically see the difference in terms of temp. I think the case for AWG is so overstated it is funny.

Edited March 26, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[pogi]

I was thinking about CO2 being a green house gas and a "major contributor" to the "rise in temps". What is the percent of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is something like .0397%. It really is miniscule.  It is not even a 10th of a percent. Some one compared that if we don't do something we will be like Venus. Which is 96.5%. That really is a joke. I think MFT stated it. The reason Venus is a "green house" is because is mostly CO2. So points given that if we had that same atmosphere then yeah, we would heat up quite a bit.

 

 

I confess to not knowing what earths CO2 content was until now. But I find it absolutely astounding that something so miniscule is given so much credit for supposed warming. CO2 is a minor minor minor factor in warming. The biggest is water vapor. We could increase our CO2 out put 10 times and I doubt it would do much in terms of heating I doubt you would be able to scientifically see the difference in terms of temp. I think the case for AWG is so overstated it is funny.

 

No doubt.  The ice-core charts irrefutably demonstrate that the sun, and the earths relation to it, is the dominant driver of temperature trends over the last 400,000 years.  The shifts in temperature don't seem to be affected by the C02 levels at all.  Probably because the concentration, as you suggest, is far to low to have any real consequence.  The sharp drops in temperature at the peaks (despite the ever increasing C02 for several hundred years beyond the drop), shows that temperature trends are set by the sun, while C02 recessively follows. 

[thesometimesaint]

It does. However that plays a far smaller role because of mixing and replacement. IE; When warm air/water rises it is replaced with cooler air/water which mixes with the warmer air/water. Overall the earth is getting warmer.

 

SEE

SEE

[thesometimesaint]

I was thinking about CO2 being a green house gas and a "major contributor" to the "rise in temps". What is the percent of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is something like .0397%. It really is miniscule.  It is not even a 10th of a percent. Some one compared that if we don't do something we will be like Venus. Which is 96.5%. That really is a joke. I think MFT stated it. The reason Venus is a "green house" is because is mostly CO2. So points given that if we had that same atmosphere then yeah, we would heat up quite a bit. There is no comparison to our atmosphere and Venus.

 

 

I confess to not knowing what earths CO2 content was until now. But I find it absolutely astounding that something so miniscule is given so much credit for supposed warming. CO2 is a minor minor minor factor in warming. The biggest is water vapor. We could increase our CO2 out put 10 times and I doubt it would do much in terms of heating I doubt you would be able to scientifically see the difference in terms of temp. I think the case for AWG is so overstated it is funny.

 

 

Ask and answered.

Put a small amount of strychnine in a glass of water and see what a small amount of it does. Also all plants depend on that small amount of CO2 to live and grow. Now do you see what a small amount of CO2 does.

Edited March 26, 2015 by thesometimesaint