The Problem With Science: It's Not Credible

[pogi]

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.

 

Forgive me if I have lost interest in your videos and don't watch these.  I have wasted so much time watching them up to this point that I have lost faith in your ability to post relevant videos.  Give me a brief summary of the main points. 

[pogi]

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.

 

I am so confused.  What exactly is the relationship between a little strychnine in water and C02 concentrations in the atmosphere?

Edited March 26, 2015 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

Forgive me if I have lost interest in your videos and don't watch these.  I have wasted so much time watching them up to this point that I have lost faith in your ability to post relevant videos.  Give me a brief summary of the main points. 

 

Brief summary. He is about as brief as it gets. CO2 was established as a green house gas in the 1880's. Levels of CO2 have been increasing over the last 250 or so years. There has been a steady rise in global temperatures particularly marked by the last 60 years or so.

 

I eagerly await your CFR since you seem determined to ignore them anyway.

[pogi]

Brief summary. He is about as brief as it gets. CO2 was established as a green house gas in the 1880's. Levels of CO2 have been increasing over the last 250 or so years. There has been a steady rise in global temperatures particularly marked by the last 60 years or so.

 

I eagerly await your CFR since you seem determined to ignore them anyway.

 

No need for a CFR.  There is nothing here that I particularly disagree with, except for your interpretation of what this all means.

[thesometimesaint]

I am so confused.  What exactly is the relationship between a little strychnine in water and C02 concentrations in the atmosphere?

 

Please try to keep up. Not paying attention will do that to you. Both are small amounts. Both have very large effects.

 

Mola Ram Suda Ram said: "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... . 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... ."

[thesometimesaint]

No need for a CFR.  There is nothing here that I particularly disagree with, except for your interpretation of what this all means.

 

It is not my interpretation. This is what the climate scientists say. My scientific expertise resides in another area.

 

Ps;

 

"I am sorry TSS, but simply because small amounts of strychnine causes large effects, does not prove that small amounts of C02 causes large effects.  There is absolutely no relationship between the effects of strychnine and the effects of C02.  No correlation can be made".

 

You may agree that there is a very small amount of CO2 in the air, and that very small amount does have a large effect on plant life. Please tell me if you disagree. You may agree that a small amount of strychnine in water can have a very large effect on your body. Pleas tell me if you disagree. We're not comparing specific effects, but the amount of effects

 

Here I thought you agreed with my brief summary. I clearly stated that CO2 is a green house gas. Now you are asking for a CFR. I'll try not link to any other source or video's and just use my own brief words. That that was established in the 1880's.That is what make CO2 a green house gas, it traps heat. In the 1880's CO2 concentrations were rising but relatively low compared to today. That even at relatively low concentrations big effects have been observed. More so with the higher concentrations of today.

Edited March 26, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[pogi]

Please try to keep up. Not paying attention will do that to you. Both are small amounts. Both have very large effects.

 

I am sorry TSS, but simply because small amounts of strychnine can cause large effects on health, does not prove that small amounts of C02 can cause large effects on temperature.  There is absolutely no relationship between the effects of strychnine and the effects of C02.  No correlation can be made.

 

Secondly, the effects of C02 on plants has absolutely no correlation between the effects of C02 on atmospheric temperatures.   They are completely unrelated. 

Edited March 26, 2015 by pogi

[pogi]

If you respond to one of my posts by editing your post before it, I probably am not going to notice it.  I just got lucky this time.

 

You may agree that there is a very small amount of CO2 in the air, and that very small amount does have a large effect on plant life. Please tell me if you disagree. 

 

Don't disagree.  What does that tell us about the effects of C02 on the temperature?  Nothing

 

You may agree that a small amount of strychnine in water can have a very large effect on your body. Pleas tell me if you disagree. 

 

 

Don't disagree.  What does that tell us about the effects of C02 on the temperature?  Nothing

 

We're not comparing specific effects, but the amount of effects

 

 

You first have to establish that such a small concentration of C02 in the atmosphere can have such significant effects on surface temperature before we can compare "the amount of effects". 

 

Here I thought you agreed with my brief summary. I clearly stated that CO2 is a green house gas. Now you are asking for a CFR. I'll try not link to any other source or video's and just use my own brief words. That that was established in the 1880's.That is what make CO2 a green house gas, it traps heat. In the 1880's CO2 concentrations were rising but relatively low compared to today. That even at relatively low concentrations big effects have been observed. More so with the higher concentrations of today.

 

 

I don't doubt that C02 is a greenhouse gas and I never asked for a CFR.  What I doubt is that C02 or any other greenhouse gas is a dominant cause of temperature trends.  They are historically recessive to the sun and our orbit.  Do I need to pull up the charts again? 

 

Global temperatures historically plummet for several hundred years after reaching peak temperatures before C02 follows suit.  What is the C02 doing in those several hundred years?  Climbing higher and higher while the temps plummet lower and lower.  Do you have an explanation?  Why doesn't the climbing C02 at least level out the drop in temperature to make it more of a bell curve instead of a dramatic sharp turnaround?  wouldn't you expect a bell curve if C02 effects global temperature as much as you are insinuating? 

 

Temperatures do not level out waiting for the C02 level to fall.  Nope, the temperatures show no glitch or change in direction whether C02 levels are rising or falling.  What does this tell me?  That the effects of C02 are over-exaggerated.  That is why your scientists models are failing them.  They need to calibrate the effects of C02 down and recalibrate the effects of solar phenomenon up. 

Edited March 26, 2015 by pogi

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

Temperatures do not level out waiting for the C02 level to fall.  Nope, the temperatures show no glitch or change in direction whether C02 levels are rising or falling.  What does this tell me?  That the effects of C02 are over-exaggerated.  That is why your scientists models are failing them.  They need to calibrate the effects of C02 down and recalibrate the effects of solar phenomenon up. 

I think that is the real issue, is first that the claim is that it is going to rise .6 degrees in 100 years, even if that were true, I don't see how that alone is cause for all the alarmism. 2nd, it looks like the amount of heat that is trapped or can be trapped in CO2 is vastly over stated. In fact I am not even sure if that aspect has even been studied. 3rd, all they have is the models to go off of. What makes the models correct? How do you peer review a model? "The math looks good so we are good"? I think there is more to a model than just math.

[ERayR]

If you respond to one of my posts by editing your post before it, I probably am not going to notice it.  I just got lucky this time.

 

 

Don't disagree.  What does that tell us about the effects of C02 on the temperature?  Nothing

 

 

 

Don't disagree.  What does that tell us about the effects of C02 on the temperature?  Nothing

 

 

 

You first have to establish that such a small concentration of C02 in the atmosphere can have such significant effects on surface temperature before we can compare "the amount of effects". 

 

 

 

I don't doubt that C02 is a greenhouse gas and I never asked for a CFR.  What I doubt is that C02 or any other greenhouse gas is a dominant cause of temperature trends.  They are historically recessive to the sun and our orbit.  Do I need to pull up the charts again? 

 

Global temperatures historically plummet for several hundred years after reaching peak temperatures before C02 follows suit.  What is the C02 doing in those several hundred years?  Climbing higher and higher while the temps plummet lower and lower.  Do you have an explanation?  Why doesn't the climbing C02 at least level out temperature change some to make it more of a bell curve instead of a dramatic sharp turnaround.  wouldn't you expect a bell curve if C02 effects global temperature as much as you are insinuating? 

 

Temperatures do not level out waiting for the C02 level to fall.  Nope, the temperatures show no glitch or change in direction whether C02 levels are rising or falling.  What does this tell me?  That the effects of C02 are over-exaggerated.  That is why your scientists models are failing them.  They need to calibrate the effects of C02 down and recalibrate the effects of solar phenomenon up. 

 

They can't do that because that means they can't think of any way to have any effect on it nor any way to make money on it. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

  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?  

 

The amount of heat stored in the oceans is one of the most important diagnostics for global warming, because about 90% of the additional heat is stored there. The atmosphere stores only about 2% because of its small heat capacity. The surface (including the continental ice masses) can only absorb heat slowly because it is a poor heat conductor. Thus, heat absorbed by the oceans accounts for almost all of the planet’s radiative imbalance. Furthermore, new climate models are able to explain the surface temperatures observed in recent years by accounting for the observed ocean and solar cycles. Adjusting thesurface temperature record to remove all natural factors (oceans, Sun, and volcanoes) again reveals global warming has continued, and if anything accelerated, since 2000.

 

 

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. 

 

2014 was one of the warmest year on record, with global temperatures 0.68C (1.24F) above the long-term average. 

 

 

 

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. 

 

See the graph, physicists predicted Global Warming in the late 19th century. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

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

 

Global Warming theory is the only interpretation that explains all the data. Other interpretations just cherry pick the data. 

 

 

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

 

That is your interpretation sir, I disagree with it. You sound very authoritarian. 

[ERayR]

That is your interpretation sir, I disagree with it. You sound very authoritarian. 

 

If you think I sound authoritarian check out MormonFreeThinker.  Nope i am nothing but a simple farm boy.

Edited March 26, 2015 by ERayR

[ERayR]

Global Warming theory is the only interpretation that explains all the data. Other interpretations just cherry pick the data. 

 

 

 

 

It is only as accurate as the assumptions on which it is based.  Note: Pogi has shown that some of those assumptions are questionable.

[pogi]

The amount of heat stored in the oceans is one of the most important diagnostics for global warming, because about 90% of the additional heat is stored there. The atmosphere stores only about 2% because of its small heat capacity. 

 

Then why are we worried about increasing atmospheric C02 levels "trapping" the heat?  Wouldn't there be a measurable temperature increase in the atmosphere if the atmospheric C02 is "trapping" that heat there? 

 

Second, the deep oceans aren't warming according to those links I posted.  You don't believe like other scientists that surface winds are causing the deep sea to warm up do you?

 

2014 was one of the warmest year on record, with global temperatures 0.68C (1.24F) above the long-term average. 

 

 

1.24 degrees above the long-term average is not significant considering that we have reached a peak and the downward trend for temperatures has begun.  We are still around 3 degrees celsius colder that previous peaks in history on your chart.  Take a look.  We could go up 3 degrees celsius and there would still be nothing unordinary.   How long has our temperatures ever matched the "long-term average" temperature in history?  Only a handful of brief moments in the last 400,000 years.  Look at your chart - temps are all over the place, but never hang around the average. 

 

See the graph, physicists predicted Global Warming in the late 19th century. 

 

 

Yes, let's look at the graph.  do you see how the downward trend has begun?  Now look at previous peaks, notice how ever increasing C02 levels have not altered the trend downward. 

 

Actually, most scientists were predicting an ice age around that time.  

Edited March 26, 2015 by pogi

[TheSkepticChristian]

Then why are we worried about increasing atmospheric C02 levels "trapping" the heat?  Wouldn't there be a measurable temperature increase in the atmosphere if the atmospheric C02 is "trapping" that heat there? 

 

 Warmer oceans will cause higher CO2 levels. The surface is warming, but not as much as the oceans. 

 

 

Second, the deep oceans aren't warming according to those links I posted.  You don't believe like other scientists that surface winds are causing the deep sea to warm up do you?

 

I respect the scientists like Richard Lindzen that disagree with the consensus, but I do not respect the scientists that misrepresent the data, especially if it is outside their field. 

 

 

1.24 degrees above the long-term average is not significant considering that we have reached a peak and the downward trend for temperatures has begun.  We are still around 3 degrees celsius colder that previous peaks in history on your chart.  Take a look.  We could go up 3 degrees celsius and there would still be nothing unordinary.   

 

It is not unordinary to have a warmer planet, but many animals and planets are currently not adapted to a warmer planet. However, it is unordinary to have 1 degree of warming in less than a century. 

 

The Antarctica chart is not showing 2015 or even the 21st century, the chart not relevant to global temperatures. Not every location on the Earth is having the same responses to climate changes. The fact that ice in one part of the world is doing one thing and in another part ice is doing another is not surprising. The Earth is large and as the climate changes it is normal to see different things going on. 

 

 

Actually, most scientists were predicting an ice age around that time.  

No, most scientists were predicting warming. 

 

Please look at the evidence, if you notice nowhere in the graph does it reach the temp change of .6 C. 

Today the average temperature on Earth is 61 degrees F (16 C).

 

 

 

 

Edited March 27, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

It is only as accurate as the assumptions on which it is based.  Note: Pogi has shown that some of those assumptions are questionable.

 

His interpretation does not explain why the stratosphere is cooling, but the planet is warming. 

The many sets of data are not assumptions. 

 

Note: Pogi says the oceans are not warming, it is easy to say what every you want 

[rodheadlee]

Yeah look at that graph. The CO2 stays high after the temp drops at each peak and as Pogi said it would appear we are headed for a drop in temps if it follows the trend off the other peak spikes.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Yeah look at that graph. The CO2 stays high after the temp drops at each peak and as Pogi said it would appear we are headed for a drop in temps if it follows the trend off the other peak spikes.

 

zoom in 

 

[Kaleb Webb]

 

 

I think that is the real issue, is first that the claim is that it is going to rise .6 degrees in 100 years, even if that were true, I don't see how that alone is cause for all the alarmism.

People are alarmed because a .6 degree rise in global temperature will significantly impact the size and quality of crops, and there will be more than 7 billion mouths to feed. 

[strappinglad]

People are alarmed because a .6 degree rise in global temperature will significantly impact the size and quality of crops, and there will be more than 7 billion mouths to feed.

If the climate change doomsday scenarios are true, then there won't be 7 billion to feed, more like 5 billion.

To return to the OP, here is another example of how well established theories are subject to possible reversals, thus leading some to question science's credibility, not me mind you, just some people.

"The leading secular theory for past ice ages has taken heat from a new study. According to the theory, orbital cycles called Milankovitch cycles take the earth on excursions nearer and farther from the sun, or on wobbles of tilt, forcing climatic swings. But a study published in Geology calls that theory into question. NASA’s Astrobiology Magazine explains: The researchers found that glacier movement in the Southern Hemisphere is influenced primarily by sea surface temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide rather than changes in the Earth’s orbit, which are thought to drive the advance and retreat of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere.… The study raises questions about the Milankovitch theory of climate, which says the expansion and contraction of Northern Hemisphere continental ice sheets are influenced by cyclic fluctuations in solar radiation intensity due to wobbles in the Earth’s orbit; those orbital fluctuations should have an opposite effect on Southern Hemisphere glaciers. Geologists from Dartmouth looked at Beryllium-10 data in New Zealand glaciers and found that past glaciers were as large as those in the northern hemisphere. This contradicts the Milankovitch theory: This makes sense in that the whole world was cold at the same time, but the Milankovitch theory should have opposite effects for the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and thus cannot explain the synchronous advance of glaciers around the globe. Previous studies have shown that Chilean glaciers in the southern Andes also have been large at the same time as Northern Hemisphere ice sheets. This loss of confidence in the Milankovitch theory has implications for current debates about climate change: “Records of past climatic changes are the only reason scientists are able to predict how the world will change in the future due to warming. The more we understand about the cause of large climatic changes and how the cooling or warming signals travel around the world, the better we can predict and adapt to future changes,” says lead author Alice Doughty, a glacial geologist at Dartmouth College who studies New Zealand mountain glaciers to understand what causes large-scale global climatic change such as ice ages."

Edited March 27, 2015 by strappinglad

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

People are alarmed because a .6 degree rise in global temperature will significantly impact the size and quality of crops, and there will be more than 7 billion mouths to feed. 

How can that even be quantified? That is a total assumption and not a very good one. Studies have shown that increase in temp and CO2 yield better and more plentiful crops.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

zoom in 

 

This graph is not accurate. Were is the data for the "medieval warming"? It should be on here.

[TheSkepticChristian]

This graph is not accurate. Were is the data for the "medieval warming"? It should be on here.

 

The medieval warming was regional, mainly the North Atlantic, it was not the entire Norther Hemisphere.

Here is another graph 

 

Edited March 27, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[thesometimesaint]

If you respond to one of my posts by editing your post before it, I probably am not going to notice it.  I just got lucky this time.

 

 

Don't disagree.  What does that tell us about the effects of C02 on the temperature?  Nothing

 

 

 

Don't disagree.  What does that tell us about the effects of C02 on the temperature?  Nothing

 

 

 

You first have to establish that such a small concentration of C02 in the atmosphere can have such significant effects on surface temperature before we can compare "the amount of effects". 

 

 

 

I don't doubt that C02 is a greenhouse gas and I never asked for a CFR.  What I doubt is that C02 or any other greenhouse gas is a dominant cause of temperature trends.  They are historically recessive to the sun and our orbit.  Do I need to pull up the charts again? 

 

Global temperatures historically plummet for several hundred years after reaching peak temperatures before C02 follows suit.  What is the C02 doing in those several hundred years?  Climbing higher and higher while the temps plummet lower and lower.  Do you have an explanation?  Why doesn't the climbing C02 at least level out the drop in temperature to make it more of a bell curve instead of a dramatic sharp turnaround?  wouldn't you expect a bell curve if C02 effects global temperature as much as you are insinuating? 

 

Temperatures do not level out waiting for the C02 level to fall.  Nope, the temperatures show no glitch or change in direction whether C02 levels are rising or falling.  What does this tell me?  That the effects of C02 are over-exaggerated.  That is why your scientists models are failing them.  They need to calibrate the effects of C02 down and recalibrate the effects of solar phenomenon up. 

 

Sorry about that. I'll try to do better next time.

 

As we agreed CO2 is green house gas. It holds in heat. No CO2 and the earth quickly losses heat and becomes like Mars. Too much CO2 and that heat is retained, and we become like Venus. We're not likely to become like either any time soon for a host of reasons. Including things like living plants, animals, and the oceans are good sinks for the Carbon, but the basic physics says we can. The burning of carbon from fuels releases that carbon in the form of CO2. Which plants take up to live and grow, and animals that eat those plants, and the oceans which take it up by becoming more acidic. Around and around the cycle goes. What we have been doing is adding in more carbon in the form of CO2 from fossil fuels into our environment than it can handle so the level of CO2 increases increasing the amount of heat held. It is all very basic physics.

 

I have already demonstrated the connection between CO2 and temperature. You just refuse to accept it.

 

That is simply not true. There are a number of factors effecting our global climate. Changes in our axis are a small factor along with solar insolation, and volcanism(CO2). have prehistorically played large factors in our global climate. Because we are now burning huge amount of carbon(fossil fuels)  that added CO2 has become the main but not the only driver of increased temperature.

 

The science isn't the models. Every model put forth so far has been proven wrong. Just not for the reasons you claim. The models show a slower rise in temperature than is actually observed.

SEE http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-overestimate-global-warming.htm

SEE http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings

 

I know you don't like video's but they do sometimes summarize lengthy science articles.

SEE