Global Warming - The New Socialism

[lilphil1989]

Yes the hoax is deliberate. After 30 years have any of the scary predictions come true? No. What is the whole AGW case built on? computer models! What is the climate doing? Cooling!

Deliberate to what end?

One other thing that needs serious attention is the sun. The AGW crowd claim the sun has minimal influence on our climate.

This is dogmatic rubbish, and simply not true.
No-one has ever suggested that solar cycles are negligible.
However, when you take into account changes in the earth's orbit, and solar cycles, the warming measured is greater than is expected if these are the only driving factors.

The field of climate science is an emerging field and there is much we keep learning every month. However when one looks at the basics and sticks to facts we know the following for sure;

1. The climate acts and has always acted in natural cycles

2. The current theory of CO2 causing global warming is unproven - even the IPCC acknowledges this

3. For 30 years the scary predictions about earths fever, drastic sea level rise etc is not based on observation but on computer model projections. If we still dont know everything about the climate then how can these models be accurate. If the climate continues to behave opposite to the climate models (the wolrd is cooling and not warming) then we have to say the models are wrong.

4. We need rigorous scientific debate on the topic. If as the natural climatic observations and numerous scientists say we have entered a period of 20-30 years cooling and we are spending trillions on warming - we will be unprepared for the cooling, many lives will be lost (see little ice age).

5. Extreme weather is a result of cooling and not warming.

1. Agreed, however it is not a simple up/down cycle, there are many factors with different timescales.
And this does not mean that humans cannot effect the climate.

2. No. The way in which carbon dioxide causes the planet to retain heat is very well understood. It is the natural greenhouse effect, caused by the atmosphere (mainly CO2 and water) absorbing strongly in the infra-red region. Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide increases the cross section for absorption.

3. No-one says they are accurate, I've addressed this earlier in the thread.

However, you seem to be under the impression that we say the earth is warming based on predictions of models. This is not true. The earth's temperature is an observable. It is rising, that is observed.
The question is whether that is happening because of human carbon emissions increasing atmospheric CO2 or whether it would have happened anyway.

4. Climatic observations do not and cannot say we have entered a period of "20-30 years cooling". An observation tells us what is happening now. No more.

5. I suppose that depends on how you define extreme weather.

[twawki]

Deliberate insofar as there is a lot of commentary on how the environmental movement has been hijacked by the socialist movement and changed from a group concerned about the environment to a group of activists more interested in social change. Can post links on this if interested.

Yes many especially the IPCC have said that TSI does nto affect global temps yet there are scientists and scientific papers who dispute the whole AGW theory

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_r...dings.html

What you need to look at is the temperature records. At least half the claimed warming from 1980 - 2000 is due to things from urban heat island effect, poor siting of stations, software warming biases, manipulation of data etc. When you get back to the raw records and look at satellite temps they correlate very well with the sun cycles.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckt...ming_.html

You also need to look at the CO2 record which does not correlate with the temperature record. For example from the 1940s - 1970s there was cooling whilst Co2 went up as there is now. We have not seen any warming for the last 10 years and the last 3 we have seen significant cooling which matches sun activity.

If you look at mans contribution to CO2 its around 3% of a trace gas CO2 that is less than 400 parts per million. Not only is there no correlation between CO2 rise and temps there is also no warming of the upper atmosphere consistent with the models. Reality is doing the opposite of what the Co2 theory says should happen.

Well the models are not only inaccurate but wildly inaccurate so much that the AGW theory fails and does not stand up to scientific method.

Here is a link to the satellite record for the earths temp - NO WARMING

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/03/rs...arch-2009/
http://icecap.us/

They can based on known cycles and trends. If the PDO (pacific decadel oscillation) is a known climatic cycle that has 30 years cooling, 30 years warming and scientists have said weve entered the cooling cycle then we are reaosnably sure based on previous experience and knowledge that this is fairly certain. What we are nto certain about is the depth of cooling due to the current inactivity of the sun. Livingston & Penn have done a paper that predicts based on the current observable lack of sun activity that by 2015 we may see no sunspots. Currently we are getting 1 a month. If L&P predictions be realised then based on previous experience the depth of cooling will be severe, and similiar to the Maunder Minimum of the LIA where crops and societies were decimated.

The definition of extreme weather would be the same for both hot and cold climates. My point is science shows us that during warm periods we have less hurricanes etc. What happens when the climate cools the collission of colder air masses with warmer air masses causes turnbulence, tornadoes, hurricanes etc

[lilphil1989]

Deliberate insofar as there is a lot of commentary on how the environmental movement has been hijacked by the socialist movement and changed from a group concerned about the environment to a group of activists more interested in social change.

And so their reasons for deliberate misleading are...?

Yes many especially the IPCC ha ave said that TSI does nto affect global temps yet there are scientists and scientific papers who dispute the whole AGW theory

But solar cylces vary (approx. sinusoidally) about an average (~1366Wm-2) with a frequency of ~9years:



So they cannot contribute to long term warming.

This paper takes into account variations in solar flux, and finds that warming is greater than would be expected if this were the only forcing factor.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_reprint_series
/a_critique_on_the_lockwood_frochlich_paper_in_the_royal_society_proceedings.html

Quote from above source:
"It is likely that both the Sun/Cosmic rays and CO2 emissions are affecting climate."
This is exactly what I have been saying.

When you get back to the raw records and look at satellite temps they correlate very well with the sun cycles.

If this were true, the global average temperature would oscillate about an average with a period of ~9 years. This is not observed. What is observed is oscillations with an additional forcing ~of the form y = sin(x) + x

Clearly this indicates that solar cycles are not the only contributing factor to global temperature changes.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckt...ming_.html

This "paper" attacks predictions based on climatic models that we have both already agreed may be inaccurate. You seem to be arguing against a straw man here.

You also need to look at the CO2 record which does not correlate with the temperature record. For example from the 1940s - 1970s there was cooling whilst Co2 went up as there is now. We have not seen any warming for the last 10 years and the last 3 we have seen significant cooling which matches sun activity.

You seem to be confusing long term trends with single episodes.
If you look at long term atmospheric CO2 and temperature data from ice cores, there is a very strong correlation between the two. As far as I'm aware, the error bars on the data make it impossible to tell which came first, nevertheless the correlation is there:

Reports on progress in physics 68 (Institute of physics publishing 2005) available here, see page 1355.

If you look at mans contribution to CO2 its around 3% of a trace gas CO2

I don't really know what this is supposed to mean

Well the models are not only inaccurate but wildly inaccurate so much that the AGW theory fails and does not stand up to scientific method.

If this were true, no work on this subject would be printed in peer-reviewed journals.

The definition of extreme weather would be the same for both hot and cold climates. My point is science shows us that during warm periods we have less hurricanes etc.

To determine the effect of global temperature on hurricane frequency requires the use of complex climate models. Models that you happily decry when it suits your purpose. You can't have it both ways.