Is Global Warming a Myth?

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
WinePusher

Is Global Warming a Myth?

Post #1

Post by WinePusher »

Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century – a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tions.html
A report from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado finds that Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007. But didn’t we hear from the same Center that the North Pole was set to disappear by now? We all deserve apologies from the global warming fanatics who wanted to reshape the world in their image and called those who objected to their wild theories ignorant deniers.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/wat ... p-growing/

1) Does this new information show that Anthropogenic Global Warming is false?

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9129
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Post #81

Post by bluethread »

Nilloc James wrote: General question:

What do scientists have to gain from conluding human-caused GW is true?
Large government grants. No GW, no grants.
What do major producers of fossil fuels and their political allies have to lose if man-made GW is gound to be true?
One portion of a diversified portfolio that includes solar, wind, nuclear and geothermal products. GW is just one of many factors used to evaluate the marketability of a product. The product that is most desired by the buying public will receive the greatest investment.
Who has the biggest interest in lying to the public?
Both parties have an equal interest in lying. It is just that the scientists employed by the producers must convince people to spend their own money on products. The scientists employed by government grants must convince politicians to spend other peoples money for information. The scientists of the producers provide information that tells the producer which products sell best. The scientists of the politicians provide them with the information that gets then the most votes. The question is whether we should have an economy that is based on buyers preferences or public sentiment. Which is more easily manipulated?

User avatar
nursebenjamin
Sage
Posts: 823
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 11:38 am
Location: Massachusetts

Post #82

Post by nursebenjamin »

bluethread wrote:
Nilloc James wrote:General question:

What do scientists have to gain from conluding human-caused GW is true?
Large government grants. No GW, no grants.
Actually, if the greenhouse gas theory isn't real, then we have no idea why climate change and global warming are occurring. Our understanding of physics just got set back by 200 years.

If anthropogenic climate change is not occurring, then the need for science grants shoots up astronomically.

User avatar
nursebenjamin
Sage
Posts: 823
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 11:38 am
Location: Massachusetts

Post #83

Post by nursebenjamin »

olavisjo wrote:
LiamOS wrote: Now, let's try some of this magical rebinning(Add k consecutive values, divide by k), by ten years:
Image
Whoah! What the?!

Clearly, there is a massive warming going on. Consider the chances of such a hugely significant event randomly coinciding exactly with the huge increase in CO2 emissions etc.

One year fluctuations are almost entirely meaningless. You can see the random nature of them in the first plot, and the second clearly demonstrates how they average out.
The problem with this graph is that there was no increase from 1940 to 1970.

Did we really stop burning fossil fuels from the beginning of WWII till the Vietnam War? CO2 may not be the culprit after all, we need to do more research.
The answer to your question is man-made global dimming:

Although temperatures increased overall during the 20th century, three distinct periods can be observed. Global warming occurred both at the beginning and at the end of the 20th century, but a cooling trend is seen from about 1940 to 1975. As a result, changes in 20th century trends offer a good framework through which to understand climate change and the role of numerous factors in determining the climate at any one time.

Early and late 20th century warming has been explained primarily by increasing solar activity and increasing CO2 concentrations, respectively, with other factors contributing in both periods. So what caused the cooling period that interrupted the overall trend in the middle of the century? The answer seems to lie in solar dimming, a cooling phenomenon caused by airborne pollutants.

The main culprit is likely to have been an increase in sulphate aerosols, which reflect incoming solar energy back into space and lead to cooling. This increase was the result of two sets of events.

Industrial activities picked up following the Second World War. This, in the absence of pollution control measures, led to a rise in aerosols in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere).
A number of volcanic eruptions released large amounts of aerosols in the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere).

Combined, these events led to aerosols overwhelming the warming trend at a time when solar activity showed little variation, leading to the observed cooling. Furthermore, it is possible to draw similar conclusions by looking at the daily temperature cycle. Because sunlight affects the maximum day-time temperature, aerosols should have a noticeable cooling impact on it. Minimum night-time temperatures, on the other hand, are more affected by greenhouse gases and therefore should not be affected by aerosols. Were these differences observed? The answer is yes: maximum day-time temperatures fell during this period but minimum night-time temperatures carried on rising.

The introduction of pollution control measures reduced the emission of sulphate aerosols. Gradually the cumulative effect of increasing greenhouse gases started to dominate in the 1970s and warming resumed.

As a final point, it should be noted that in 1945, the way in which sea temperatures were measured changed, leading to a substantial drop in apparent temperatures. Once the data are corrected, it is expected that the cooling trend in the middle of the century will be less pronounced.[1]

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9129
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Post #84

Post by bluethread »

nursebenjamin wrote:
bluethread wrote:
Nilloc James wrote:General question:

What do scientists have to gain from conluding human-caused GW is true?
Large government grants. No GW, no grants.
Actually, if the greenhouse gas theory isn't real, then we have no idea why climate change and global warming are occurring. Our understanding of physics just got set back by 200 years.

If anthropogenic climate change is not occurring, then the need for science grants shoots up astronomically.
Not if there is no apocalyptic hype.

User avatar
100%atheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2601
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:27 pm

Post #85

Post by 100%atheist »

bluethread wrote:
nursebenjamin wrote:
bluethread wrote:
Nilloc James wrote:General question:

What do scientists have to gain from conluding human-caused GW is true?
Large government grants. No GW, no grants.
Actually, if the greenhouse gas theory isn't real, then we have no idea why climate change and global warming are occurring. Our understanding of physics just got set back by 200 years.

If anthropogenic climate change is not occurring, then the need for science grants shoots up astronomically.
Not if there is no apocalyptic hype.
There is always a hype. There is always some degree of bias among scientists. However, over time, science corrects itself in cases when too much hype and speculation led to incorrect conclusions (the case of ether, for instance).

In respect to human-made global warming, I see the major problem in that this is a showcase for corporations foreseeing lower profits as a potential result of environmental regulations. This makes CEOs to freak out and pay politicians and right-wing (whatever-wing) PR manipulators to build-up pressure on scientists, making all this a "big political issue"...

Unfortunately, in modern world of politics and in the modern world of serious money I see a perpetual confirmation of that those who control public opinion control "The Truth". What's worse? I am afraid that there is a breed of "True Scientists" going to shape a God-blessed research agenda that will be the only science to be funded.

User avatar
LiamOS
Site Supporter
Posts: 3645
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:52 pm
Location: Ireland

Post #86

Post by LiamOS »

WinePusher wrote:To the contrary, you're the one who seems to not understand what's going on here. What you're basically arguing is that we should ignore the so called 'anomalies' in the trend. My question is, why?
Sometimes you get a day warmer in winter than another day in summer; this does not disprove the theory that the Earth has a rotational axis misaligned with its orbit, however. This is not an anomaly, this is just the weather. Looking at the below graph again, you can see these 'anomalies' happening all the time.
WinePusher wrote:The only time you ignore a standard deviation is if it is small.
I'm not saying ignore them, I'm saying that the variation you're claiming to be overwhelming evidence against is within expected deviation. Just look at this again:
Image
How is it not clear that there is not such a deviation all the time, but there is a huge warming trend?

If I'm not mistaken, you're claiming the trend stopped from one year of data, and the significance of your data is of the order of 1 sigma, no?
WinePusher wrote:The claim being made is that CO2 (variable A) causes temperatures (variable B). All the evidence shows that these two variable may be weakly correlated, but it is completely absurd to suggest that there is direct causation between the two.
I think you're also forgetting the existence of the greenhouse effect.
You can very easily test the idea that a radiating blackbody surrounded by gas will be at a lower temperature if the surrounding gas is free of CO2 and other such chemicals. What is your reasoning for assuming this is not applicable to the plaet?

There is undeniable evidence for this effect, and we've seen throughout the thread that they are correlated for the Earth(Looks about 2-3 sigma by eye, but I can work it out if you want) as a whole.
WinePusher wrote:Yes, this point is valid. We should probably wait for more data to come in before doing anything rash.
Normally I'd agree, but if we get to the point where the trend is even undeniable by you, we'll be around 200oC. ;)
WinePusher wrote:But, of course the global warming environmentalists of the world don't want to wait. They want to implement their green agenda, and they are making seem as if global warming is an imminent threat that will destroy the world. This is NOT TRUE, and this is really what I object to the most.
Right.

I'm not going to argue with your dislike of greenies, but what about the fact that almost the entirety of the scientific community is actually taking their side? It's not like science has a hippy bias either.

WinePusher wrote:Scientists are predicting that the ice caps will continue to expand annually and the climate will shift towards global cooling, not global warming.
Which scientists? Are they doing in this the scientific literature?

User avatar
Nickman
Site Supporter
Posts: 5443
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Idaho
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #87

Post by Nickman »

Don't forget about Chlorofluorocarbons and Hydrochlorofluorocarbons. The Chlorine molecule binds to Ozone molecules (destroying ozone molecules) and expels the hydrogen and carbon molecules. One chlorine molecule can bind to and destroy 100,000 ozone molecules.The expelled hydrogen is safe, but the carbon remains high in the atmosphere. So here we have a depletion ofozone which reflects UV rays, and the addition of carbon which acts as an insulator. It is a recipe for disaster.

Post Reply