Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Change?"

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Uh huh. And what about that pesky UAH satellite data? 2017 was the third warmest year, behind 2016 as the warmest. This notion it was colder than normal in some regions therefore the global temperature trend cannot be positive is like claiming because a number of stocks in the S&P500 went down, the entire trend couldn't possibly be up.

Yeah... so what is at issue here is not whether 2015, 2016 or 2017 were warm( VERY slightly) relative to other years from the last two decades....we have been in a phase of ocean circulation that releases heat into the atmosphere (El Nino event) the issue is whether this represents a significantly warmer world relative to the 30s and 40s or in a larger context warmer than other recent warm spells (ex Medieval Warm Period or Roman Warm Period)

"Your" theory needs recent warmth to be "unprecedented" in order for the theory to be vindicated.

The UAH satellite data doesn't go back far enough to confront the issue of how warm it was in the 30s and 40s.

We have thermometer data to use to characterize that time period but it is horridly corrupted by the intervention of activists pretending to be scientists. Any investigation on this topic will confirm the data tampering. (I could suggest here that NASA / NOAA has been about as reliable on climate data as the FBI has been information concerning Clinton & Trump...yeah they are not political are they? ...merely an unbiased law enforcement agency....no activists there)

So...no the satellite data cannot be used to demonstrate the current warm spell is "unprecedented."

A fair reading of the actual available data would suggest that the 30s were at least as warm as this decade has been. And this century is likely cooler than a significant segment of the current interglacial.

So no...we don't need excess CO2 IR absorption to explain why things have been so warm recently because....on the scale we need to consider...it hasn't been especially warm recently.

[Coydog]

Can’t use government land data showing a rising global temperature trend since 1880 because it was faked by the FBI who refused to lock up Hillary, so we need to use the satellite data which is impeachable, except now the satellite data shows the same upward trend, so it’s obviously way too short.

But the estimated synthesized data of a stretch 1000 years ago from selected parts of Europe, that we can use to determine the global temperature trend with impunity.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Can’t use government land data showing a rising global temperature trend since 1880 because it was faked by the FBI who refused to lock up Hillary, so we need to use the satellite data which is impeachable, except now the satellite data shows the same upward trend, so it’s obviously way too short.

But the estimated synthesized data of a stretch 1000 years ago from selected parts of Europe, that we can use to determine the global temperature trend with impunity.

That's a pretty impressive bucket of dumb you produced there buddy! (Hopefully you are just trolling again.)

"land data showing a rising global temperature trend since 1880" yes this is true but you fail to realize it destroys YOUR theory. CO2 DID NOT INCREASE in any significant way until the 1940s. NOBODY claims otherwise. That means that from 1880 until 1940 ( 60 years) the temperature rose because of....wait for it... NATURAL CAUSES!! That is undeniable. Then the temperature DROPPED (according to ACTUAL RAW data) for almost 40 more years until at least the late 70s,

So...60 years of NATURAL warming... then almost 40 years of (CO2 driven???) COOLING followed by, finally, about 30-40 years of warming and ...somehow... to you...this validates a theory that posits CO2 as the major driver of climate?????

The satellite record, while of good quality, is of course quite short. I have never made a claim that temperatures from this last decade are not warmer than any in the satellite record. They are warmer. (excepting perhaps the last major El Nino, 1998)

It is quite reasonable,however to question whether this decade is warmer that the 1930s was. The raw data has been "homogenized" and it is ONLY the adjusted data set which shows the 1930s cooler that the present.

Remember.... your claim NEEDS recent warming to be UNPRECEDENTED to validate an anthropogenic attribution.

As for establishing temperatures prior to any significant temperature data recordings...well we can't be too sure but a recent paper ( in Nature!!) claims to have a new, more accurate proxy for ocean temperature (which we both prefer I assume) which makes an interesting set of claims including:


"We also reveal an enigmatic 700-year warming during the early Younger Dryas period (about 12,000 years ago) that surpasses estimates of modern ocean heat uptake."

Mean global ocean temperatures during the last glacial transition

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25152" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

More evidence that modern warming is NOT unprecedented.

and... the FBI doesn't adjust temperature data...NASA/ GISS and NOAA do that.

But the FBI did refuse to actually apply justice in the case of Hillary Clinton...you got that correct. Congratulations!

[Coydog]

Every decade in the satellite record (i.e. the "good" data) is hotter than the previous decade.

CO2 levels have been rising since the 1900. CO2 levels have been rising precipitously since 1950. Global temperatures have been rising since 1900. Global temperatures have been rising precipitously since 1950. No, the average temperature change is not monotonic because the climate system has natural variability temporally and spatially, but the recent human signal is virtually indisputable.

Of course, correlation is not causation, but it sure as hell is getting hotter and it is getting hotter faster than ever before. Your own graphs confirm this. But you believe there is some insidious NASA/NOAA/worldwide conspiracy to fake the data because, I don't know, "the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

I suspect you and many others would find the data far more compelling if policy makers concluded we need to increase usage of fossil fuels, cut corporate taxes and build a border wall to combat global warming.

Climate Change Conspiracy Theories

Climate skeptics suggest the well-publicized consensus is either manufactured or illusory and that some nefarious force—be it the United Nations, liberals, communists, or authoritarians—want to use climate change as a cover for exerting massive new controls over the populace. This conspiracy-laden rhetoric—if followed to its logical conclusion—expresses a rejection of scientific methods, scientists, and the role that science plays in society.

Skeptic rhetoric, on one hand, may suggest that climate skepticism is psychological and the product of underlying conspiratorial thinking, rather than cognitive and the product of a careful weighing of scientific evidence. On the other hand, it may be that skeptics do not harbor underlying conspiratorial thinking, but rather express their opposition to policy solutions in conspiratorial terms because that is the only available strategy when arguing against an accepted scientific consensus. This tactic of calling into question the integrity of science has been used in other scientific debates (i.e., the link between cigarette smoking and cancer).

Opinion surveys, however, support the view that climate change denialism is driven at least partially by underlying conspiratorial thinking. Belief in climate change conspiracy theories also appear to drive behaviors in ways consistent with the behaviors of people who think in conspiratorial terms: Climate change conspiracy theorists are less likely to participate politically or take actions that could alleviate their carbon footprint. Furthermore, some climate skeptics reject studies showing that their skepticism is partially a product of conspiratorial thinking: They believe such studies are themselves part of the conspiracy.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Every decade in the satellite record (i.e. the "good" data) is hotter than the previous decade.

CO2 levels have been rising since the 1900. CO2 levels have been rising precipitously since 1950. Global temperatures have been rising since 1900. Global temperatures have been rising precipitously since 1950. No, the average temperature change is not monotonic because the climate system has natural variability temporally and spatially, but the recent human signal is virtually indisputable.

Of course, correlation is not causation, but it sure as hell is getting hotter and it is getting hotter faster than ever before. Your own graphs confirm this. But you believe there is some insidious NASA/NOAA/worldwide conspiracy to fake the data because, I don't know, "the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

I suspect you and many others would find the data far more compelling if policy makers concluded we need to increase usage of fossil fuels, cut corporate taxes and build a border wall to combat global warming.

Climate Change Conspiracy Theories

Climate skeptics suggest the well-publicized consensus is either manufactured or illusory and that some nefarious force—be it the United Nations, liberals, communists, or authoritarians—want to use climate change as a cover for exerting massive new controls over the populace. This conspiracy-laden rhetoric—if followed to its logical conclusion—expresses a rejection of scientific methods, scientists, and the role that science plays in society.

Skeptic rhetoric, on one hand, may suggest that climate skepticism is psychological and the product of underlying conspiratorial thinking, rather than cognitive and the product of a careful weighing of scientific evidence. On the other hand, it may be that skeptics do not harbor underlying conspiratorial thinking, but rather express their opposition to policy solutions in conspiratorial terms because that is the only available strategy when arguing against an accepted scientific consensus. This tactic of calling into question the integrity of science has been used in other scientific debates (i.e., the link between cigarette smoking and cancer).

Opinion surveys, however, support the view that climate change denialism is driven at least partially by underlying conspiratorial thinking. Belief in climate change conspiracy theories also appear to drive behaviors in ways consistent with the behaviors of people who think in conspiratorial terms: Climate change conspiracy theorists are less likely to participate politically or take actions that could alleviate their carbon footprint. Furthermore, some climate skeptics reject studies showing that their skepticism is partially a product of conspiratorial thinking: They believe such studies are themselves part of the conspiracy.

Were you trying to produce an EVEN BIGGER bucket of dumb?? Congratulaions!

The satellite record began at the end of a long COOLING spell. No real debate about that. So it captured a temporal low and all the (natural) rise that followed. It says nothing about what are likely the actual hottest “recent” decades in the USA… the 1930s and 1940s.

The raw data from those decades (which does not exist in the satellite record) suggests those were hotter years than the present, at least in the USA (where we have good spacial coverage)

So the idea that there has been a temperature increase since the early 1980s….I conceded that from my first posts. I have never claimed otherwise. (this recent increase may have leveled off.)

Atmospheric CO2 levels did not perceptibly increase until after 1940. Almost half of the warming in the last century had ALREADY occurred by that point.

“Global temperatures have been rising precipitously since 1950.”
That’s just stooopid so I won’t bother. (the 1940-1980 cooling still seems to elude you)

“but it sure as hell is getting hotter and it is getting hotter faster than ever before” …I guess this means you didn’t even look at the peer-reviewed paper I just linked because it makes the opposite claim. You have to be blind to be convinced that all the data points to recent warming as unprecedented. And if it is NOT UNPRECEDENTED there is LITTERALLY no evidence for the claim of anthropogenic attribution.

“the recent human signal is virtually indisputable.”
Again!! Amazing!! The degree to which you display a simple naïve faith in the proclamations of your “scientist priests” is truly inspiring. If medieval peasants had the tenacity you display we would still all be faithfully listening to mass in Latin.


And the whole last quote was simply a gift. Thank you. I have never read a more perfect encapsulation of the ignorance and arrogance of the modern progressive's analysis of climate science. And you can't see that?? Or are you, as I am beginning to suspect, actually a master troll?

[Nikoli]

If I was to change the narrative to climate modification/control would that appease you?

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

If I was to change the narrative to climate modification/control would that appease you?

If that question is posed to me...NO!

I don't think we know anything about the trajectory of modern climate so trying to "modify " it seems useless. Perhaps you intend to cool the world? If you could take skiing out of the equation the vast majority of humans might prefer warming anyway. Ice age climate might recur and I hope we would agree that would be a disaster...at least in the long run (maybe some great skiing in the short run but Killington would eventually be subsumed by a mile thick sheet of ice so...). Far worse, I would argue, than any of the past "warm climate" intervals.

Climate has always changed, it will continue to change. We don't know enough to project future trends. But we know things will change and there will be disastrous weather events in any scenario (likely MORE extreme in a cooler world). I doubt we will be able to alter climate effectively in the short term but... we can work on building our world in a way that minimizes the damages caused by extreme weather. Best bang for our buck is to focus on development of new technologies, especially those which decrease the cost of energy (without environmental destruction... unlike old coal...or...deadly wind farms or... lithium batteries) . When energy is cheap we become masters of our world.

[Coydog]

Were you trying to produce an EVEN BIGGER bucket of dumb?? Congratulaions!

The satellite record began at the end of a long COOLING spell. No real debate about that data please. So it captured a temporal low and all the (natural) rise that followed. It says nothing about what are likely the actual hottest “recent” decades in the USA… the 1930s and 1940s. I thought the topic was global warming, in any case, data please

The raw data from those decades (which does not exist in the satellite record) suggests those were hotter years than the present, at least in the USA (where we have good spacial coverage) data please

So the idea that there has been a temperature increase since the early 1980s….I conceded that from my first posts. I have never claimed otherwise. actually you yammered on about a 15 year hiatus, not so much any more though (this recent increase may have leveled off.)

Atmospheric CO2 levels did not perceptibly increase until after 1940. emissions doubled from 1880 to 1940 Almost half of the warming in the last century had ALREADY occurred by that point. data please

“Global temperatures have been rising precipitously since 1950.”
That’s just stooopid so I won’t bother. (the 1940-1980 cooling still seems to elude you) data please and you might want to review the concepts of local minimums and local maximums

“but it sure as hell is getting hotter and it is getting hotter faster than ever before” …I guess this means you didn’t even look at the peer-reviewed paper I just linked because it makes the opposite claim. that nonsense paper attempts to mathematically correlate sunspot activity to temperature variation in the Caucasus region, it is silent on C02 levels You have to be blind to be convinced that all the data points to recent warming as unprecedented. data please And if it is NOT UNPRECEDENTED there is LITTERALLY no evidence for the claim of anthropogenic attribution. that's like saying we had huge avalanches in the past, therefore the smaller avalanches of today could not be caused by human activity

“the recent human signal is virtually indisputable.”
Again!! Amazing!! The degree to which you display a simple naïve faith in the proclamations of your “scientist priests” is truly inspiring. If medieval peasants had the tenacity you display we would still all be faithfully listening to mass in Latin. what can I say, I prefer actual science over politically driven conspiracy theories


And the whole last quote was simply a gift. Thank you. I have never read a more perfect encapsulation of the ignorance and arrogance of the modern progressive's analysis of climate science. And you can't see that?? Or are you, as I am beginning to suspect, actually a master troll?

Here's a serious question for you - do you believe the moon landings were faked? After all, the whole enterprise involves that shady NASA outfit. Plenty of "evidence" is out there of the same caliber you bring to this discussion.

[madhatter]

global meltdown today....

[Coydog]

And no evidence that a moon even exists.

[Mister Moose]

Here's a serious question for you - do you believe the moon landings were faked? After all, the whole enterprise involves that shady NASA outfit. Plenty of "evidence" is out there of the same caliber you bring to this discussion.

Doesn't matter if they were faked. What matters is if you could replicate the journey and achieve the same results.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Were you trying to produce an EVEN BIGGER bucket of dumb?? Congratulaions!

The satellite record began at the end of a long COOLING spell. No real debate about that data please. So it captured a temporal low and all the (natural) rise that followed. It says nothing about what are likely the actual hottest “recent” decades in the USA… the 1930s and 1940s. I thought the topic was global warming, in any case, data please

The raw data from those decades (which does not exist in the satellite record) suggests those were hotter years than the present, at least in the USA (where we have good spacial coverage) data please

So the idea that there has been a temperature increase since the early 1980s….I conceded that from my first posts. I have never claimed otherwise. actually you yammered on about a 15 year hiatus, not so much any more though (this recent increase may have leveled off.)

Atmospheric CO2 levels did not perceptibly increase until after 1940. emissions doubled from 1880 to 1940 Almost half of the warming in the last century had ALREADY occurred by that point. data please

“Global temperatures have been rising precipitously since 1950.”
That’s just stooopid so I won’t bother. (the 1940-1980 cooling still seems to elude you) data please and you might want to review the concepts of local minimums and local maximums

“but it sure as hell is getting hotter and it is getting hotter faster than ever before” …I guess this means you didn’t even look at the peer-reviewed paper I just linked because it makes the opposite claim. that nonsense paper attempts to mathematically correlate sunspot activity to temperature variation in the Caucasus region, it is silent on C02 levels You have to be blind to be convinced that all the data points to recent warming as unprecedented. data please And if it is NOT UNPRECEDENTED there is LITTERALLY no evidence for the claim of anthropogenic attribution. that's like saying we had huge avalanches in the past, therefore the smaller avalanches of today could not be caused by human activity

“the recent human signal is virtually indisputable.”
Again!! Amazing!! The degree to which you display a simple naïve faith in the proclamations of your “scientist priests” is truly inspiring. If medieval peasants had the tenacity you display we would still all be faithfully listening to mass in Latin. what can I say, I prefer actual science over politically driven conspiracy theories


And the whole last quote was simply a gift. Thank you. I have never read a more perfect encapsulation of the ignorance and arrogance of the modern progressive's analysis of climate science. And you can't see that?? Or are you, as I am beginning to suspect, actually a master troll?

Here's a serious question for you - do you believe the moon landings were faked? After all, the whole enterprise involves that shady NASA outfit. Plenty of "evidence" is out there of the same caliber you bring to this discussion.

Your response is again ridiculous. Let's start with your FIRST comment...

The satellite record began at the end of a long COOLING spell. No real debate about that data please.

Data please????? The satellite record began in the early 80's. Preceding that there was a period of Global COOLING. Look at all the contemporaneous data for that period and all records showed almost FOUR DECADES of cooling. There was alarm among many scientists that our combustion of "fossil fuels" had laden the atmosphere with so much "carbon pollution" (aerosols and particulates) that they were effectively blocking the sun and cooling our climate.

It is the common practice among the Grubers in our MSM today to pretend this was not the dominant narrative at the time, both in academia and in the MSM, but in fact it was. I lived through those times and as an environmentally conscious young scientist at the time I was nervous (like you are today) that a new ice age might be approaching.

The ACTIVISTS at NASA & NOAA (both GOVERNMENT agencies!!) continue to ALTER the data from those decades to diminish the record of cooling but it was real and the Stalinists erasing figures in a photo doesn't mean that the actual facts of history have changed. The planet cooled from 1940 until 1980 (more or less) (according to our best data.)

You asking for data to confirm this just proves how delusional you are.

Here it is anyway: (NASA GISS) (see the Cooling??)

2002fig1_s.gif (9.37 KiB) Viewed 549 times

Same for the rest of your points. (Why do I waste my time??)

As for the moon landing? NASA Apollo project is a TOTALLY different cast of characters. Many of them noticed that NASA GISS Climate crew is full of frauds like James Hansen (former head) and Gavin Schmidt (current head) and have come out publicly to expose the current fraud at NASA. I think we landed on the moon, talked for a couple hours with a guy who orbited the moon (Rusty Schweickart) back in 1980 (I was member of L5 Society and of Orange County Aeronautics and Astronautics Organization at the time).

So yeah I think we landed on the moon but quite a few people who know for sure...

think the NASA climate argument is utter nonsense...not because ...
"mumble mumble.., conspiracy" (your argument!)... but because..
The data says it is nonsense!


49 Former NASA Scientists Send A Letter Disputing Climate Change
http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-sci ... nge-2012-4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Harrison Schmitt — a former astronaut who walked on the moon as part of the Apollo 17 mission
https://www.inverse.com/article/27842-c ... on-schmitt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So does Harrison Schmitt, who walked on the moon, believe that men have walked on the moon????? YUP!
Does Harrison Schmitt, who walked on the moon, believe that NASA scientists are full of crap about climate??? YUP!

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Text of the letter from NASA scientists objecting to NASA climate nonsense:

"We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself."

So golden I could underline and bold the entire text!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So Coydog...do these guys believe the moon landing was a hoax??

Or are you actually a moron?

[Coydog]

Text of the letter from NASA scientists objecting to NASA climate nonsense:

"We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself."

So golden I could underline and bold the entire text!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So Coydog...do these guys believe the moon landing was a hoax??

Or are you actually a moron?

I'm not particularly impressed by a handful of former NASA employees (18,000 work there now), non of whom seem to have any expertise in climate science, voicing embarrassingly misinformed views. Have any of these signatorys published a single peer reviewed paper on climate change or any papers on climate at all?

Didn't think so.

[Coydog]

Notice the relentless rise in temperatures from 1950 onward. So I guess one could naively claim a "global cooling trend from 1940 to 1980", but it is far more accurate to say temperatures increased during the 1940's, then decreased back to the decadal trend in the 1950's and have been rising every decade since.