The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

  • Thread starter Thread starter estesbob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Retread_Mick said:
Using climate change as a policy driver is causing near catastrophic damage to the economy. Tax money is being squandered to install "renewable energy ie. wind turbines and solar panels and has driven the cost of domestic energy through the roof, and wasted acre upon acre of valuable farmland. The use of food products for such things as ethanol is outrageously driving up food prices. Ethanol drives up grain prices which in turn drives up meat prices, especially beef, and all to appease the econuts who latch onto a farce like this issue and try to solve it with other peoples money.
Click to expand...
Not using fossil fuel can make things a lot worse for human beings.

“Fossil fuel energy is, for the foreseeable future, necessary to life. The more of it we produce, the more people will have the ability to improve their lives. The less of it we produce, the more preventable suffering and death will exist. To not use fossil fuels therefore, is beyond a risk—it is certain mortal peril for mankind.”

–Alex Epstein, The Moral Case For Fossil Fuel
 
weller2 said:
If one were to study blackbody radiation, they would realize that incoming solar radiation peaks at 500nm, while Earth’s outgoing thermal radiation peaks at 10um. And, coincidentally, the 10um band is where the CO2 absorption window is.

This creates a situation where energy can go IN, but cannot go OUT.
Click to expand...
physics.jamesbaugh.com/co2saturation.html
CO2 has very little, if anything, to do with it.
No, the real reason was that Irena Sendler did not match the stereotype of Polish Anti-Semite which is being propagated by certain groups.
Click to expand...
My apologies, but that statement is ludicrous.
 
Retread_Mick said:
physics.jamesbaugh.com/co2saturation.html
CO2 has very little, if anything, to do with it.
.
Click to expand...
Ah, the old saturation myth again! If you look at the graph on which Mr. Baugh bases his conclusion, you will see that it does not support his claim. He claims that CO2 absorption is already saturated, and that adding more CO2 cannot capture more heat.

But here is where his argument falls apart. The graph shows solar irradiance as received on the surface, complete with dips associated with CO2 absorption. And the very bottom of those dips do indeed get very close to 100% absorption. But that is at only one wavelength. In the wavelengths along side the bottom of each dip, the total absorption is substantially less than 100%, going all the way up to 0% when you get far enough away from the center of the dip. The total IR energy that gets through the entire atmosphere in the vicinity of an absorption band is the integral of the irradiance over wavelength. If you double the CO2 concentration, those nearby slopes of the dip will get twice as close to 100%. There is certainly room for more energy to be absorbed with more CO2.

Also the graph shows the effect of the entire column of atmosphere - from the surface up to the stratosphere. Even if there was nearly 100% absorption at a given frequency, that would not support Mr. Baugh’s contention that 99% of the energy is absorbed in 10 meters of atmosphere.

Finally, there is the issue of where the energy gets absorbed. Even if there is saturation, the CO2 always re-radiates the energy in all directions after it has been absorbed. If that re-radiation takes place near to the surface, there is a whole lot more CO2 above than below, so the chances of that energy escaping into space are extremely low, compared to the chances of that energy hitting the surface and warming it up. However, if that re-radiation takes place up near the top of the atmosphere, it has a much better chance of escaping to space, because there is so little CO2 left between the point of re-radiaiton and the depths of space.

So even if there were 100% absorption, it matters where the absorption takes place. And now we must remember that the greenhouse effect does not work by absorbing IR energy from sunlight. It works by absorbing black body radiation from the surface. So with a higher concentration of CO2, more absorption will take place closer to the surface, where the air temperature is warmer to begin with, and where the chances are that re-radiated energy will not escape to space.

So you see that it is easy to take a little bit of science and twist it to make it sound like the CO2 greenhouse effect is saturated. The funny thing is, others who also don’t accept global warming, have based their conclusion on their belief that there is** too little CO2** to have any effect at all! Isn’t global warming skepticism great? Global warming is a hoax because there is too little CO2, or because there is already too much CO2. Take your pick. You win either way!
 
((So you see that it is easy to take a little bit of science and twist it to make it sound like the CO2 greenhouse effect is saturated. The funny thing is, others who also don’t accept global warming, have based their conclusion on their belief that there is too little CO2 to have any effect at all! Isn’t global warming skepticism great? Global warming is a hoax because there is too little CO2, or because there is already too much CO2. Take your pick. You win either way!))

Actually, Leaf, it is AGW which is impossible to falsify. Drought, heavy rains, hurricanes or lack thereof, tornadoes, heat, cold, it ALL supports the theory. Even the absurd, wildly inaccurate forecast of a melted polar ice cap during summer has not given the zealots pause. All I know is that millions of people are praying to God,“Please deliver us some global warming, NOW!” 😉
 
RACJ said:
((So you see that it is easy to take a little bit of science and twist it to make it sound like the CO2 greenhouse effect is saturated. The funny thing is, others who also don’t accept global warming, have based their conclusion on their belief that there is too little CO2 to have any effect at all! Isn’t global warming skepticism great? Global warming is a hoax because there is too little CO2, or because there is already too much CO2. Take your pick. You win either way!))

Actually, Leaf, it is AGW which is impossible to falsify. Drought, heavy rains, hurricanes or lack thereof, tornadoes, heat, cold, it ALL supports the theory. Even the absurd, wildly inaccurate forecast of a melted polar ice cap during summer has not given the zealots pause. All I know is that millions of people are praying to God,“Please deliver us some global warming, NOW!” 😉
Click to expand...
I get the impression that the name was revised from “global warming” to “climate change” when the data showed global temperatures stabilizing. Since there have always been and always will be destructive climate phenomena such as hurricanes, floods, storms, and weather related disasters, why not blame it all on global warming. Thus the new name.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
…So you see that it is easy to take a little bit of science and twist it to make it sound like the CO2 greenhouse effect is saturated. The funny thing is, others who also don’t accept global warming, have based their conclusion on their belief that there is** too little CO2** to have any effect at all! Isn’t global warming skepticism great? Global warming is a hoax because there is too little CO2, or because there is already too much CO2. Take your pick. You win either way!
Click to expand...
It’s called “the circular firing squad.” They refute each other’s skeptical myths against AGW :).

My favorite myth is “the [imagined conspiracy] policy implications are just so bad, ergo AGW is not happening” – policy implications determine science.

That contradicts nearly all the other myths that claim to be “science-based.”

Someone ought to come up with an Archie Bunker-type comedy series about the ridiculous claims against AGW, but no one in this old skeptic codger’s family sharing real science with and explaining it very well is ever able to convince him. His contorted world view, limited knowledge, and far-out-ideology-determines-science just make it impossible to change his mind.
 
lynnvinc said:
It’s called “the circular firing squad.” They refute each other’s skeptical myths against AGW :).

My favorite myth is “the [imagined conspiracy] policy implications are just so bad, ergo AGW is not happening” – policy implications determine science.

That contradicts nearly all the other myths that claim to be “science-based.”

Someone ought to come up with an Archie Bunker-type comedy series about the ridiculous claims against AGW, but no one in this old skeptic codger’s family sharing real science with and explaining it very well is ever able to convince him. His contorted world view, limited knowledge, and far-out-ideology-determines-science just make it impossible to change his mind.
Click to expand...
Lynn, let’s say this theory is correct, for the sake of argument. Can you explain why an increase in CO2 from 38 molecules per 100,000 to say, 41 per 100,000 is going to cause planetary catastrophe? Maybe it might be a beneficial phenomenon? I just can’t see the alarm. Families are having difficult times surviving now, and champions of AGW want to whack us with outrageous new taxes and energy costs. We pay enough now! :eek:
 
RACJ said:
Lynn, let’s say this theory is correct, for the sake of argument. Can you explain why an increase in CO2 from 38 molecules per 100,000 to say, 41 per 100,000 is going to cause planetary catastrophe?:
Click to expand...
If it was certain to stay at 41 and not go any higher, we might be OK. But it is on track to double.
 
JimG said:
Not using fossil fuel can make things a lot worse for human beings.

“Fossil fuel energy is, for the foreseeable future, necessary to life. The more of it we produce, the more people will have the ability to improve their lives. The less of it we produce, the more preventable suffering and death will exist. To not use fossil fuels therefore, is beyond a risk—it is certain mortal peril for mankind.”

–Alex Epstein, The Moral Case For Fossil Fuel
Click to expand...
Two words: Peak Oil.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
If it was certain to stay at 41 and not go any higher, we might be OK. But it is on track to double.
Click to expand...
And don’t forget it was 28 before we started burning coal and oil.
And don’t forget that the earth would be frozen if it was 0.
 
estesbob said:
Have US. Reserves increased or decreased in the last 20 years?
Click to expand...
Total reserves increased, economically recoverable reserves decreased.

Behold the death spiral of the oil industry:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
it’s dishonest to pretend you are refuting something on Oil Reserves by showing charts about price impacts.
weller2 said:
Total reserves increased, economically recoverable reserves decreased.

Behold the death spiral of the oil industry:
Click to expand...
 
Theo520 said:
it’s dishonest to pretend you are refuting something on Oil Reserves by showing charts about price impacts.
Click to expand...
Contrary, quoting reserve size without extraction costs is dishonest.

NB: technically we will never use all of the oil, simply because at some point it will become too expensive to extract, so the remainder will be left in the ground.

http://oilprice.com/uploads/AE226.png
 
Are all temperature adjustments bad or wrong? Absolutely not.

However, indications from 3rd party analysis (here and here) indicates that potentially one-half of the hypothetical +0.8°C global warming since 1850 may be a result of the massive temperature adjustments applied to the entire historical record.
Name a single individual scientist, government official or blue-ribbon commission that publicly
announced 10 to 20 years ago that all the historical climate temperature records were wrong, and thus there
was a need for all to be altered carte blanche to conform to certain pattern.
Click to expand...
That’s right, you can’t.
Click to expand...
Hmmm…maybe because there never was a debate/discussion about a proposed blatant altering of historical evidence.
Click to expand...
With absolutely no public concurrence to do so, non-elected climate scientists just decided to make it happen.
Click to expand...
It’s science on its worst agenda-driven behavior.
Click to expand...
Of course, when the empirical truth comes out regarding the overstatement of global warming by
govt climate researchers they then wonder why the public has a growing distrust of science and government.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top