32,000 scientists dissent from global-warming “consensus”

[scifisam]

Ooh, look, another mock expert.

I'll pass your comments on to the Guardian picture editor.

The great green land grab
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/feb/13/conservation

Pass them on if you like - he really should be able to spot such an obvious fake. It doesn't matter for their article whether the picture's real or not, though.

Like I said, if that picture were real, the man would have been chopped to pieces seconds later. Can't you see that?

 

[bigfish]

What exactly is it that you're trying to demonstrate?

1. That Jeremiah Hansen made 3 prediction for future global temperature all of which have been proven wrong.

2. that global temperature is lower now than it was at the time he made his predictions.

Simple really, so I'm not surprised you can't see it.

 

[bigfish]

Pass them on if you like - he really should be able to spot such an obvious fake.

But what if it's not an "obvious fake" and you don't know what you are talking about? How do we know that you do know what you are talking about? Are you an accredited expert in the field?

 

[bigfish]

No they don't.

Oh yes they do.

 

[scifisam]

But what if it's not an "obvious fake" and you don't know what you are talking about? How do we know that you do know what you are talking about? Are you an accredited expert in the field?

I have eyes. I look at picture. I see man about to be pulverised by propellers.

Why would you need to be an accredited expert to see that? For noticing tiny, subtle manipulations, yes, you'd need some training, but with really obvious fakes you don't.

You want people to be sceptical about the consensus on global warming, yes? You want people to use their own minds instead of just accepting what the experts tell them, yes? Well then, do the same yourself when you look at that picture.

 

[scifisam]

Oh yes they do.

It's behind you!

 

[bigfish]

Why are you using such a massive division of geological time?

To show there is no correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature over the whole of geological time.

Here's a graph showing CO2 levels and temperature over a shorter period of time (1600 to 2000)

The graph above shows a comparison between the increase in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (yellow line) and the changes in tropospheric temperatures since 1600 AD (blue line). The current warm period initiated at 1690 AD (blue arrow) has persisted to date. However, the increase in the concentration of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere began to increase in 1876 AD (yellow arrow). The Industrial Era began in 1850 AD. The evidence confirms that Carbon Dioxide is not the cause of global warming. It has never been the cause of global warming in other ages.

http://biocab.org/Little_Ice_Age_Sun.html

 

[free spirit]

Pass them on if you like - he really should be able to spot such an obvious fake. It doesn't matter for their article whether the picture's real or not, though.

Like I said, if that picture were real, the man would have been chopped to pieces seconds later. Can't you see that?

erm, the propellers aren't moving

photo credited to Leo Beca/Reuters... no idea about the rest of what bigfish was claiming in that post, but I doubt the photo's a fake.

 

[scifisam]

erm, the propellers aren't moving

photo credited to Leo Beca/Reuters... no idea about the rest of what bigfish was claiming in that post, but I doubt the photo's a fake.

They look like they're moving to me. And colours look very odd - the colours on the man are completely different in quality to the colours of the background.

 

[bigfish]

I have eyes. I look at picture. I see man about to be pulverised by propellers.

But the propeller isn't turning.

 

[Crispy]

I really don't think there's anything sus about that picture you know.

 

[tangentlama]

Pic looks ok to me too.

 

[tangentlama]

To show there is no correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature over the whole of geological time.

But you haven't shown that.

A couple of hundred years worth of data isn't that much interest when compared to the WHOLE of geological time. Take one or two epochs and study those. Use Pleistocene and Holocene since they're the most recent.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The graph above shows a comparison between the increase in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (yellow line) and the changes in tropospheric temperatures since 1600 AD (blue line). The current warm period initiated at 1690 AD (blue arrow) has persisted to date. However, the increase in the concentration of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere began to increase in 1876 AD (yellow arrow). The Industrial Era began in 1850 AD. The evidence confirms that Carbon Dioxide is not the cause of global warming. It has never been the cause of global warming in other ages.

The evidence when taking into account all factors, such aerosols, strongly suggests that CO2 is the main cause of global warming.

Remember that the industrial age did not pop up fully formed in 1850 - industries grew over time. And many of those industries released aerosols into the atmosphere as well as greenhouse gases, and aerosols cause global cooling.

But it appears that you will see what you want to see, and are content to use simplistic nonsense logic to work backwards from a a conclusion you have already decided on.

 

[scifisam]

Hmph. Well, I'm going to disagree with you all anyway no matter what you say, forever!

*has been momentarily possessed by bigfish*

I am surprised you guys don't think those colours look well dodgy, though.

 

[tangentlama]

Hmph. Well, I'm going to disagree with you all anyway no matter what you say, forever!

*has been momentarily possessed by bigfish*

I am surprised you guys don't think those colours look well dodgy, though.

Nothing wrong with my gamma calibration. Must be yours.

 

[bigfish]

But you haven't shown that.

The graph shows that there is no correlation between T and CO2 over the whole of geological time. However, if you choose not to see that, then there isn't much I can do about it.

A couple of hundred years worth of data isn't that much interest when compared to the WHOLE of geological time. Take one or two epochs and study those. Use Pleistocene and Holocene since they're the most recent.

How about this:

http://biocab.org/Holocene.html

So no correlation between T and CO2 over 400 years, 10,000 years and the whole of geological time. Now if you somehow still feel that a correlation does exist between T and CO2, please post a graph showing it here. Thanks.

 

[bigfish]

The evidence when taking into account all factors, such aerosols, strongly suggests that CO2 is the main cause of global warming.

But we want proof, not suggestions. Please either explain or provide an exposition of the precise physical mechanism by which carbon dioxide supposedly heats the surrounding atmosphere in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics. Thanks.

 

[Crispy]

proof doesn't exist. all science is strong suggestions, good evidence, in all likelyhood, with a 90% certainty etc.

 

[bigfish]

proof doesn't exist. all science is strong suggestions, good evidence, in all likelyhood, with a 90% certainty etc.

I've shown above that there is no correlation between T and CO2 at 400 year, 10,000 year and 550 million year time scales. As matters stand at the present time, T and CO2 are moving in opposite direction, T is falling while CO2 continues to rise.

Correlation does not prove causation, but the absence of any correlation whatsoever is fatal to the "90% certainty" claim of a CO2-Temperature cause and effect relationship. If such a relationship really did exist it would produce a correlation.

If you have evidence to the contrary please post it here. Thanks.

 

[WouldBe]

Correlation does not prove causation, but the absence of any correlation whatsoever is fatal to the "90% certainty" claim of a CO2-Temperature cause and effect relationship. If such a relationship really did exist it would produce a correlation.

If you have evidence to the contrary please post it here. Thanks.

There is proof that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You can proove it in a lab.

Unfortunately a flask with CO2 in isn't an accurate model of the atmosphere.

 

[tangentlama]

I've shown above that there is no correlation between T and CO2 at 400 year, 10,000 year and 550 million year time scales. As matters stand at the present time, T and CO2 are moving in opposite direction, T is falling while CO2 continues to rise.

Correlation does not prove causation, but the absence of any correlation whatsoever is fatal to the "90% certainty" claim of a CO2-Temperature cause and effect relationship. If such a relationship really did exist it would produce a correlation.

If you have evidence to the contrary please post it here. Thanks.

I thought that over glacial/interglacial cycles, atmospheric CO2 was highly correlated to temperature.

What about the oceans uptake/release of atmospheric CO2?

Have you looked at the late Pleistocene temperature/atmospheric CO2/glacial cycles yet?

 

[tangentlama]

There is proof that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You can proove it in a lab.

Unfortunately a flask with CO2 in isn't an accurate model of the atmosphere.

CO2 is only one of several greenhouse gases.

 

[WouldBe]

What about the oceans uptake/release of atmospheric CO2?

The claim by climatologists is that atmospheric CO2 is linked to temp not that temp is linked to CO2 stored in the oceans or ground or anywhere else.

 

[WouldBe]

CO2 is only one of several greenhouse gases.

You can also demonstrate that those gasses have a greenhouse effect in a lab.

But a glass flask in a lab is not an accurate model of the atmosphere for any gas wether greenhouse or otherwise.

 

[bigfish]

There is proof that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You can proove it in a lab.

Unfortunately a flask with CO2 in isn't an accurate model of the atmosphere.

CO2 is a poor absorber-emitter of heat and so it cannot store (or "trap") heat for long periods of time (absorption-emission takes about 1 second). According to Dr Nahle's fieldwork, for CO2 to cause a variation in the tropospheric temperature of 0.52 °C would require a concentration level of 1627.6 ppmv.

Heat stored by Carbon Dioxide
http://biocab.org/Heat_Storage.html

 

[tangentlama]

google search: co2 temperature glacial cycles

 

[tangentlama]

The claim by climatologists is that atmospheric CO2 is linked to temp not that temp is linked to CO2 stored in the oceans or ground or anywhere else.

C02 in the oceans/water/ice cannot be disregarded, nor can the C02 from the earth/mud/sea-bed be ignored.

 

[laptop]

CO2 is a poor absorber-emitter of heat and so it cannot store (or "trap") heat for long periods of time (absorption-emission takes about 1 second).

Ah.

I see.

The poster who decided that the Sun must be made of ferrite, because the real Sun didn't fit his theories, has now decided that Arrhenius was wrong, the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with radiation, it's all some sort of storage heater metaphor effect which is within the poster's imaginative capabilities which is impossible therefore climate change isn't happening wibble bleat...

 

[WouldBe]

CO2 is a poor absorber-emitter of heat and so it cannot store (or "trap") heat for long periods of time (absorption-emission takes about 1 second). According to Dr Nahle's fieldwork, for CO2 to cause a variation in the tropospheric temperature of 0.52 °C would require a concentration level of 1627.6 ppmv.

or equivalent thereof.

That article ignores the effects of other greenhouse gasses.