- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Since it's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, since we don't have anywhere near enough thermometers to even begin a statistical analysis, arguing over whether the predictions stand up to the manufactured data is rather pointless.
CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. The whole concept of a 'greenhouse' gas denies several laws of physics:
The first is the law of energy conservation. The Earth is warmed by absorbing energy from the Sun. The only way to make the Earth warmer is to increase the output of the Sun. It is not possible to create the necessary energy out of any gas or vapor.
The second is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This theory states that entropy always increases or stays the same in any system. It never decreases. If a gas or vapor could somehow trap energy yet still let it in, that would mean entropy is decreasing, in violation of this law. It is this law that gives the direction for heat. Heat always flows from hot to cold. To attempt to warm the surface by using a colder gas in the atmosphere, such as CO2, is a direct violation of this law. It is not possible to make hot coffee with ice. It is not possible to warm an already warmer surface using a colder gas.
The third is the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which states: radiance = SBconstant * emissivity constant * temperature ^ 4. For any gas or vapor to prevent energy from leaving Earth (for any reason) would require a reduction in radiance. To say that Earth would warm in such a situation is in violation of this law. Reduced radiance means the Earth is colder, not warmer.
There is also the paradox built around 'greenhouse' gases. The surface of the Moon during the daytime can reach temperatures around 250 deg F. The Moon has no appreciable atmosphere, no CO2, no 'greenhouse' gases, nothing. The Earth, has an atmosphere, CO2, and other so-called 'greenhouse' gases. If one or more of these gases or vapors could warm the Earth, why is the daytime temperature of the Earth so much colder? There is nowhere on the daylight surface of the Earth that even approaches 250 deg F. Thus, paradox.
These predictions are politically motivated. They are an effort to blame 'big oil', ' big corporations', or any other successful business venture for the so-called 'problem' of a warming Earth. They are an effort to implement socialism and punish business. With an entire scientific community largely funded by a single source (the government), this effort by the government to justify expanding itself and to grow (by using a 'crisis' to justify expansion), and a media that more about sensationalism than facts, this becomes the coordinated noise we see now.
'Greenhouse' gases are not the problem. The popularity of Socialism and Marxism is the problem. The manufacturing of the 'crisis' of so-called global 'warming' is the problem.
You’re gonna be surprised one day when you take high school physics.
Inversion fallacy. Insult fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.
Redefinition fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy. Insult fallacy.It’s not a fallacy at all.
It’s a joke.
Seems your interpersonal skills are as deficient as your scientific ones.
Seriously? You cited an editorial and a paper from 1988...And you'd have us take you seriously....
Try reading something other than opinion pieces....
- 2018 -- The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly
- 2018 -- Listening to James Hansen on Climate Change, Thirty Years Ago and Now
- 2013 -- Global warming predictions prove accurate Analysis of climate change modelling for past 15 years reveal accurate forecasts of rising global temperatures
- 2013 -- How Accurate Are Existing Computer Climate Modeling Techniques?
- 2005 -- Climate Change Prediction A challenging scientific problem
I will also point out that both the authors are deeply involved in the Cato institute.
And his is one that directly addresses that piece Sorry, deniers - 30 years later, Hansen's climate change predictions hold up - Red, Green, and Blue
From the link in #32:
[FONT="]. . . Using only Hansen’s own data, the above demonstrates that Hansen was not “extremely accurate” in his 1988 predictions because a simple, commonly unreliable, linear extrapolation performed better than his model in predicting the last 30 years of temperatures. One of the consequences of demonstrating the ‘Business As Usual’ linear extrapolation of past temperatures as being superior to the model used by Hansen, is that it isn’t necessary to appeal to anthropogenic influences to account for a phenomenon that started 12 millennia ago, with the end of the last major glaciation. Occam’s Razor suggests that the best explanation for something is the simplest explanation. That is, there is no compelling need to complicate the explanation with human interference. Climate changes. That is what it does. That is why climatologists use a 30-year average of weather to define a climate regime or episode. While I’m sure that humans are having an impact on climate, it isn’t just their CO2 emissions, and it certainly isn’t fossil fuel combustion that is the primary control of temperature. Notwithstanding how poor Hansen’s predictions actually were, I think we should still keep before us his assessment of computer modeling:[/FONT]
[FONT="]“There are major [my emphasis added] uncertainties in the model, which arise especially from assumptions about (1) global climate sensitivity and (2) heat uptake and transport by the ocean, …”[/FONT]
[FONT="]He should have mentioned also the need for parameterization of clouds in the models. In any event, we should take computer model ‘projections’ with a grain of sea salt – and anything that Hansen says with a block of salt.[/FONT]
From the link in #32:
[FONT="]. . . Using only Hansen’s own data, the above demonstrates that Hansen was [B]not[/B] “extremely accurate” in his 1988 predictions because a simple, commonly unreliable, linear extrapolation performed better than his model in predicting the last 30 years of temperatures. One of the consequences of demonstrating the ‘Business As Usual’ linear extrapolation of past temperatures as being superior to the model used by Hansen, is that it isn’t necessary to appeal to anthropogenic influences to account for a phenomenon that started 12 millennia ago, with the end of the last major glaciation. Occam’s Razor suggests that the best explanation for something is the simplest explanation. That is, there is no compelling need to complicate the explanation with human interference. Climate changes. That is what it does. That is why climatologists use a 30-year average of weather to define a climate regime or episode. While I’m sure that humans are having an impact on climate, it isn’t just their CO[FONT=inherit]2[/FONT] emissions, and it certainly isn’t fossil fuel combustion that is the primary control of temperature. Notwithstanding how poor Hansen’s predictions actually were, I think we should still keep before us his assessment of computer modeling:[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT="]“There are major [my emphasis added] uncertainties in the model, which arise especially from assumptions about (1) global climate sensitivity and (2) heat uptake and transport by the ocean, …”[/FONT]
[FONT="]He should have mentioned also the need for parameterization of clouds in the models. In any event, we should take computer model ‘projections’ with a grain of sea salt – and anything that Hansen says with a block of salt.[/FONT]
Climate, changes. Deal with it.
Since it's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth...
These predictions are politically motivated.
Climate does change. The issue, which you are trying to argue, is not that people are arguing that man has created it. The issue is that man has exacerbated it.
View attachment 67235398
Do we see how it goes way, way up in our time? Why is this so different from the rest of history? Well, according to the graph, which is inspired by people who look through telescopes and see tomato paste as a pizza ingredient not vegetable, it's because of man-made infrastructure and technology since the advent of the Industrial Age. By acknowledging this, we are dealing with it. The problem is that conservatives, who have allowed Fox News to politicize it in such a way that the same people who worked with Democrats to fix the hole in the ozone layer now deny science with every fiber of their being, have actively chosen not to deal with it.
You don't have to be the cliche.
You don't know what you are talking about.
I will also point out that both the authors are deeply involved in the Cato institute.
And his is one that directly addresses that piece Sorry, deniers - 30 years later, Hansen's climate change predictions hold up - Red, Green, and Blue
Why does it matter what legal activities they do or support? Are you a bigot in that manner?
Actual scientists ( unlike the author of the blog post, who seems to be known primarily for...writing WUWT blog posts) disagree.
Climate does change. The issue, which you are trying to argue, is not that people are arguing that man has created it. The issue is that man has exacerbated it.
Do we see how it goes way, way up in our time? Why is this so different from the rest of history? Well, according to the graph, which is inspired by people who look through telescopes and see tomato paste as a pizza ingredient not vegetable, it's because of man-made infrastructure and technology since the advent of the Industrial Age. By acknowledging this, we are dealing with it. The problem is that conservatives, who have allowed Fox News to politicize it in such a way that the same people who worked with Democrats to fix the hole in the ozone layer now deny science with every fiber of their being, have actively chosen not to deal with it.
You don't have to be the cliche.
Er...according to science, "average global temperature in modern times is measured through special thermometers aboard ships, buoys and a number of weather stations functioning all over the world." I got this from a website called Science ABC. Aptly named, huh? The site also gives other common sense examples of what scientists use to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Rather the denial is politically motivated. Funny how this "hoax" also came out of the same indoctrination as Kenyan-born Obama and tomato-paste vegetable. And it is quite revealing when it is always the "conservatives" who deny it. The more "very" conservative one gets, the greater the denial.
From acknowledging and fixing the hole in the ozone layer to denying man's effect on Global Warming. Even worse, denying Global Warming altogether at first. Conservatives have come a long way since religiously tuning into FOX News.
The leading scientific skeptics are Euro-style Social Democrats.
I don't get it. How are you tying Social Democracy to being a skeptic of Global Warming?
I'm pointing out that tying climate skepticism to US conservative politics is an inaccurate propaganda meme.
The two most important scientific climate skeptics are Professor Henrik Svensmark of the Danish Technical University and Professor Nir Shaviv, Chairman of the Raccah Institute for Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Shaviv was also an IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study in 2015. Both are Social Democrats by political persuasion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?