Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures

[pitrevie]

Its the basis on which forensic science works albeit a shorter time span but none of them were there when a crime was committed but they are able to provide a very accurate picture of what most likely took place based on the evidence they uncover.

Neither your hypothesis nor you conclusion tracks. Forensic scientific examples are repeatable and provable. One can repeat and prove DNA and ballistic tests and results and time since death.

That is totally impossible for these "scientists" who proclaim climate change to do. They are truly paid and supported to say it.

Do you know absolutely anything at all about scientific testing as a science?

Well it appears from your remarks that you know very little of the scientific method. I guess that when they extract an ice core containing information about the planets environment going back over centuries that is not repeatable and provable or in any way different to what a forensic scientist does.

As for your ludicrous claim that scientists "are truly paid and supported to say it. " I guess that fits in well with those that appear to think that scientists across the planet who have reached the same consensus are in some mass conspiracy.

[sirineou]

but one can be sure that any time you introduce energy in to any system you will have increased activity,

I'm sorry, but if you take that statement to a group of physicists, you will have them rolling in the aisles.

Ever heard of noise-cancelling headphones? Extra sound energy is deliberately introduced to damp down the overall sound. Peak meet trough.

Irrelevant to climate? Not a bit of it. One of the most closely studied aspects of global warming has been the disparity between warming at the tropics and warming at the poles.

Virtually everyone in climate science agrees that:

1. Warming at the poles will be greater than warming in the tropics.

2. Therefore, the temperature differential between tropics and poles reduces

3. Tropical storms are driven by this temperature differential (redistribution of energy, a basic physical process)

4. Therefore global warming will lead to a lessening of tropical storm activity.

You may remember the Hollywood sci-fi fantasy The Day After Tomorrow. The premise was that increased warming at the poles would, through changing the water density, stop the Gulf Stream and freeze Europe and North America.

The mechanism is plausible enough for many activists such as the EU, New Scientist, Sunday Times ("Britain faces big chill as ocean current slows") to have included it in their litany of capitalist-driven woes. Most reputable scientists believe it is extremely unlikely to happen

So the results from adding energy to a system, particularly a complex one, do not just amount to "increased activity".

You are kidding right?

Ever heard of noise-cancelling headphones? Extra sound energy is deliberately introduced to damp down the overall sound. Peak meet trough.

There is no such thing as sound energy, obviously you don't understand how noise cancelling headphones work

energy can not be destroyed nor created it can only be transformed

the addition of energy does not decrease the activity, it only decreases the activity your hearing can perceive, as what you call sound the "sound energy" (kinetic energy/vibration) is transformed in to heat

the net gain of energy remains

[RickBradford]

there is no such thing as sound energy

Wrong. There are detailed equations for the energy of a sound wave, and sonic weapons which prove the case.

energy can not be destroyed nor created it can only be transformed

Trivial and irrelevant high-school science

the addition of energy does not decrease the activity, it only decreases the activity your hearing can perceive

That's the whole point. The addition of the heat energy at the poles doesn't reduce the energy in the system, it reduces the storm activity we perceive.

The statement "but one can be sure that any time you introduce energy in to any system you will have increased activity" is plain wrong, and any scientist will tell you so.

[NeverSure]

Its the basis on which forensic science works albeit a shorter time span but none of them were there when a crime was committed but they are able to provide a very accurate picture of what most likely took place based on the evidence they uncover.

Neither your hypothesis nor you conclusion tracks. Forensic scientific examples are repeatable and provable. One can repeat and prove DNA and ballistic tests and results and time since death.

That is totally impossible for these "scientists" who proclaim climate change to do. They are truly paid and supported to say it.

Do you know absolutely anything at all about scientific testing as a science?

Well it appears from your remarks that you know very little of the scientific method. c

As for your ludicrous claim that scientists "are truly paid and supported to say it. " I guess that fits in well with those that appear to think that scientists across the planet who have reached the same consensus are in some mass conspiracy.

"I guess that when they extract an ice core containing information about the planets environment going back over centuries that is not repeatable and provable or in any way different to what a forensic scientist does."

It's not repeatable because they can't prove what caused it!!! They can't repeat it so they can't prove it!!! They are speculating which isn't science. What they see could be random cycles from sunspots or lack of or just normal cycling. They can't prove their ideas.

Thus my ever present question: "Were you there"?

They can't prove why the earth went into and Ice Age, recovered. For all they know an Ice Age is the normal. This earth is probably millions or billions of years old and the so called scientists are full of themselves. Such arrogance.

Edited May 10, 2015 by NeverSure

[sirineou]

there is no such thing as sound energy

Wrong. There are detailed equations for the energy of a sound wave, and sonic weapons which prove the case.

energy can not be destroyed nor created it can only be transformed

Trivial and irrelevant high-school science

the addition of energy does not decrease the activity, it only decreases the activity your hearing can perceive

That's the whole point. The addition of the heat energy at the poles doesn't reduce the energy in the system, it reduces the storm activity we perceive.

The statement "but one can be sure that any time you introduce energy in to any system you will have increased activity" is plain wrong, and any scientist will tell you so.

assuming of course that all storm activity is the same and it is all caused by the temperature differential between the poles and the tropics and there are no other components

"

Edited May 10, 2015 by sirineou

[NeverSure]

assuming of course that all storm activity is the same and it is all caused by the temperature differential between the poles and the tropics and there are no other components

You're just repeating tired stuff and not responding to engage. The title of this thread, which is the real issue is:

Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures.

Edited May 10, 2015 by NeverSure

[pitrevie]

Its the basis on which forensic science works albeit a shorter time span but none of them were there when a crime was committed but they are able to provide a very accurate picture of what most likely took place based on the evidence they uncover.

Neither your hypothesis nor you conclusion tracks. Forensic scientific examples are repeatable and provable. One can repeat and prove DNA and ballistic tests and results and time since death.

That is totally impossible for these "scientists" who proclaim climate change to do. They are truly paid and supported to say it.

Do you know absolutely anything at all about scientific testing as a science?

Well it appears from your remarks that you know very little of the scientific method. c

As for your ludicrous claim that scientists "are truly paid and supported to say it. " I guess that fits in well with those that appear to think that scientists across the planet who have reached the same consensus are in some mass conspiracy.

"I guess that when they extract an ice core containing information about the planets environment going back over centuries that is not repeatable and provable or in any way different to what a forensic scientist does."

It's not repeatable because they can't prove what caused it!!! They can't repeat it so they can't prove it!!! They are speculating which isn't science. What they see could be random cycles from sunspots or lack of or just normal cycling. They can't prove their ideas.

Thus my ever present question: "Were you there"?

They can't prove why the earth went into and Ice Age, recovered. For all they know an Ice Age is the normal. This earth is probably millions or billions of years old and the so called scientists are full of themselves. Such arrogance.

An extracted ice core is like a time capsule, do you think it just contains ice? We know the age of the earth there are sound scientific reason why we know, that it isn't guess work nor is it probably millions or billions in is around 4.5 billion years. This nonsensical "were you there" just demonstrates a gross ignorance on your part. A forensic scientist works in exactly the same way as any other scientist using the same methods. What is the evidence and where does that evidence lead. This idea that we have all these scientists in every advanced country in the world looking at the evidence reaching the same conclusion and somehow they have all been paid to reach that conclusion is just plain nonsense.

In this thread we have Muller and his team of scientists financed by the Koch brothers presumably to reach the opposite conclusion and guess what along comes some mystery guy pays him lots of money so that he produces a report that concludes climate change is real, is a serious concern and the major contributory factor is human beings, great stuff another bought scientist.

[RickBradford]

assuming of course that all storm activity is the same and it is all caused by the temperature differential between the poles and the tropics and there are no other component

I'm not assuming anything.

In support of your position on global warming, you have airily made the blanket claim that "but one can be sure that any time you introduce energy in to any system you will have increased activity" .

The statement is just plain wrong.

[sirineou]

assuming of course that all storm activity is the same and it is all caused by the temperature differential between the poles and the tropics and there are no other components

You're just repeating tired stuff and not responding to engage. The title of this thread, which is the real issue is:

Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures.

please see post #76 where you talk about the bible

[sirineou]

assuming of course that all storm activity is the same and it is all caused by the temperature differential between the poles and the tropics and there are no other component

I'm not assuming anything.

In support of your position on global warming, you have airily made the blanket claim that "but one can be sure that any time you introduce energy in to any system you will have increased activity" .

The statement is just plain wrong.

please show me a system in to which you introduce energy but decrease activity

just because one activity is decreased, that does not mean that an other activity is not increased, thus preserving the conservation of energy

[RickBradford]

please show me a system in to which you introduce energy but decrease activity

I've already shown you 3.

You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between the concepts of energy (a mathematically definable entity) and activity (the real-world effects that may result from energy shifts)

[canuckamuck]

Closing a water tap is an example of decreasing activity by adding energy.

Not that it is related in any way to the complexity of climate.

[RickBradford]

Or 2 trucks colliding head-on. The energy has not been destroyed (simply changed from kinetic to heat and sound), but the activity has ceased.

It's actually quite an important concept in climate, since all the know-nothing activists not only declare flatly that more energy will cause more activity, but claim that the activity will then allow more energy back into the system (positive feedback, tipping points, oh noes, it's worse than we thought), when it actually seems that negative feedbacks are more common.

[boomerangutang]

For those who say 'climate has been changing for eons, with extreme heat and other times extreme cold....' Of course. No doubt. There was a time when there was no oxygen in the air, but climate change issues are now. Humans are closely adapted to living on coastlines within inches of high water, ...to farming with crops tightly dependent on finely tuned conditions which are not-too-cold, or not-too-hot and dry. So, any change in weather patterns or temps, or water levels, can spell disaster to hundreds of millions. Deniers can say, "well, so what? changes have been adversely affecting humans for thousands of years! ....with crop failures, droughts, tidal surges, etc. Response: Yes, they have. But the big deal about geologically quick climate change, is bigger changes are coming and their coming faster. Because of higher populations/densities, the bad effects will be more profound in the coming decades.

Personally, I'll be dead in a few decades or sooner, and am not affected by floods, droughts, high temps and other extreme climate events. I could take the close-minded selfish approach of deniers, and simply conclude; "it's other peoples' problems. Climate is always changing. Don't be a chicken little, the sky isn't falling."

Frankly, I think the world is vastly overpopulated already (has been for centuries) and a lessening of this one species would be good for all other species, except maybe cockroaches, rats, dogs, and disease organisms. But I still can't deny things like; shrinking glaciers, less sea-ice in the Arctic, Antarctica calving ice the size of Rhode Island, New Orleans flooding, and the hundreds of other tangible indications that climate is changing fast.

[boomerangutang]

CO2 levels have just jumped over 400 ppm (parts per million) for the first time in about 250 million years. Just 150 yrs ago, it was 270 ppm. Higher CO2 = higher possibility of greenhouse effect. When the earth heats up by 5 degrees (from the average of 100 to 200 yrs ago) there will be effects (Earth has already heated up an average of about 1 degree in recent decades). One effect will likely be the bubbling up of prodigious amounts of methane, now frozen in ocean depths - which will jack the Earth's temp up another 5 degrees in a relatively brief time (another 90 yrs?). Don't believe it if you don't want to. But similar has happened on Earth, when the entire NE section of the Asian continent was a mass of volcanic activity - which pushed temps up around 5 degrees, and thereby triggered another 5 degree boost. Mass extinction ensued at that time, estimated at 95% of all species ww.

[RickBradford]

One effect will likely be the bubbling up of prodigious amounts of methane, now frozen in ocean depths - which will jack the Earth's temp up another 5 degrees in a relatively brief time (another 90 yrs?). Don't believe it if you don't want to.

Not even the Warmest of Warmist scientists believe it. Even the uber-Alarmists at RealClimate don't believe it.

[Thaddeus]

An extracted ice core is like a time capsule, do you think it just contains ice? We know the age of the earth there are sound scientific reason why we know, that it isn't guess work nor is it probably millions or billions in is around 4.5 billion years. This nonsensical "were you there" just demonstrates a gross ignorance on your part. A forensic scientist works in exactly the same way as any other scientist using the same methods. What is the evidence and where does that evidence lead. This idea that we have all these scientists in every advanced country in the world looking at the evidence reaching the same conclusion and somehow they have all been paid to reach that conclusion is just plain nonsense.

In this thread we have Muller and his team of scientists financed by the Koch brothers presumably to reach the opposite conclusion and guess what along comes some mystery guy pays him lots of money so that he produces a report that concludes climate change is real, is a serious concern and the major contributory factor is human beings, great stuff another bought scientist.

Please allow me to simplify this for some.

The Earth is just under 4.6 billion years old, to make that staggeringly large number a little more manageable, imagine the entire duration measured as one calender year.

1st January, the Earth starts to form.

3rd March, first evidence of life appear (single cells, and only in the oceans)

It stays that way until.....

11th November first multi-cellular life appears and starts to move on to land.

16th November, life explodes in what is know as the Cambrian period.

10th December about 1:26p.m. The dinosaurs put in an appearance.

and last about two weeks.

We rack up just before midnight on 31st December..

Climate change is real, it is happening, it's been happening all year of that there is no doubt.

To try and claim the we tiny flecks of carbon clinging on to the surface of the planet could have more than just the merest of the tiniest of effects only shows how misguided and arrogant mankind can be.

The term wasn't coined by politicians and corporations, but they will use it to enrich themselves, and tax us down to our bones.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Thaddeus

[canuckamuck]

For those who say 'climate has been changing for eons, with extreme heat and other times extreme cold....' Of course. No doubt. There was a time when there was no oxygen in the air, but climate change issues are now. Humans are closely adapted to living on coastlines within inches of high water, ...to farming with crops tightly dependent on finely tuned conditions which are not-too-cold, or not-too-hot and dry. So, any change in weather patterns or temps, or water levels, can spell disaster to hundreds of millions. Deniers can say, "well, so what? changes have been adversely affecting humans for thousands of years! ....with crop failures, droughts, tidal surges, etc. Response: Yes, they have. But the big deal about geologically quick climate change, is bigger changes are coming and their coming faster. Because of higher populations/densities, the bad effects will be more profound in the coming decades.

About 12,000 years ago the Oceans were hundreds of feet below where they are now. There was plenty of oxygen. How can you make the suggestion that past changes are irrelevant. Doesn't your sense of logic suggest to you that whatever changed the climate before is likely to be changing it again. And by the way, it has barely changed in a hundred years, and not at all in the last 20.

It matters very little if there will be dire consequences if what we are seeing is a climate cycle. You can throw the wealth of the world at it and depopulate the earth too, and it will still happen if it is going to happen.

Personally, I'll be dead in a few decades or sooner, and am not affected by floods, droughts, high temps and other extreme climate events. I could take the close-minded selfish approach of deniers, and simply conclude; "it's other peoples' problems. Climate is always changing. Don't be a chicken little, the sky isn't falling."

I agree you will not live to see a climate crisis. even if you live another hundred years. But don't go too soon, we like you.

Frankly, I think the world is vastly overpopulated already (has been for centuries) and a lessening of this one species would be good for all other species, except maybe cockroaches, rats, dogs, and disease organisms. But I still can't deny things like; shrinking glaciers, less sea-ice in the Arctic, Antarctica calving ice the size of Rhode Island, New Orleans flooding, and the hundreds of other tangible indications that climate is changing fast.

Well it is good news for you that phase two of the climate crisis redistribution of global wealth, will be eugenics and population control.

Edited May 10, 2015 by canuckamuck

[JetsetBkk]

CO2 levels have just jumped over 400 ppm (parts per million) for the first time in about 250 million years.

<snip>

Excellent!

- more plant food.

[RickBradford]

CO2 levels have just jumped over 400 ppm (parts per million) for the first time in about 250 million years.

<snip>

Excellent!

- more plant food.

Still not enough. Most plants evolved when CO2 levels were around 1000 - 1200 ppm, and that's what they like. Which is why commercial greenhouse operators aim for those levels.

Perhaps the UN should mandate massive CO2 release immediately to give plants their full chance to flourish.

[boomerangutang]

For those who say 'climate has been changing for eons, with extreme heat and other times extreme cold....' Of course. No doubt. There was a time when there was no oxygen in the air, but climate change issues are now. Humans are closely adapted to living on coastlines within inches of high water, ...to farming with crops tightly dependent on finely tuned conditions which are not-too-cold, or not-too-hot and dry. So, any change in weather patterns or temps, or water levels, can spell disaster to hundreds of millions. Deniers can say, "well, so what? changes have been adversely affecting humans for thousands of years! ....with crop failures, droughts, tidal surges, etc. Response: Yes, they have. But the big deal about geologically quick climate change, is bigger changes are coming and their coming faster. Because of higher populations/densities, the bad effects will be more profound in the coming decades.

About 12,000 years ago the Oceans were hundreds of feet below where they are now. There was plenty of oxygen. How can you make the suggestion that past changes are irrelevant. Doesn't your sense of logic suggest to you that whatever changed the climate before is likely to be changing it again. And by the way, it has barely changed in a hundred years, and not at all in the last 20.

It matters very little if there will be dire consequences if what we are seeing is a climate cycle. You can throw the wealth of the world at it and depopulate the earth too, and it will still happen if it is going to happen.

I never claimed 'past changes were irrelevant'. Where did you get that? Average temps have changed in the past decades: record high temps nearly everywhere, even at sea.

If the Earth warms considerably, it will have consequences for our species. To what degree (no pun intended) it bothers posters on Thaivisa (most are well-off middle-aged white men, so they're safe from any direct consequences), is up to the individual. A vast majority of scientists agree average temps will get considerably warmer in a relatively short time. Often their predictions are conservative (too low) rather than hysterical (too high), if one looks at the data which comes forth later. If the majority of scientists are dead wrong, and the planet continues to stay somewhat the same as its been climactically for the past 300 years, then ok, the deniers can say 'I told you so.' However, if the majority of scientists (90+%) are on the right track, then humanity will be in for some tumult.

People migrations we're seeing now, will seem tame from a future perspective. Instead of hundreds of migrants from Africa and the middle east clamoring to get to Europe, the numbers could swell to hundreds of thousands. Similar; regarding Latinos clamoring to get to the US and Canada. The droughts we're seeing in California, Texas, Australia, Sudan and elsewhere could get more severe. The type of storm which breached New Orleans could be larger, and we all know the names of the 30 large cities ww which lie right at sea level. Coral reefs are already bleaching. Expect increased amounts. Over-fishing is already a serious problem. It will get worse. P.S. coral reefs are the nurseries for most fish and other marine organisms. Already, increased amounts of methane is bubbling up from warming tundra throughout the Arctic regions. Expect those releases to increase further. The beat goes on......

Edited May 10, 2015 by boomerangutang

[boomerangutang]

If you read the article (which prompted this topic) closely, you'll see that the protagonist hasn't yet found any data which fits what he's looking for. The article shows that he desperately wants to find flawed data, and there are some scientists appointed to the task, but flawed data has not yet been revealed.

Even if he finds what he's so eager to find, it may be an anomaly, and that the vast majority of scientific data is solid. What will he say (or search for) then?

It would be like if I walked in to a large police station with a megaphone and declared loudly: "I can sense something's not right here. I've convened a panel of experts who are going to go through the paperwork in every department to try to find what's wrong. I don't know what it will be, but we'll be looking diligently."

[NeverSure]

The Earth is just under 4.6 billion years old,

Oh really. Were you there?

[sirineou]

please show me a system in to which you introduce energy but decrease activity

I've already shown you 3.

You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between the concepts of energy (a mathematically definable entity) and activity (the real-world effects that may result from energy shifts)

you have shown me Zero you talked about sound canceling headphones, and I believe I explained to you that activity is increased in that system. the fact that noise activity is decreased does not mean that other activities do not increase, Conservation of energy then you talked about the differential in temperature increase between poles and tropics as if that mitigated the affects of global warming in weather change, as if weathers is not affected by other factors and as if weather change is the only affect of global warming on the earth

Let me just say this, you can argue the minutia of this situation to death, but if you really want to know the realities of a situation all you have to do is follow the money You dont need to listen to CNN or Fox news, just listen to Bloomberg News, money only have one agenda, See what is the Insurance industry's reaction,

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-linden-insurance-climate-change-20140617-story.html

and ask the following question from your politicians

"Now, as insurers begin to shift the costs of that reality through rate increases, exclusions, lawsuits and market retreat, consumers can ask such politicians, "Why, if climate change is a hoax, are we paying for it?""

[bendejo]

"...disappointing grain production in the US will greatly affect the entire world..." Are you a citizen of the USA? "The entire world"? Does the "entire world" revolve around the USA?

Absolutely right, a sharp downturn in US grain production would not effect anything outside of the country's borders.

[canuckamuck]

A vast majority of scientists agree average temps will get considerably warmer in a relatively short time. Often their predictions are conservative (too low) rather than hysterical (too high), if one looks at the data which comes forth later.

This is what you have been led to believe, but I am sure you will have a great deal of trouble proving it.

The predictions have been completely inaccurate so far. We haven't seen warming in 20 years while the models had us well up the hockey stick by this time.

Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.” Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”

link

If the climate industry was really interested in science they would have dismissed their own inaccurate models a decade ago. They are after all clearly unscientific. But since the inaccurate models are the only thing in existence that indicates a future warming crisis caused by humans; climate propagandists are forced to rally around the results and pretend they are evidence.

Edited May 10, 2015 by canuckamuck

[boomerangutang]

I googled Dr. Roy Spencer, and found this quote from a book he wrote:

"In the book The Evolution Crisis, Spencer wrote, "I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world. ...Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."

Perhaps he stared at that wonderful painting by Michaelangelo at the Vatican's Sistine Chapel too long, but I can't take a scientist seriously who believes that life and the cosmos were created by an old man with a gray beard.

[canuckamuck]

I googled Dr. Roy Spencer, and found this quote from a book he wrote:

"In the book The Evolution Crisis, Spencer wrote, "I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world. ...Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."

Perhaps he stared at that wonderful painting by Michaelangelo at the Vatican's Sistine Chapel too long, but I can't take a scientist seriously who believes that life and the cosmos were created by an old man with a gray beard.

Well you are consistent to the principles of your cause. Ignore the facts and focus on the ad hominem attacks. It's all you got.

Show me the models were right then.

Edited May 11, 2015 by canuckamuck

[boomerangutang]

I googled Dr. Roy Spencer, and found this quote from a book he wrote:

"In the book The Evolution Crisis, Spencer wrote, "I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world. ...Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."

Perhaps he stared at that wonderful painting by Michaelangelo at the Vatican's Sistine Chapel too long, but I can't take a scientist seriously who believes that life and the cosmos were created by an old man with a gray beard.

Well you are consistent to the principles of your cause. Ignore the facts and focus on the ad hominem attacks. It's all you got.

Show me the models were right then.

I've posted charts on these threads before. I could google them and post them again, but you could google them also - though you're probably only going to believe what fits with your chosen view. More important than charts are what's observable in this big world of ours: lakes appearing in Greenland where before there was only ice. The NW passage is becoming more ice-free as the years roll by, 19 of 20 major glaciers ww are receding and losing bulk, aquifers in Florida getting more salty year by year. ....and more....

[Thaddeus]

The Earth is just under 4.6 billion years old,

Oh really. Were you there?

Nope, but I know an isotope that was.