Climate Change

[Deltabravo]

This fucktard is a climate change denier. 





So is this fucktard.



And this fucktard.....




I see a pattern here.

I rest my case.

[skyking]

You bring 1 non peer reviewed paper and stack your entire premise on it, and cry persecution and name calling.
Come on, you can do better.
If you can't find other substantiation, consider that there may not be any, and open up to the possibilities.

[SYZ]

Postma's response to the Skeptical Science report debunking his nonsensical theories is merely a reworking of the same errors of
climatology that he made in his original, non-peer reviewed paper—which everybody with a background in science laughed at then...

But, yet again we have a response which does not deal with the issues and tries to tell people that they shouldn't read the article, that he's a "denier" etc etc.

It's more than obvious my comments were not intended to "deal with the issues" per se—as most people would've
realised.       My post was intended to illustrate that Joseph E. Postma is totally unqualified, has no climatological
accreditation, and is viewed by multiple critics in the science field as an irrelevant nutcase.  Because of this, any
comments or criticisms he makes about climate change or global warming can safely be ignored as an accurate source
of argument.
   

Again, I want to point out that what this thread is doing is to call people names and make them out to be deniers, heretics and skeptics...

Nope.  I was actually pointing out that far from being a "skeptic", Postma is your classic example of blindsided gullibility.
And he's never been able to pass peer review in any legitimate scientific journal regarding anything he's written
about climate change.  He's also fraudulently posted on his own blog, commenting in other peoples' usernames in order
to dishonestly assert those (purported) users agreed with him.

Skepticalscience.com said the following of Postma's paper:

"In summary, Joseph Postma published an article criticising a very simple model that
nonetheless produces useful results.  He made several very simple errors along the way,
none of which are very technical in nature.  More sophisticated models are obviously
designed to handle the uneven distribution of solar heating (which is why we have weather!).
 
Nonetheless, the educational tools are useful for their purpose, and in no way does Postma
undermine the existence or necessity of the greenhouse effect.  Without a greenhouse
effect, multiple studies have shown that the Earth would collapse into a frozen iceball
[Pierrehumbert  et al, 2007; Voigt and Marotzke, 2009, Lacis et al, 2010] and indeed,
after an ice-albedo feedback, plummets below the modern effective temperature of 255 K.
 
This work makes extraordinary claims and yet no effort was made to put it in a real climate
science journal, since it was never intended to educate climate scientists or improve the field;
it is a sham, intended only to confuse casual readers and provide a citation on blogs.   The
author should be ashamed."

[Alan V]

But, yet again we have a response which does not deal with the issues and tries to tell people that they shouldn't read the article, that he's a "denier" etc etc.   

Of course people can read the article, but they also need to be informed about what the scientific consensus is and why it says the article is wrong.

The point he's making is that you cannot warm up the temperature at ground level by having a gas reflect "heat" back down from a colder and higher layer of the atmosphere, which is what the Greenhouse Effect tries to suggest.   We went skiing last month in Cyprus and it's cold enough only a few thousand feet up to get several meters of snow, but down the bottom of the hill is lush greenery.  He's pointing out a fatal flaw in the "model" of a greenhouse since greenhouses work by using a physical barrier to keep warm air in and the physics of light reflection simply does not support the greenhouse gas hypothesis.

This is bad science done by people who have been disproven by those who know better. Your preference for non-peer reviewed "science" is why you are a denialist.

Also, you haven't addressed the issue about what exactly "deniers" are said to be denying.  There's no dispute that climate has warmed and changed over many millennia and without human influence. The seas rose 400 feet at some point. They have been rising 3mm a year during the last 25 years.  Now the climate is not warming.  

The bolded statement above is denialism because that is not what observations show, when normal variations which are not due to any climate trends are accounted for. Denialists deny the scientific observations which support man-made climate change.

So, what is being denied?   Alarmists deny that the sun has anything to do with climate change.  Is that not correct?  

This is from Wikipedia:

"In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person's choice to deny reality as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth. Denialism is an essentially irrational action that withholds the validation of a historical experience or event, when a person refuses to accept an empirically verifiable reality. In the sciences, denialism is the rejection of basic facts and concepts that are undisputed, well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a subject, in favor of radical and controversial ideas."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism

"Undisputed" in this case means undisputed within the peer-reviewed scientific community. Other people don't get a say in this.

The scientific observations from satellite monitoring indicate that solar irradiance has not increased in its output beyond its normal 11-year cycle since the late 1970s. To deny that is to deny science. To acknowledge it is nothing more than agreeing with science.

Again, I want to point out that what this thread is doing is to call people names and make them out to be deniers, heretics and skeptics.  But that's what religions do to people who deny the dogma, are skeptical and become heretics.  I thought atheism was all about embracing denial, heresy and skepticism in the face of insistence that everyone follows the same "truth" without question.

Climate science is not dogma because it is based on millions of observations over decades from thousands of scientists around the world. Neither you nor I get to vote on this, since we aren't qualified. Neither do politicians and contrarians in the pay of the fossil fuel industries.

If I wanted to call you names, I would not call you a denialist, which I think is merely descriptive. And I would never call you a heretic. I would call you a liar who is very deliberately and knowingly trying to disrupt a conversation about what the peer-reviewed scientists are telling us, and about what others are doing about it.

You are the one calling people names. You call us religious for believing what scientists tell us, and you call the majority of climate scientists liars who are pulling off a conspiracy against the general public. That's why it is very tempting to call you yourself a deliberate liar.

More likely you have just been lied to yourself, or just can't face the facts.

[Deltabravo]

Postma's response to the Skeptical Science report debunking his nonsensical theories is merely a reworking of the same errors of
climatology that he made in his original, non-peer reviewed paper—which everybody with a background in science laughed at then...

But, yet again we have a response which does not deal with the issues and tries to tell people that they shouldn't read the article, that he's a "denier" etc etc.

It's more than obvious my comments were not intended to "deal with the issues" per se—as most people would've
realised.       My post was intended to illustrate that Joseph E. Postma is totally unqualified, has no climatological
accreditation, and is viewed by multiple critics in the science field as an irrelevant nutcase.  Because of this, any
comments or criticisms he makes about climate change or global warming can safely be ignored as an accurate source
of argument.
   

Again, I want to point out that what this thread is doing is to call people names and make them out to be deniers, heretics and skeptics...

Nope.  I was actually pointing out that far from being a "skeptic", Postma is your classic example of blindsided gullibility.
And he's never been able to pass peer review in any legitimate scientific journal regarding anything he's written
about climate change.  He's also fraudulently posted on his own blog, commenting in other peoples' usernames in order
to dishonestly assert those (purported) users agreed with him.

Skepticalscience.com said the following of Postma's paper:

"In summary, Joseph Postma published an article criticising a very simple model that
nonetheless produces useful results.  He made several very simple errors along the way,
none of which are very technical in nature.  More sophisticated models are obviously
designed to handle the uneven distribution of solar heating (which is why we have weather!).
 
Nonetheless, the educational tools are useful for their purpose, and in no way does Postma
undermine the existence or necessity of the greenhouse effect.  Without a greenhouse
effect, multiple studies have shown that the Earth would collapse into a frozen iceball
[Pierrehumbert  et al, 2007; Voigt and Marotzke, 2009, Lacis et al, 2010] and indeed,
after an ice-albedo feedback, plummets below the modern effective temperature of 255 K.
 
This work makes extraordinary claims and yet no effort was made to put it in a real climate
science journal, since it was never intended to educate climate scientists or improve the field;
it is a sham, intended only to confuse casual readers and provide a citation on blogs.   The
author should be ashamed."

 
Again, you've engaged in simply stating the "attitudes" of people who disagree with him and with climate change without addressing the issues. 

What is it that "deniers" deny that you disagree with?  That all climate change is caused by human activity?  That all damaging climate change is caused by humans? That the majority of climate change is caused by humans? 

I make the point because it must be the case that "alarmists", such as yourself, seem to think that all climate change is caused by humans. I've not see any alarmist say that there is some way of differentiating between human-influenced change and that caused by changing solar activity.  

I don't obviously agree that the greenhouse model is useful either, because it posits a solid glass roof which does not exist and because CO2 simply does not relect light the way they say and cannot return heat energy from a cold place to a warmer place.

I fear that the "useful results" you are talking about are that people buy into it without thinking.  In fact, I was at dinner with an elderly couple and the husband started talking about climate change must be true because "you know how a greenhouse has a roof?".   He is a retired soldier, with no university education at all, Left school 60 years ago at age 15.  But, it's simple and it produced a useful result, if you consider fooling the uneducated as "useful".  

In fact, you will find, if you google for it a video by Maurice Strong stating exactly that.  Climate change is a very useful tool to hang whatever agenda you like on it.  You can use it to promote carbon tax, transferring wealth from first world countries to poorer countries. You can use it to get funding on climate research.  You can use it to impose taxes to promoite changes in energy production.  Manufacturers can use it to make all kinds of products, like cars, obsolete so we all go out and buy electric cars.   

And, this idea that Trump picked the idea of climate change as being a Chinese hoax out of nowhere simply isn't true and the whole Russian hit on the USA shows that other countries use propaganda techniques to sway public opinion in the West. The real story behind Chinese involvement comes from the role of Maurice Strong at the UN and the Rio Summit and his very sudden departure for Peking after being found to have taken a bribe.  He then admitted a life long involvement with Communist China, his aunt was a Chinese spy and his parents belonged to a political party which was committed to the downfall of US capitalism.  But he's now some kind of hero.  He had no education beyond high sschool and like all alarmists, talks in general terms with no knowledge at all of climate science.  Just like Gore.  

Here's Strong expounding on how important climate change is for world peace etc etc.  

[Alan V]

"Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke labeled climate change 'the greatest threat we face' as he called for $5 trillion to be spent over the next decade with the goal of neutralizing carbon emissions in the U.S. by mid-century."

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/2...an-1388650

[Alan V]

What is it that "deniers" deny that you disagree with?  That all climate change is caused by human activity?  That all damaging climate change is caused by humans? That the majority of climate change is caused by humans? 

I make the point because it must be the case that "alarmists", such as yourself, seem to think that all climate change is caused by humans. I've not see any alarmist say that there is some way of differentiating between human-influenced change and that caused by changing solar activity.  

Simply put, denialists deny the peer-reviewed scientific consensus.

Your second paragraph is just a lie, since climate scientists have made it quite clear how they differentiate between solar activity and human influences -- and as I have already repeated to you on several occasions.  Observations!  This is not about conflicting dogmas, but about what observations say and what they don't.  Your theories are not upheld by observations.

[Alan V]

This is from my posts #94 and #95 above:

The evidence that the CO2 buildup is caused by humans

The additional CO2 which has been accumulating in the atmosphere from deforestation and burning fossil fuels has an isotopic “fingerprint” which is depleted of CO2 13 and 14. This is the “smoking gun,” or how scientists know that most additional CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere over the last 250 years has come from human actions.

Fossil fuel burning can more than account for the rise in CO2. Scientists know how much coal, oil, and natural gas is burned each year. Emissions far overrun the earth’s natural ability to remove it from the atmosphere, so CO2 concentrations will remain elevated for centuries. No natural source has been identified, especially given the fast rate of accumulation.

Burning fossil fuels uses oxygen, and scientists have measured that oxygen has decreased by 0.1% in the atmosphere.

The observed warming in the lower atmosphere, or troposphere, and cooling in the upper atmosphere, or stratosphere, is exactly the pattern expected, since greenhouse gases trap heat close to the earth’s surface. Less heat is escaping to space. If the sun was responsible, a more uniform warming would be observed.

Since greenhouse gases reflect infrared whether the sun is shining or not, there has been more warming in the winter than the summer over the average, and more warming in the nighttime than the daytime over land.

The climate has departed from any known natural cycle, and is changing at an unnaturally fast rate. Climate models including greenhouse gas accumulations match scientific observations. This is yet more evidence that greenhouse gases are the cause of global warming.

Other explanations?

There are only so many possible causes of climate change. The continental drift and massive volcanic eruptions of millions of years past are no longer possible explanations. Recent volcanic eruptions increase greenhouse gas emissions less than 1% of the total observed. Orbital variations work on much longer periods of time. Solar output has not increased significantly since 1979, when NASA began to monitor it using satellites. The usual small variations in solar output on an 11-year cycle is not a trend upwards. Only the greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere can explain present climate change, and they are responsible for almost all of it. Other hypotheses, like the tenuous relationship between clouds and cosmic rays, must still explain why greenhouse gases do not produce the warming expected. Greenhouse gases alone are a sufficient explanation.

The consensus

The consensus of experts reviewing hundreds of studies of accumulating evidence is that there is a 95% chance that most of observed climate change over the past 60 years can be attributed to human activities and especially to the burning of fossil fuels. Without humans, there would be negligible warming or a slight cooling from other causes over the 20th century. This consensus includes such scientific institutions as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the American Meteorological Society, NASA, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the scientific academies of all major industrial nations. Multiple surveys have found that between 97 and 99% of qualified scientists support the consensus. Among the 3% or less who do not, most exhibited methodological flaws or other mistakes in their work, and there was no consensus between them about other possible causes. They have virtually no significant peer-reviewed science to back them up. So there is no consistent alternative theory to human-caused climate change.

[Alan V]

"Germany, one of the world’s biggest consumers of coal, will shut down all 84 of its coal-fired power plants over the next 19 years to meet its international commitments in the fight against climate change, a government commission said Saturday."

https://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-...PyVkBD3K4Y

[Deesse23]

"Germany, one of the world’s biggest consumers of coal, will shut down all 84 of its coal-fired power plants over the next 19 years to meet its international commitments in the fight against climate change, a government commission said Saturday."

https://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-...PyVkBD3K4Y

I have to say, its not that simple. It doesnt work out as planned (and promised by Mommy Merkel). The "Energiewende" (energy turnaround) is a public issue here, being made fun of by lots of satirists and criticized often for its failures on many (detailed) levels. However, at least we have one "Wende" where other countries are still debating. So maybe one has give credit to Merkels adminsitration at least for trying.

[Alan V]

"Germany, one of the world’s biggest consumers of coal, will shut down all 84 of its coal-fired power plants over the next 19 years to meet its international commitments in the fight against climate change, a government commission said Saturday."

https://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-...PyVkBD3K4Y

I have to say, its not that simple. It doesn't work out as planned (and promised by Mommy Merkel). The "Energiewende" (energy turnaround) is a public issue here, being made fun of by lots of satirists and criticized often for its failures on many (detailed) levels. However, at least we have one "Wende" where other countries are still debating. So maybe one has give credit to Merkels adminsitration at least for trying.

It's not surprising that even people who accept the science are struggling with this.  Fossil fuels are just so reliable and convenient that's it difficult to accept the need to change to renewables, which are intermittent.  My hope is that U.S. government subsidies which favor fossil fuels are removed so that renewables become much more cost effective.  That itself will promote a rapid transition.

[Deesse23]

The way this issue got on the table of every german was with the rise of the green party in the late 70s, with them being elected into first state parliaments in 83 and the first green environmental minister on state level being Joska Fischer (he is also the first minister to wear sneakers when being inthronized, which was a major scandal back then). He later became minster of foreign affairs even. Today, the green party rivals the social democrats for being the second largest party, after Merkels conservatives.

As you can see, it took almost 40 years from adressing this topic until actually doing something, and we germans are known to be swift and efficient, so guess how long it will take for everyone else.

For the US i can only see something similar. Neither dems nor reps are gonna adress this really, at least not the established persons, i doubt that. Some other alternative has to rise up and become relevant on the US american political stage. Of course Trump was and is a dud, and alt right in general is no such alternative. Thats why i think people like Bernie, AOC or whomever represents some sense and rationality, combined with the will and know-how (and finally financial support) to do it, to dar eto go along new paths, will succeed, maybe also first on state level, mabe being only as a part of an otherwise more conservative administration, but once the spell is broken you are on the right way. At least thats how it worked here, looking back with 20/20 of course.

[Deltabravo]

This is from my posts #94 and #95 above:

The evidence that the CO2 buildup is caused by humans

The additional CO2 which has been accumulating in the atmosphere from deforestation and burning fossil fuels has an isotopic “fingerprint” which is depleted of CO2 13 and 14. This is the “smoking gun,” or how scientists know that most additional CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere over the last 250 years has come from human actions.

Fossil fuel burning can more than account for the rise in CO2. Scientists know how much coal, oil, and natural gas is burned each year. Emissions far overrun the earth’s natural ability to remove it from the atmosphere, so CO2 concentrations will remain elevated for centuries. No natural source has been identified, especially given the fast rate of accumulation.

Burning fossil fuels uses oxygen, and scientists have measured that oxygen has decreased by 0.1% in the atmosphere.

The observed warming in the lower atmosphere, or troposphere, and cooling in the upper atmosphere, or stratosphere, is exactly the pattern expected, since greenhouse gases trap heat close to the earth’s surface. Less heat is escaping to space. If the sun was responsible, a more uniform warming would be observed.

Since greenhouse gases reflect infrared whether the sun is shining or not, there has been more warming in the winter than the summer over the average, and more warming in the nighttime than the daytime over land.

The climate has departed from any known natural cycle, and is changing at an unnaturally fast rate. Climate models including greenhouse gas accumulations match scientific observations. This is yet more evidence that greenhouse gases are the cause of global warming.

Other explanations?

There are only so many possible causes of climate change. The continental drift and massive volcanic eruptions of millions of years past are no longer possible explanations. Recent volcanic eruptions increase greenhouse gas emissions less than 1% of the total observed. Orbital variations work on much longer periods of time. Solar output has not increased significantly since 1979, when NASA began to monitor it using satellites. The usual small variations in solar output on an 11-year cycle is not a trend upwards. Only the greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere can explain present climate change, and they are responsible for almost all of it. Other hypotheses, like the tenuous relationship between clouds and cosmic rays, must still explain why greenhouse gases do not produce the warming expected. Greenhouse gases alone are a sufficient explanation.

The consensus

The consensus of experts reviewing hundreds of studies of accumulating evidence is that there is a 95% chance that most of observed climate change over the past 60 years can be attributed to human activities and especially to the burning of fossil fuels. Without humans, there would be negligible warming or a slight cooling from other causes over the 20th century. This consensus includes such scientific institutions as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the American Meteorological Society, NASA, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the scientific academies of all major industrial nations. Multiple surveys have found that between 97 and 99% of qualified scientists support the consensus. Among the 3% or less who do not, most exhibited methodological flaws or other mistakes in their work, and there was no consensus between them about other possible causes. They have virtually no significant peer-reviewed science to back them up. So there is no consistent alternative theory to human-caused climate change.

So, what you say is that a "denier" is someone who denies the "consensus" which is said to be 97%.  Right?

But, some say there is no consensus and, again, it's a politically motivated attempt to create the appearance of a consensus.  For instance:

"In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly man-made (the IPCC position). The remaining 48% either think it happened but natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know. Furthermore, 53% agree that there is conflict among AMS members on the question.
So no sign of a 97% consensus. Not only do about half reject the IPCC conclusion, more than half acknowledge that their profession is split on the issue.
The Netherlands Environmental Agency recently published a survey of international climate experts. 6550 questionnaires were sent out, and 1868 responses were received, a similar sample and response rate to the AMS survey. In this case the questions referred only to the post-1950 period. 66% agreed with the IPCC that global warming has happened and humans are mostly responsible. The rest either don’t know or think human influence was not dominant. So again, no 97% consensus behind the IPCC.
But the Dutch survey is even more interesting because of the questions it raises about the level of knowledge of the respondents. Although all were described as “climate experts,” a large fraction only work in connected fields such as policy analysis, health and engineering, and may not follow the primary physical science literature.
Regarding the recent slowdown in warming, here is what the IPCC said: “The observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years.” Yet 46 per cent of the Dutch survey respondents - nearly half - believe the warming trend has stayed the same or increased. And only 25 per cent agreed that global warming has been less than projected over the past 15 to 20 years, even though the IPCC reported that 111 out of 114 model projections overestimated warming since 1998.
Three quarters of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement “Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted.” Here is what the IPCC said in its 2003 report: “In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
Looking into further detail there are other interesting ways in which the socalled experts are unaware of unresolved discrepancies between models and observations regarding issues like warming in the tropical troposphere and overall climate sensitivity.
What can we take away from all this? First, lots of people get called “climate experts” and contribute to the appearance of consensus, without necessarily being knowledgeable about core issues. A consensus among the misinformed is not worth much.
Second, it is obvious that the “97%” mantra is untrue. The underlying issues are so complex it is ludicrous to expect unanimity. The near 50/50 split among AMS members on the role of greenhouse gases is a much more accurate picture of the situation. The phoney claim of 97% consensus is mere political rhetoric aimed at stifling debate and intimidating people into silence."https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/...tists-many

The funny part, which shows the bias inherent in this is that even though the IPCC has agreed that climate is not changing as fast as thought over the past 15 years, 46% of Dutch respondents thought that it was the same or was increasing.  So, there's a consensus because those who say there's a consensus drown out everyone else.  "Stifling debate and intimidating people into silence".  Like religious zealots do.  Which is not an indicator of unbiased, objective science.

So much for your consensus.  

[Alan V]

Here is a link to a NASA page about the consensus, which I am posting to you yet again:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

You trust the wrong sources of information.

"The [Fraser] Institute has received donations of hundreds of thousands of dollars from foundations controlled by Charles and David Koch, with total donations estimated to be approximately $765,000 from 2006 to 2016. It also received US$120,000 from ExxonMobil in the 2003 to 2004 fiscal period. In review, there is a right-center bias in reporting with most stories favoring the right through economic issues."

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fraser-institute/

In other words, you are posting information from a political rather than a scientific organization, yet again. Scientists speak for the science, not politicians.

[Alan V]

"The world’s largest ice shelf is melting 10 times faster than expected due to solar heating of the surrounding Antarctic Ocean, scientists have warned. The Ross Ice Shelf covers an area roughly the size of France and is several hundred metres thick, with 90 per cent of the ice below sea level. A study by an international team of scientists, carried out over four years, collected data on how the northwest portion of the ice shelf interacts with the ocean beneath it. It found the ice is melting much more rapidly than previously thought, due to inflowing warm water."

https://www.independent.co.uk/environmen...MRv0GzziSw

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...111835.htm

[Deltabravo]

Here is a link to a NASA page about the consensus, which I am posting to you yet again:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

You trust the wrong sources of information.

"The [Fraser] Institute has received donations of hundreds of thousands of dollars from foundations controlled by Charles and David Koch, with total donations estimated to be approximately $765,000 from 2006 to 2016. It also received US$120,000 from ExxonMobil in the 2003 to 2004 fiscal period. In review, there is a right-center bias in reporting with most stories favoring the right through economic issues."

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fraser-institute/

In other words, you are posting information from a political rather than a scientific organization, yet again.  Scientists speak for the science, not politicians.

You haven't dealt with the issues, again.  

It doesn't matter what the political views of the FI are.  

 Here is what the IPCC said in its 2003 report: “In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”


So, that is the consensus, right?

But, the consensus is also the opposite, ie., 

Three quarters of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement “Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted.”

The whole idea that there is even a consensus is false.  But, again, you take the position that a person is a "denier" if they deny there is a consensus.

Your approach is exactly the same as someone within an established church who calls people names because they dissent with the majority.  That is not how scientific debate should take place. It's not about finding a "consensus" and fudging statistics to make it look like there is a consensus. There was a consensus that life on earth was created, and that was wrong.  Consensus is not the same as the truth.  In many cases it stands for orthodoxy and the suppression of free thought.  When combined with insult and intimidation, it's the opposite of free thought and scientific inquiry and anyone who engages in that behavior should be ashamed of themselves, particularly on a forum where people come to get away from dogmatism and being "told" how to think.  If you don't understand that, you should go away and think about it for a while.  

I cannot see why you keep posting this stuff about ice shelves melting. Anyone can google that and find as many articles saying that Antarctica is growing, that Arctic ice is growing, Greenland is growing, so what is it you are doing, precisely? Brow beating people with a one-sided barrage of information?

https://nsidc.org/news/inthenews/antarct...ecord-rate

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/24/s...this-year/

https://phys.org/news/2019-03-big-u-turn...acier.html

[Alan V]

Deltabravo,

If some Greenland glaciers are growing, does it mean the majority are and that it's a trend? No, it doesn't. Your own referenced article stated: "A natural cyclical cooling of North Atlantic waters likely caused the glacier to reverse course, said study lead author Ala Khazendar, a NASA glaciologist on the Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) project. Khazendar and colleagues say this coincides with a flip of the North Atlantic Oscillation—a natural and temporary cooling and warming of parts of the ocean that is like a distant cousin to El Nino in the Pacific."

Those are the kinds of temporary variations science has to compensate for in tracking the underlying trends in climate. It's obvious you still can't grasp the difference between weather and climate. Weather is indeed chaotic.

The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing over 400 billion tons of ice per year, and the rate is accelerating:

"The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost an average of 286 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 127 billion tons of ice per year during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade."

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

You are confusing Antarctic land ice with sea ice. Sea ice around Antarctica increased even while a greater amount of land ice melted.

Here is what the IPCC said in its 2003 report: “In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

First, I note that this is quoted from the 2003 IPCC report. It is quite possible that their conclusions have changed with the advancement of the science. The trend of climate change didn't even emerge from the "noise" of weather variations until the late 1990s, if I remember correctly.

Second, when climate scientists refer to the non-linear aspects of the climate system, they are discussing the release of CO2 and methane from the melting permafrost for instance. Those things can't be predicted, which is why they are not included in the projections made by climate models, which only include human generated greenhouse gases and their feedbacks.

Third, do you know the difference between a prediction and a projection? Climate science is not involved with making predictions because one of the biggest unknown variables is how much CO2 we will pour into the atmosphere in the coming years. However, science does indeed make a series of projections figuring different amounts of CO2, to get at least some general idea where we will likely end up. Those projections come with error bars and levels of confidence, which makes them much different than any predictions per se.

[Alan V]

Your approach is exactly the same as someone within an established church who calls people names because they dissent with the majority.

This is called a psychological projection by the way.

"Psychological projection is a defence mechanism in which the human ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Some questions you need to answer:

What are your qualifications to accurately access the science?

How many books on climate change science have you read?

What criteria do you use to deny the consensus on the consensus?  

[Minimalist]

Come on, you can do better.

No he can't.  None of them can.

[Alan V]

Come on, you can do better.

No he can't.  None of them can.

Perhaps not.   

[Deltabravo]

Your approach is exactly the same as someone within an established church who calls people names because they dissent with the majority.

This is called a psychological projection by the way.

"Psychological projection is a defence mechanism in which the human ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Some questions you need to answer:

What are your qualifications to accurately access the science?

How many books on climate change science have you read?

What criteria do you use to deny the consensus on the consensus?  

I've spent my entire professional life assessing scientific reports.  If you were on the Thinking Athiest and read my threads you would perhaps recall that I was invited to speak at the medical faculty of the the University of Paris-Descartes a couple of years ago on scientific issues.  

If you go back through all of my posts you will find that I always put forward a position. Then I'm attacked and called names.   I don't troll people and simply call them names and liken them to morons like Trump.  My position here is that it is not part of the scientific method to, all of a sudden, stop inquiring and say that there is a consensus and there can be no further discussion.

I've never claimed to be an expert in meteorology and you can go through my posts and try to find anywhere that I've claimed to be an expert in that field.  What I am saying here is that it is simply not acceptable to engage in name calling against someone you don't agree with while, at the same time, putting forward only one side of a scientific position. 

There was a consensus before people started talking about climate change and that was that we were at the end of a mini ice age and that glaciers and ice cover would reduce. They have. The fact that this coincided with the advance of western industry, the proliferation of cars and pollution does not necessarily mean that humans caused the most recent increase in world temperature.

What may have happened is that people began assuming that humans influenced weather and over the past forty years or so they've scrambled around trying to put together theories about ozone depletion, global warming and greenhouse gases.   The old status quo has been challenged and people who are old enough to remember when this was not the status quo are coming forward and challenging this new "assumption".  But that's all it is, an assumption.

My concern with this forum is that this is a place for people to unload from lives spent with religious zealots like US evangelists, who won't listen to rational argument and call people names because they dissent. That should not be the case here.   I'm all for stopping pollution, using renewables and ending dependence on fossil fuels.  I just find there to be serious flaws in the greenhouse gas theory for the reasons I've set out, which I find highly persuasive and are supported by the fact that the climate has stopped warming as had been predicted.

[SYZ]

Again, I want to point out that what this thread is doing is to call people names and make them out to be deniers, heretics and skeptics...

Nope.  I was actually pointing out that far from being a "skeptic", Postma is your classic example of blindsided gullibility...

I make the point because it must be the case that "alarmists", such as yourself, seem to think that all climate change is caused by humans...

I am not an "alarmist" and have never implied I am.  That's merely your distorted viewpoint as a latent "denier".

I don't obviously agree that the greenhouse model is useful either, because it posits a solid glass roof which does not exist and because CO2 simply does not reflect light the way they say and cannot return heat energy from a cold place to a warmer place.

 

And of course heat energy and light are reflected back into space from "cold places".  That's because of the polar ice has a high albedo:



This nonsense is more than proof that you have virtually no knowledge of climate science or physics. The
Greenhouse Effect does not "posit" a "solid glass" roof.

This diagram may help you understand the nature of the "greenhouse effect" more clearly than I could explain:



Note the increased heat energy being reflected back to earth with the increased density and/or volume of the greenhouse gas layer.

[Alan V]

I've spent my entire professional life assessing scientific reports.  If you were on the Thinking Athiest and read my threads you would perhaps recall that I was invited to speak at the medical faculty of the the University of Paris-Descartes a couple of years ago on scientific issues.   

You didn't answer my question about how many books you had read on climate change.  I take this as an admission that you have read none at all, that all of your information is from questionable online sources, especially considering how you selectively ignore so much of the information I have linked for you.

I have read over 50 books on climate change and related topics myself.

If you go back through all of my posts you will find that I always put forward a position. Then I'm attacked and called names.   I don't troll people and simply call them names and liken them to morons like Trump.  My position here is that it is not part of the scientific method to, all of a sudden, stop inquiring and say that there is a consensus and there can be no further discussion. 

I've never claimed to be an expert in meteorology and you can go through my posts and try to find anywhere that I've claimed to be an expert in that field.  What I am saying here is that it is simply not acceptable to engage in name calling against someone you don't agree with while, at the same time, putting forward only one side of a scientific position. 

You have again and again called us names in this discussion, both directly and by implication.  You think we are religious in our dedication to climate change science, suffer from group-think, and are close-minded.  You also call thousands of real scientists liars and conspirators to defraud the public.  How can you possibly expect not to be called a denialist in return?

There was a consensus before people started talking about climate change and that was that we were at the end of a mini ice age and that glaciers and ice cover would reduce. They have. The fact that this coincided with the advance of western industry, the proliferation of cars and pollution does not necessarily mean that humans caused the most recent increase in world temperature.

You again and again demonstrate your scientific illiteracy on this topic.  You studiously avoid addressing the evidence against your hypothesis.

What may have happened is that people began assuming that humans influenced weather and over the past forty years or so they've scrambled around trying to put together theories about ozone depletion, global warming and greenhouse gases.   The old status quo has been challenged and people who are old enough to remember when this was not the status quo are coming forward and challenging this new "assumption".  But that's all it is, an assumption.

No scientist assumed anything.  They have proven humans have caused climate change through scientific observations.

My concern with this forum is that this is a place for people to unload from lives spent with religious zealots like US evangelists, who won't listen to rational argument and call people names because they dissent. That should not be the case here.   I'm all for stopping pollution, using renewables and ending dependence on fossil fuels.  I just find there to be serious flaws in the greenhouse gas theory for the reasons I've set out, which I find highly persuasive and are supported by the fact that the climate has stopped warming as had been predicted.

I call you a denialist because that's exactly what you are, someone who denies the peer-reviewed science on this subject out of ignorance.

Climate has not stopped warming, as the chart at the top of the information on the consensus which I just linked for you proves.  Here it is again.  It is titled, "A World of Agreement: Temperatures are Rising."  You can't miss it unless you deliberately ignore it:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

This is why I now consider you a bad-faith actor, a deliberate liar.  I ask the moderator, yet again, to remove you from this discussion.

@Aliza

[Deesse23]

And of course heat energy and light are reflected back into space from "cold places".  That's because of the polar ice has a high albedo:

While this is correct, it is not the reason why CO2 is able to "reflect" IR radiation. It is simply because its not a "reflection" in the common sense, like a solid mirror would reflect light(rays) from its surface back to the direction where the light originated.

What this is about is the ability of (gaseous) matter to absorb and emit radiation across the electromagnetic spectrum. CO2, like any other gas isnt able to reflect anything at most wavelenths, thats why the atmosphere is transparent to visible light and also to most other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum (although, astronomers, particularly the ones with IR or UV telescopes will tell you otherwise. Hence the need for satellites, but i am digressing).

Below you see the absorption specrum of CO2 according to the molecules´ "mechanical" properties and the very narrow frequencies at which it "likes" to oscillate. If you "feed" the molecule with any of those wavelengths (like pointing an IR source at it), it will absorb the energy completely(!), because CO2 is in resonance with the incoming radiation. Of particular interest is the 15µm band. Why? Because 15µm corresponds to the peak ratiation of a black body at 15C. Guess what the average surface temperature of Earth is? .....Right!


Now the sun is a black body with 6000k and a peak wavelenght of 555mn (which corresponds to green light). CO2 does not absorb any of this.

Now consider such CO2 molecules floating happily around in the atmoshphere. They are transparent to all the sunlight emitted at visible wavelenths, but absorb the 15µm black body IR radiation from Earth, and they are pretty damn efficient at that. Luckily there is ony a few ppm (ca. 300) of them around. Pheww! Now, what happens after those CO2 molecules have absorbed some IR from earth? Well they can emit radition back into the atmoshpere*, and since their physical property has not changed they will emit IR at 15µm into all directions, including back to the surface.
So, while absorbing IR radition from the surface they will emit a part of this radiation back to earth, at IR wavelenths, thus heating up where we surface dwellers live. Thats why pop science uses the term "reflect" when you read and hear about greenhouse effect: Some of what is radiated comed back to surface.

Its completely irrelevant what temperature the atmospere has (0c, 15C, 70C, -70C). CO2 is able to absorb and emit radiation due to its molecular structure, not due to its temperature, which Delta would have learned, if he had taken my advice to take some basic physics classes, which i suppose he didnt.

I don't obviously agree that the greenhouse model is useful either, because it posits a solid glass roof which does not exist and because CO2 simply does not reflect light the way they say and cannot return heat energy from a cold place to a warmer place.

 
Noone posits this but strawmanning ignoramuses who dont understand basic physics, like you.


*actually there is a second option: they collide with other molecules and can "warm them up" with the heat then dissipating into outer space, but this effect is negligible in the lower atmosphere due to "local thermal equilibrium", aka. air is so dense that they collide all the time, exchanging energy all the time, so on a local level they are in thermal equilibrium, which leaves them able to radiate back any IR radiation they just absorbed (from earth). In the upper (very thin!) atmosphere CO2 and other greenhouse gasses actually help cooling because of this effect!


tl;dr:
With his "solid glass roof" and other shit like "cold CO2 cant heat up anything", Delta is not even wrong.....like usual.

P.S.: what i just desribed is verified by countless measurements made with satellites. Good luck in denying that.

[Alan V]

P.S.: what i just desribed is verified by countless measurements made with satellites. Good luck in denying that.

If Deltabravo can deny the evidence that the earth is warming and that there is a scientific consensus why, he can deny anything.

Edit:

Luckily there is ony a few ppm (ca. 300) of them around.

I wish! Unfortunately the number is around 410 ppm now. 300 ppm is nearly the preindustrial number.

And thanks a lot for the extra information. I had to read it twice, and need to be more careful how I discuss CO2.

*actually there is a second option: they collide with other molecules and can "warm them up" with the heat then dissipating into outer space, but this effect is negligible in the lower atmosphere due to "local thermal equilibrium", aka. air is so dense that they collide all the time, exchanging energy all the time, so on a local level they are in thermal equilibrium, which leaves them able to radiate back any IR radiation they just absorbed (from earth). In the upper (very thin!) atmosphere CO2 and other greenhouse gasses actually help cooling because of this effect!

Isn't that what they call the "lapse rate effect"? I am still unclear on that point.