Fred Singer has made it a career to discredit any science that threatened private industry profits or involved the government. He championed what later became known as the "The Tobacco Strategy", working to sow doubt about not just the connection between smoking and health, but also the science on acid rain, DDT, and the ozone hole. He directed a program for R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. that funneled 45 million dollars to scientists paid to "defend the product". So much for Fred Singer.
@charadester hard science does show tobacco protects against lung cancer (thanks to MAOB). What it does do is increase needs in Vitamin C (0.5g a cigarette), which will in the long run lead to ill health. Lack of Vitamin C kills (only humans and guinea pigs do not create it internally), not tabacco. So much for charadester.
@evensteven You and Fred should team up. You're both peddling the same partial, misleading stories. And since you're a data lover, try diving into the millions of data points recorded in more than a dozen climate models, all of which show that temperature increases cannot be adequately explained without the human-induced variables including carbon dioxide generation from fossil fuels. Lastly, light one up and enjoy that cancer-free life...if you dare to trust your claim.
@charadester I'll team up with anyone who is out for truth, and ready to adapt his view to reality - which does not include lying scientists from the IPCC. Moreover, I was speaking of lung cancer, not all cancers, but again, the ill effects of smoking on the immune system can be couneterbalanced with vitamin C (though any addiction promises to be mortal in the long run).
@evenesteven Hey at least START with a real fact before you get into distorting it to suit your twisted view of the world. The IPCC and the UN do not have any scientists. The work from the IPCC is just a summary of thousands of independent pieces of work from scientists in many field who are employed by hundreds of different organisations, in many different countries. Who have often published despite governments trying to gag them to downplay the severity of the problem.
Of course Singer made his name as a big tobacco scientist. He still doesn't believe the like to cancer. He is a denier for hire. AGW just happens to be his issue de jour.
His arguments are easily refutable to anyone who honestly looks at the science.
Fred Singer is also sceptical about acid rain, nuclear winter, health problems from tobacco smoke and the ozone hole. He's a sceptic for hire.
If ever you want to attack science because it may impact on your industry, Singer's your man.
Why does he do it? He is somehow defending the free world from Stalinism! But don't worry, he is not sceptical of the idea there are cabals of communist scientists hell bent on extra pointless regulation. Why?
You can say precisely the same thing of supporters of global warming. They lie, distort the facts, and take things out of context with all the same skill as anyone else, and corporations benefit just as much from that. Look at the rise of our "green" culture. We spend so much more on things to reduce our carbon footprint, fooling people into believing we can affect our global climate.
No one is taking the facts for what they are. We let our opinions affect our view of the truth.
@cactusjoe188 "You can say precisely the same thing of supporters of global warming.." What? You mean 'supporters of global warming' also deny a link between smoking & cancer, sulfur emissions & acid rain, CFCs & ozone depletion? No. The case for anthropogenic global warming is based on science. Science that has passed the peer review process. If you have only read 'skeptic' arguments you should now familiarise yourself with the mainstream science on AGW.
My meaning was fairly clear, but I shall take pains to make it so obvious that you will be able to understand it. I'm saying that people arguing in favor of global warming will make up lies and ignore the scientific method just as flagrantly as anyone else. Look at Al Gore and tell me otherwise, I dare you.
I have, in fact, educated myself on both sides of the issue, and if your side was the "mainstream science," I'm fairly certain there wouldn't be quite as much of a debate, eh?
@cactusjoe188 "..if your side was the "mainstream science," I'm fairly certain there wouldn't be quite as much of a debate"
There's no scientific debate about whether or not anthropogenic GHGs are causing global warming. The consensus among climatologists is clear (ht tp://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf). The 'debate' was manufactured from outside the scientific community by think tanks funded by oil companies.
Read this: ww w.euronet.nl/users/e_wesker/ew@shell/API-prop.ht ml
@cristop5 Please don't misunderstand me. I am not trying to deny that the global temperature is, in fact, rising. Perhaps my diction leaves something to desire, because of how polarizing this issue is in our culture... When I say "global warming supporters," I'm referring specifically to our doomsayers, like Mr. Gore, for example. People who are trying to say that man's actions have dramatically and irreversibly altered our global climate. They can be just as bad as Singer, don't you agree?
@cactusjoe188 "People who are trying to say that man's actions have dramatically and irreversibly altered our global climate."
In the past 150 years we have destroyed 50% of the planet's forests and burnt billions of tonnes of fossil fuels. As a result the concentration of atmospheric CO2 has risen about 40% & temperatures are the hottest they've been in at least 1000 years.
There's no reason to think warming will just stop by itself. As with CFCs & sulfur emissions, we need to heed the science.
@cristop5 I'm sorry, I disagree. Temperatures were on the rise before the rise of industry. It seems arrogant to say that we have the power to stop the planet's warming. We have had warm and cold cycles for millennia. I think we need to conserve our natural resources, but I don't think all this fretting over our carbon footprint is going to make that much of a difference. I think it's mass hysteria people are exploiting to sell the green culture.
1. "Temperatures were on the rise before the rise of industry" If anything, temperatures were cooling between 1800 and 1900.
2. "It seems arrogant to say.." We now produce about 100 times as much CO2 per year than all the world's volcanoes combined. Arrogant or not, we humans are a now major player.
3. "We have had warm and cold cycles for millennia". True, and it seems CO2 played a part. Take ten minutes to watch this video:
1. Actually, no, they've been rising for about 300 years, since the little Ice Age we had.
2. Volcanoes or no, we still don't even produce 3% of the total CO2 output on earth.
3. But my point is, we've had warm and cold cycles for millennia. I've seen the videos, I don't know how else to say it.. I've looked at the facts, and it seems a non-sequitur argument. The temperature has gone up+ We produce CO2 does not necessarily equate to: We are the direct cause of global warming.
1. "they've been rising for about 300 years.." Follow this link and go to Fig. 1 ww w.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf
2. "we still don't even produce 3% of the total CO2 output" By 'output' you mean turnover? As in business it is the net gain that counts, not turnover. Isotope studies show accumulation of CO2 is mainly due to antropogenic activities:
@cactusjoe188 Correction on point 1 I referred you to a graph of northern hemisphere temperatures. Global temps do show a rise over the last 300 years as you say. The steep gains over the last 40 years can only be explained by anthropogenic GHGs.
@cristop5 Alright, alright. Listen, I can see that you are quite intelligent and well-informed, and entrenched in your position. I accept your premise but disagree with your conclusion. Yes, temperatures are on the rise. And yes, we are producing CFCs. I do not believe that this constitutes a global climate crisis, or that there is enough evidence to say that we are the sole cause of the warming. Links upon links upon links of people who agree with you doesn't make the logic work.
@cactusjoe188 "I do not believe that this constitutes a global climate crisis, or that there is enough evidence to say that we are the sole cause of the warming."
If you don't think we've caused most of the warming over the last 40 years, what has? The main forcing agents are already well known. There's no hidden "natural cause" waiting to be discovered. Without factoring in GHGs the warming can't be explained.
Right now it's tolerable, but unless we turn it around it can only get worse.
If the GHGs in the atmosphere aren't resulting in warming, not only do we need to explain what's causing the warming plus we need to establish what's stopping the GHGs causing the warming we expect.
Of course, such needless complexity is gibberish. Occam's razor applies. As you said: We know that the temperature increases are almost entirely accounted for by the increases in GHGs from industry and land-use, aerosols, black carbon, and feedbacks etc.
From 'satellite temperature measurements' on Wikipedia: "[The radiosonde] were designed to detect short term changes in temperatures and not long term trends so it would be inappropriate to criticize them for being poor for long term trend detection." Interesting how Fred here does not include the satellite data in his evidence, which are in agreement with the models.
@minibrownliger The satellite measurements are not in agreement with the models at all.In fact the correlation between the sattelite data and the ground stations(whats left of them) are a degree apart.
@ezeeskank "The satellite measurements are not in agreement with the models at all."
Not quite, though it depends on what time scale you are looking at. On a month to month, or year to year basis, data is in complete agreement with models. On a decadal or longer time scale, the discrepancy between data and models is between 0.036 and 0.066 degrees depending on which analysis (i.e, RSS/UAH) of the data is used. (This is specifically in the tropics. The rest fits.)
@jerkazoid I have left such texts behind long ago and one thing you find out as you go along is that those texts are riddled with errors.
Now the actual temperature of the earth is actually crucial to it's climate and our ability to measure it accurately and correctly crucial to our understanding of it. I have been able to point out sufficiently in the 500 byte available why we can ignore that particular text book.
@OvoidCranium Unless engaging science in non-scientific outlets, I don't think that book is largely dismissable at all actually. What exactly is your stance on the IPCC assessment for AGW rated with a high degree of confidence?
@OvoidCranium I am not surprised; So why was the IPCC formed? When was it and what keeps it going?
How exactly does it bode for the scientific community, (including skeptical or just contrarian), if research is flawed, unreliable and corrupt?
Is your position on AGW that research is too weak to make conclusions on what has been observed? (since the work of MacDonald 65, Jason 79 and the Charney report)
Of course not and no-one should be, because it's the truth. We only need to see such things as Lybia chairing Human rights to know it.
UN and it's children are ALL political and the sole purpose of members and employees is to perpetuate this place in the world funded by the taxpayers of all member nations, that they have made for themselves.
For the IPCC now it's to feather Rajeendra Pachauri's nest.
@OvoidCranium but more importantly since you call on Pachauri as a bit of the fulcrum to the issue, Does contention at the IPCC start before 2002 or only after?
alright, So how about != IPCC; WMO, the United Nations Environment Programme? National Climate Program Office, NOAA and the NAS... all of the various collaborators, & the institution of the peer review is in on this degradation of standards. You cant be saying that, right?
@jerkazoid For ... now = of late but hopefuil will change so no Pachauri is not a fulcrum. If you want to argue the matter don't start with strawman. I won't bite that bait.
@OvoidCranium, well you brought him up alright, so don't blame Pachauri as the issue; An honest opinion is just info. Where would the big problems start in the information gathered over the last 150 years? would there be a capitulation on this you highly suggest?
@jerkazoid "well you brought him up alright, so don't blame Pachauri as the issue"
Yep as a current visible example of UN corruption leads to but hardly a pivotal one could equally have discussed UN "aid workers" in refugee camps expecting favours from young ladies in exchange for food.
One huge problem comes with Arthur MIlne's use of semi-infinite approximation to solve the Schwarzschild radiation transfer equations in 1922 that hasn't yet been corrected in text books.
@jerkazoid Your link doesn't work but let me point out that for stellar atmospheres that are thick, black and opaque it's OK to use Eddington's semi-infinite approximation but not for optically thin earth like atmospheres with a transparent optical window. You will for example find that approximation used in Goody and Yung Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis. And of course in Arthur Milnes text written in 1928 also in recent peer reviewed literature.
Start with the universities there has been a general degradation of standards since various socialist political parties have wanted to increase the number of graduates in their populations. They have been able to achieve this by a two pronged attack subsidising the courses and a relaxation of standards.
Actually it might start with high school when I attended HS the masters had degrees now it seems they need to fail HS to be a HS teacher.
The only thing true that I have detected in your comments is 'a load of over priced bovine excreta.' That sums-up nicely the Heartland Climate Conference.
"Instead we should view it as an effective temperature for the (Earth + atmosphere) system as would be detected by an observer in space."
Actually an observer from space who knew something about remote sensing would take emissivity into account when measuring temperature. If the NASA scientists and engineers who put men on the moon did things the way suggested in the book they would have fried the astronauts on landing.
"However, the Earth radiates almost exclusively in the IR where the absorption efficiency is in fact near unity. For example, clouds and snow reflect visible radiation but absorb IR radiation. We approximate here the emission flux from the Earth as that of a blackbody of temperature TE, so that the energy balance equation for the Earth is"
A lazy and ad hoc method also wrong as it turns out set up by that earlier incorrect statement. Integrate over the spectrum.
"Because of the quantized nature of radiation, an object can emit radiation at a certain wavelength only if it absorbs radiation at that same wavelength."
Wrong it doesn't account for fluorescence or phospherscence earth surface absorbs SW (white if you like) and emits IR. Oooops.
a non-feedback radiation change causes a time-lagged temperature change which completely obscures the resulting feedback. it is not possible to measure the feedback in response to a radiatively induced temperature change that can not be accurately quantified..it is not clear their results demonstrate IPCC models as too sensitive.
LC09 basically even if current models are not 100% (& could they be), evidence to disprove them is even more tenuous.
Callendars work is ameliorated /w prediction, (ultimate results) but more importantly J has demonstrated distrust for the scientific "clan"; indicative of politics/skeptics projection, not superseding evidence.
Science is fierce competition, there is no 'good ol' club' at all. When science can't create predictions, it goes away, it doesn't need politics/friends.
skeptics always project politics, it's a pathological clutch to denial of evidence.
@OvoidCranium a good point, in fact it was Singers associate F. Seitz (George C. Marshall Institute) who said "As long as it was green. When money changes hands it's the new owner that decides how it's used, not the old." - Frontline [Hot Politics]
But the argument to follow money is reflective to the energy policy of the nation, and the industries that regulate that policy, freely. Any accusation about the $ is projection, but after all some of that aimed to halt reform was in Singers pockets.
@jerkazoid "When money changes hands it's the new owner that decides how it's used"
If the new owner misused it (in the donor's eyes) he doesn't get a repeat donation. The money is not that good that the grant will last a lifetime.
"but after all some of that aimed to halt reform was in Singers pockets."
this is a good case to discuss only the science rather than following the money. Energy companies will benefit from cap and trade more than anyone else so why would they oppose reform?
@OvoidCranium If they had been prepared, speculation markets have problems like that. It is probably why large companies started buying up forests in South America during the early 90's, so they could catch up to where they knew they would need to be. No harm in slowing the market and diversifying their interests, so long as no one else does it first.
and 1 final point on the energy policy; it is really simple.
If i was an oil company with the resources and team that understood the science, that team would be well positioned to poke holes in methodology, even down play consensus for a few years
And at the same time stifle political momentum, keeping down a speculative market and make economic moves for the future.
just free market, nothing new, nothing fancy no conspiracy,...plain ol fashion smart american business. simple answer.
@jerkazoid Also Ernst Georg-Beck has assembled thousands of CO2 measurements by chemical analysis going back some 180 years. The early 19th century spike of ~450ppm is apparent there also, indicating that the ice core data that Callendar discarded were not measurement errors but indicative of a real increase in CO2 that lasted several decades. The 280 ppm pre industrial baseline is yet another fraud. The Siple core, used by Siegenthaler & Oeschger, melted partially & should have been discarded.
@jimbo1490 wait are you really using the word fraud? - "intentional perversion of truth"
If it was fraud, there could be no testable predictions, no building hypothesis.
Nothing would be picked apart by the scientific nerds more than outright false information.
Nothing would build to a theory, the establishment would collapse, and start over. That didn't happen, a Hypothesis that does not work is discarded or improved.
you dont seem skeptical to me anymore, this seems like denial now.
@jerkazoid Ha! Then you guys must have been asleep at the wheel for MBH-98! NO AGW leaning scientists contested it AT ALL, or even asked for the raw data! YOU probably STILL believe that 20th century climate was unprecedented, despite all the papers of 'The Team" being discredited. Science doesn't happen in a vacuum; you bring your own prejudices and worldview to the game. Whether you admit it or not, you can't escape these or fully separate your scientific mind from them; no one can.
@jerkazoid The Siple core partially melted. The protocols call for it to be discarded, but of the cores extracted, it was the ONLY one that showed the 'desired' trend. You slap Beck's work with the pejorative 'sloppy' without any substantiation of this charge. Do enlighten us? Perhaps it's that the he dares assert that the best record we have of the recent (200ybp) CO2 record is direct measurements taken by scientists over the years, and that that record does not agree with the AGW orthodoxy.
@jimbo1490 i have listed many peer journals, i give up on you. listing the technical problems with E-G Beck only further illustrates your incompetence on this subject, in which case your approval isn't needed.
@jerkazoid But your beloved "peer journals" swallowed MBH-98 without question; they never even asked for the raw data; only the 'skeptics' ever did that. Your peer journals are apparently perfectly OK with Callendar's practice of discarding of data that deviated more than 5% from his 'expected' results. It seems your deference to 'peer journals' is misplaced as they have become little more than a back-slapping 'good ol' boy's club' for the AGW crowd.
@jerkazoid "in 1958 callenders best guess was 289ppm, it was confirmed by siple AND Law dome cores"
problem with ice core samples is that as the firn seals (it does so slowly) it samples the air which has to diffuse down the firn layer over a very long period of time. This results in the samples of air being a long term average that understates both the level and variability. Ice core compareed with 5 stomatal studies
3w. geocraft. com /WVFossils /PageMill_Images /image354. gif
@OvoidCranium You are submitting plant data as a proxy for confirmation for fully overwriting a wide theory? part of the puzzle that creates the info the IPCC reports on every few years....
Look why don't you just tell me "hide the decline" and then mention divergence, or is that too ironic? a good joke i think.
But you didn't site the peer review submission, just a graph made off other peoples data. please site the actual review.
@jerkazoid there is no irony unlike the tree rings which are not a good proxy for temperature because of the non-linear response of trees to temperature (once it gets to warm trees become stressed and don't grow Mann found the limit but hid it ;-)) the stomata of these plants are well calibrated for C02 levels. You will have to test it for yourself like I did now you have the names of the peer reviewed studies on the chart and you know where the ice core data is (NOAA) so go for it.
i love the irony, you take the divergence quote mine as proof against AGW,
yet for Stomata. they are "well calibrated" a perfect proxy would you say? :) But this is really just for affirmation on my end, you are simply low on the awareness level and nothing breads confidence like incompetence.
those names are not the submitters of the (assumed) peer reviewed piece, just sited resources. Please link me the entire peer review submission.
@jerkazoid Problem with your style is of course you refute by joke or appeal to ridicule (a fallacy of course) and one could say "a perfect proxy would you say?" this is a strawman but it shows you are:
1) unable to actually show the tree rings are good proxy for temperature.
2) unable to refute the stomatal data the peer reviewed studies are listed all 5 of them there are more of course but those 5 will do.
Like I said the rest of the work you'll have to do yourself get to it if you can.
@OvoidCranium But you already know those forms of research is new to the GHG discussion, so it is fun to point out. As for the small gif that is of a much larger html i am finding...however if you could just link me to a peer review submission, it would be faster.
and fyi i could never refute the stomata data, though it is a curious addition to AGW theory, Now are you saying you can validate it for me?
@jerkazoid "if you could just link me to a peer review submission"
What do you think I meant by the peer reviewed (stomatal) studies are listed the rest you'll have to do for yourself **like I had to**. Sure I used some ones picture that was already available doesn't necessariliy mean I agree with what the rest of the article had to say. Just saved me the trouble of creating the chart and posting it up somewhere to link to. you have a choice to accept it as it is or learn to us excel (yuko).
@OvoidCranium ok well let me just be clear, no jokes.
Ice core data provides a low-frequency estimation on CO2 of the atmosphere in Pleistocene glacial/interglacial cycles, the long term blueprint is very compelling.... However they underestimate the variability of interglacial CO2 levels as stomata suggests (+15%). short term annual C from fossils is less than 0.02%. so some assessment is needed, but accumulation of C02 is still known & attenuating conditions also have consequences.
@jerkazoid OK let's put the jokes aside including the one heard so often that CO2 levels have not significantly risen above 280ppmv for the past 600K years. It may be a minor issue but it is another "error" in the longer and growing list of IPCC experts' errors. The pieces of their jigsaw are just not fitting.
@OvoidCranium ~1/2 of sequestered Carbon (FFs) is accumulating in the atmosphere do to oxidation, and directly matching is obviously lower amounts of oxygen. The basic physics established by Arrhenius still hold up after 100+ years (w/ Gilbert Plass's work), then... we cant find reason there would be no warming. (the old science double-negative)
Co2 that took millions of years to sequester is introduced back at rates the deep oceans don't mitigate, and this is a grand geo-physical experiment.
@jerkazoid "The basic physics established by Arrhenius still hold up after 100+ years"
First it was refuted by Koch & Angstrom then later by Einstein. Arrhenius (same for Koch and Angstrom) error was that he only took into account the absorption by radiatively active gasses they emit equally well. After Koch and Angstrom found a "logarithmic" relation, still believed by IPCC TAR, Arrhenius agreed.
@jerkazoid Problem is the equation can grow without limit but there is a limit determined by Kirchoff's law. Objects can only be heated to the point where they are in thermal equilibrium. Then they start emitting at the same rate as they absorb this those early experimenters missed. For a body orbiting a hot sphere in a vacuum this is given by T = Ts* sqrt(r/2R) where Ts is surface temperature of the source, r is the source radius and R the distance from it.
@OvoidCranium I mentioned Plass, add Hulburtt in with that, they addressed the issues of Angstrom. i don't understand why you are giving me a lesson on equilibrium.
a nice reference by Spencer Weart online. "The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in the lower atmosphere...planet's temp is regulated by the thin upper layers.. Adding more greenhouse gas there will change the balance. even a 1% change would make a serious difference."
@jerkazoid " "The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in the lower atmosphere"
I've heard the same argument from Garth Paltridge (google "Paltridge Arking Pook" for latest paper) in a workshop on LBL integration codes just before it was shown that it really is all over by 100 m altitude what happens above that is nothing but emission and reabsorption and re-emission at ever decreasing rates due to thinning of the atmosphere.
@OvoidCranium reanalysis NCEP1 is known to have erroneous trends because of changes with instrumentation (ugh i could go on). i'm assume you have skeptic sources online so it's a moot point? ne way the only thing i have to say ; Denial = Skepticism - evidence, be it
+ or - arguments,
hey If a better theory that explains all data really starts to show up, If Linzden has a point, then AGW theory can change. pretty sure the next 25 years will see no change away from the current impetus.
@jerkazoid "reanalysis NCEP1 is known to have erroneous trends because of changes with instrumentation (ugh i could go on)."
subtle inaccuracy here the reanalysis is *suspected* to have errors due to instrumentation changes. In fact there is fair agreement with the TIGR2 data which was used to train the neural nets on the satellite's instruments, and Garth et al used only later data where there is no controversy. Nice try at at a red herring now try to concentrate on the equilibrium problem.
@OvoidCranium you mean the one where the distribution of re-re-radiated infrared in the troposphere is increased (in all directions) in a proportion to the concentration of Co2 bands?
@jerkazoid "in a proportion to the concentration of Co2 bands?"
You are babbling nonsense the radiatively active species in atmosphere radiate according to temperature.The intensity of the radiation follow the Plank's law for the relevant bands at that temperature.
the bottom panel is the chart for atmosphere at 268K (remove spaces)
i229. photobucket. com /albums/ee272/JanPompe/PettyFig8-2-mod. jpg?t=1276984740
@OvoidCranium At thermal equilibrium emissivity of a body equals its absorptivity.
Since 28-30% re-radiates GHGs cause proportions of to re-re-radiate. As GHG concentrations increases ('grey' body) energy is scattered back down. Increase the concentrations of Co2, it causes a new equilibrium of re-re-radiated infrared energy. The same is true for increased water vapor, or methane.
(remove spaces)
h tt p:// acmg.seas. harvard. edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap 7. html
@jerkazoid "At thermal equilibrium emissivity of a body equals its absorptivity."
right learn from it, instead of writing the crap that you do, that the equilibrium temperature of an object (or parcel of gas) is determined entirely by the intensity of the electromagnetic field it is in and NOT BY ITS COLOUR.
cont] implying cloud formation increase will attenuate? Lindzen/Choi 09, it is an idea, but has its own slim conclusions. regardless, Lindzen won't make a comment on ocean acidification, (outside his field) But if you are going to be wildly contrarian suggesting all conclusions are slim after 150+ years, that automatically makes the same argument against your own myopic evidence.
It does make a wonderful strategy for the denialists to absorb though, "reasonable doubt" a fantastic court tactic
@jerkazoid continued so even if a small change in concentration makes a big difference in optical depth in the high atmosphere it needs to have something substantial to absorb to make a difference so Spencer's and Garth's statement is hypothetical untested but largely irrelevant. Please try to concentrate and not bring up these red herrings. It has been years since I read Plass but I remember most about it is being unimpressed. Get a handle on equilibrium and it will fall into place maybe.
Fred Singer is nothing but a corporate hired hack. He pulled the same BS defending big tobacco!
Bushvision should be ashamed for putting worthless material like this on youtube. Perhaps it isn't so worthless if you are getting paid by vested interests?
Try reading what the real experts have to say. Here's a recent book that spells it out pretty well.
@ReduceGHGs S. Fred Singer Ph.D. is internationally known for his work on energy & environmental issues. He pioneered development of rocket and satellite technology, devised the instrument for measuring stratospheric ozone and was chief investigator on a satellite experiment retrieved by the space shuttle in 1990. He was the 1st scientist to predict that population growth would increase atmospheric methane--an important greenhouse gas.
Singer? Credible? Not a chance. Was he credible when he backed big tobacco? No. Does he have a credible study to back up his claims? No. Has he been an oil industry contractor? Yes. Does his opinions run contrary to those that actively study the science, those that have respected studies? Yes.
@ReduceGHGs Pres. of The SEPP, a non-profit group he founded in 1990, prof. emeritus of envrnmntl sci @ the U of VA. Prvious gov't & academic posts include Chief Scientist, U.S. DOT (87- 89) Dpty Ass't Admin for Policy, U.S. EPA (70-71); Dpty Ass't Sec'y for Water Qlty & Rsrch, U.S. DOI (67- 70); founding Dean of the School of Environmental & Planetary Sci, U of Miami (64-67) 1st Dir of the Nat'l Weather Satellite Svc (62-64); and Dir of the Ctr for Atmospheric & Space Physics, U of MD (53-62)
SEPP credible? LMFAO! How much of that corporate propaganda are you willing to consume?
Why gravitate to them and ignore SOCC, NASA, NOAA, AAAS, AGU, NAS, NCAR, and the many other RESPECTED scientific institutions? It's called denial. You are trying hard to maintain a belief that isn't supported by the best science available. Looks pretty silly.
@ReduceGHGs Meanwhile the AGW alarmist have yet to climb the first hurdle in the debate, which is to show that there was something-anything at all- unusual about 20th century climate. Warming events of similar or greater magnitude and rapidity have occurred in the past, even within recorded history. The null hypothesis is therefore one of natural climate variation rather than anthropogenic emissions.
@ReduceGHGs After reading Hansens sci-fi thriller, Try Singer's "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years"
From the preface:
It now may have become reasonable to consider the proposition that the theory of anthropogenic global warming is no longer a scientific theory. That is because, for a theory to be part of science, it must be possible for it to be falsified by observational evidence. It now looks like the theory of anthropogenic global warming, for its adherents, cannot be falsified.
Why would any reasonable person waste their time on someone that has proven themselves to be a corporate hack?
Oh yeah! It's one of the few "scientists" that are deniers. With so little else, its no wonder you cling so tightly to that guy.
Global warming is but ONE symptom. Try reading about The Anthropocene Epoch and why it is being considered. Sorry, stinger didn't have anything to do with it.
Sure, the IPCC with their 4th determination that humans are warming the planet is a good credible source. They in relied on many, many studies that have been completed.
Other reliable sources include NASA, NOAA, SOCC, AGU, NCAR, AIP, AMS, AAAS, NAS, and others. They ALL concur on the core issue. Not ONE says otherwise.
As for the "Hockey Stick", it is still very much alive. Sure its been adjusted given errors and new info. That's just good science.
@ReduceGHGs The adjustments that you speak of to the 'Hockey Stick' mean that it is now in agreement with all the hundreds of other paleoclimate reconstructions that came before it, in that it now shows a prominent Medieval Warm Period which was as warm or warmer than today. Any support for the idea that 20th century climate was in any was anomalous is now irrevocably lost as the world will never again fall for another fraud like the original MBH-98.
Thanks for playing scientist but I prefer to rely on those that actively study science. Again, try some honest research. Read what James Hansen wrote about it in Storms of My Grandchildren.
This is well established science that dates bact to at least The Charney Report; just a little something the NAS put together in 1979. You can find it on the net but you won't bother, I know.
@ReduceGHGs The Charney Report just espouses the same set of erroneous, scientifically unsupported assumptions as the IPCC parades around as fact, such that there exists a fabled strong positive feedback between CO2 concentration and water vapor concentration though a simple thermal perturbation. This piece of the AGW narrative has been tested and it fails: the sign of the feedback in response to thermal perturbations is negative, just as we should expect of a natural system.
Erroneous? Let's see the studies backing that up. What? Don't have any studies, only a belief? Sounds like a religious cult to me. Any speaking in tongues?
Thanks again for the "scientific" analysis on CO2 and water vapor. It will be given DUE consideration. Again, I prefer the experts, those professionals that have a clue.
@ReduceGHGs But your "experts" have NO STUDIES that back up their claims as to the sign and magnitude of the fabled feedback with water vapor; they are simply assumed Wild Ass Guesses. Using these WAGs in their computer models, your experts have consistently overestimated the effect of CO2 on climate. The best studies ever done on the subject of water vapor feedback show that the sign is negative, just as expected of a natural system. How else could the climate have remained stable so long?
The data set of proxies of past climate used in MBH98 for the estimation of temps from 1400 to 1980 contains collation errors, unjustifiable truncation/extrapolation of source data, obsolete data,geographical errors, incorrect calculations and other QC defects. We detail these, then apply MBH98 methods to construct a Northern Hemisphere average temperature index for the same period. The major finding is that the values in the early 15th century exceed any values in the 20th century."
@jimbo1490 i cant comment on the study directly but if you are speaking about the medieval warming period.....there maybe attenuating circumstances that limit the Anthropogenic effects of Co2 in the close future however 1) in those medieval period population was NOT approaching 7billion, and more importantly 2) ALL supposed attenuating circumstances themselves have consequences.
h20 vapor feedback? Linzden/Choi (LC09) you'll notice even Roy Spencer thinks it needed better peer review/work
@jerkazoid Evidence for a prominent global MWP as warm or warmer than 20th century climate is widespread. Practically the ONLY works that refuted this idea were the works of "The Team", but they have been deeply, irrevocably discredited. It is true that the H2O feedback needs more study. So then why are 'warmers' claiming "the science is settled" when perhaps the most crucial piece of the puzzle remains underexplored?
@jimbo1490 w/e ur saying about the MWP, i dont follow. H20 feedback study likely isn't necessary partially to do with models by JASON in the 70's that made predictions (polar amplification) observed true over 25+ years. Based on the 150 years of AGW theory,as the IPCC words it, the 20th cent' has warmed with a high degree of certainty from Co2 in the form of fossil fuels that took mil' of years to naturally sequester, & that humans are conducting a grand geophysical experiment (cont..)
@jerkazoid What I'm saying about the MWP is simple: There is widespread evidence that it was both global in scale & as warm or warmer than 20th century climate, meaning that 20th century climate was not in any way anomalous, which refutes a key assertion of the AGW narrative namely, that 20th century climate was unprecedented in recent history. ~1000yrs ago is recent history WRT the climate. Anthropogenic CO2 wasn't an issue, meaning they needn't be the cause of 20th century warming either.
@jerkazoid Though CO2 has recently risen, the isotopic signature of 'fossil' carbon is largely missing from the atmosphere, meaning that the burning of fuels has not contributed significantly to the observed rise in atmospheric CO2. Google: Tom V. Segalstad
CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas past ~150ppm. The scary warming scenarios come form the fabled strongly positive feedback with water vapor through simple thermal perturbation. By observation we now know that the sign of the feedback is negative.
@jimbo1490 last submission, 13 years ago? & review "Ghosh 2003". Carbon started to be be tracked by Keeling in the 50's & can be checked against oxidation . Avg electric/car/industry use, estimates are just at ~29 g-tonnes/yr) roughly 40% absorbed (Tripati at el 2009) i'm curious if you are qualified in physics/chemistry to understand some of this peer review material? much is over my head. but it's about perturbed% & logarithmic effects. What peer review paper observed feedback to be negative?
@jimbo1490 It is quite a test humans are performing. Exponentially releasing Co2 to levels human history never experienced, an exponentially increasing population. There is observed warming, in relation to the suns output of course, The only trouble is policy. What should be done? That is an on going debate & has nothing to do with the science, however using "reasonable doubt" is a court tactic developed by Singers fight against Tobacco & Reagan defense initiative strategy..it is very effective.
@jerkazoid The idea that CO2 levels have been stable @ ~280ppm for centuries before industrialization is another fraud of the AGW alarmists. The IPCC got this figure from Callendar's presentation @ the 1st IPCC Conf. Yet when he published the same data a few years earlier, it showed a 450ppm spike of several decades in the 19th cent. He removed the spike when he re-presented the data to the IPCC. He later admitted that data that were more than 10% outside of his "expected result" was discarded.
@jimbo1490 that was supposed to be "Tripati et al. , pp. 1394 - 1397" (Ice core proxies) Aradhna K. Tripati, Christopher D. Roberts, Robert A. Eagle.
"A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years"
this is an abnormal issue best explained with oxidation of fossil fuels
@jimbo1490 wait a min? what? The IPCC didn't exist until after The JASON committee 1988 G.S. Callender died in 1964. What presentation are you refering too ? but also why are you citing the 1st assessment? There is a reason why the science keeps studying & the IPCC is working on it's 5th now.
@jerkazoid You're right that Callendar did not personally re-present his data to the 1st IPCC as he was gone. But his data, with it's artificial filtration of "unexpected" data points was presented and is cited. The shotgun plots of his raw data clearly show the ~450ppm spike from ~1810-1860. Similarly, Neftel et al publishing in Nature 1982 show many spikes in CO2 >280ppm and large error bars. Republishing same data to 1st IPCC the spikes and large error bars are gone.
@jimbo1490 well, 1st assesment? i mean this is a no where debate for me.. i cant defend old science from1982. Even "climate-gate" show 3-4 minor mistakes in IPCCs 4th..but thats not answers.
Callender was 30's-50, it really wasn't till the late 50's (Gilbert Plass, Revelle,Suess and Keeling) when big leaps (spectroscopy) got started and we have been observing over 25+ years.
1964 Gordan McDonald
& again JASON 77-79 (JASON is a very distinguished) & 2nd opinion by NAS (Charney report)
@jimbo1490 and mind you, Singer didn't do research for these. no one at the Marshal institute did that, research was not its function. It was tasked to fight these battles in the publics view, against PBS broadcasts, or to politicians not peer reviewed science. so what we have is like the Discovery institute, non evidence based, non tested, doubt.
we know this bc things like tobacco lost the court battles & the info available to the public. "the dose makes the poison" was 1 of their sad defenses
jerkazoid: Thank you for your ABJECTLY ignorant post. It was in 1993 that the two LIARS Rowland&Molina were invited to Cornell University to openly debate their "science." Two weeks before the-then already scheduled event (Bailey Hall), these two liars back down.
Please tell this channel EVERYTHING you know about the three familes of patents, and the expiration dates of such, and please tell us EVERYTHING you know about Edgar Bronfman (Oh Canada?) and his ownership of Dupont.
24 hours later 30 poems done and all in Arabic or Urdu and handed away.
Nations Egypt,Syria,Israel,Jordan,UAE, Libya,Yemen,United Kingdom,France, Spain, Greece, Turkey,Serbia,China,Japan, Korea & others in Central America & theCarribean.
Obama please give up, You are such a loser to think I would stop.
35 black kids killed & you don't give a shit for them.
Oh by the way OBAMA a tabloid has printed about you being GAY. I saw the tabloid on Ninth Ave 45th Street.
@jerkazoid Ozone is created in the stratosphere when high-energy UV strikes O2 molecules creating O3. Because the sun strikes so obliquely at the poles (that's why is so cold there :D ) the ozone concentration is thinner there . The thin distribution of the ozone at the poles was predicted decades before the invention and commercial deployment of the Halon gases. Furthermore, no plausible mechanism of transport of Halon gases from seal level to stratosphere has ever been posited.
you should publish those claims with data instantly in some type of peer review and show how the field of chemistry is a hoax and win BIG right?. that the work by Paul Crutzen, Mario Molina and F. Sherwood Rowland are a complete sham? no way they knew about the creation of O3...? Be sure to use data to form a hypothesis, then test that hypothesis with observable prediction that yield statistically significant correlations.
@jimbo1490 and actually to be a bit more thorough with regard to your scientific reply, the subject has been addressed. (Cant post links here) but "Scientific american" has an article on this subject Jean M. Andino in 99 writes, of course Molina, Rowland and Crutzen have known this question.
but a logically mundane retort i have, CfCs are found in the Stratosphere, (ways for them to get there are known) but just the fact they are there, correlating with production is the critical point.
Hi all, I will be teaching students about climate change. I plan to provide them information from both sides as I want them to make an informed decision on their own. If you have properly researched this topic and come to a conclusion could people please flick me an email and direct me to some credible scientific information that supports your view. Personally, I have not yet come to any conclusion - however I desire the truth backed by fact not popular opinion or smear campaigns - much thanks.
"information from both sides as I want them to make an informed decision"
I'd refer you to the following video series here on YouTube.
Skeptic side of RCRC Climate Debate
The author, Warren Meyer, does an excellent job, working through many of the major issues and explaining why there is reasonable cause for doubt in the AGW hypothesis.
It will give you an insight into many "contra" arguments to set alongside the *pros*. Should help you balance the case for yourself.
Darren while I am very skeptical about global warming not the least of which is do to the great 1970's panic of the virtually imminent ice age.
In our society reason has gone out the window and popular consensus and emotions now determines truth not empirical evidence correctly understood.
That being said I think your aproach is refreshing and your students will get the chance to think and reason instead of dogmatic based propaganda. I hope you use this aproach for all topics.
@Jamesbowman777 This is a common issue, the 70's Ice age alarm-ism does not bode well for the AGW theory..., nevertheless the facts surrounding why that happened is more logical than your gut reaction. That "science" was typical of the meteorological researcher (the "they cant tell if it will rain tomorrow"! group).. not the actual PHD physicists/chemists .BTW AGW theory has existed for over 150yrs if you study the who/what/where/when/why/how. Id be happy to link you their names, LMK
Check the study in Nature Scientific journal pertaining to the urban heat island effect in Houston. That explains much of the incorrect surface data used by the global warming alarmists. Since most reading are taken from urban areas which are subject to this phenomenon, they are therefore unreliable. Check another danish study pertaining to lower solar output, and the sun's relationship to warming and cooling trends.
He also devised the instrument used to measure stratospheric ozone from satellites. Served as Deputy Assistant Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, chaired an interdepartmental panel of scientists studying possible effects on ozone. The first group to examine possible damage to the ozone layer from human activities and look into potential health consequences. Served as Chief Scientist of the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Dr S. Fred Singer: He hold a degree in engineering from Ohio State and a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University. For more than 40 years, he has specialised in atmospheric and space physics. He received a Special Commendation from President Eisenhower for the early design of satellites. In 1962, he established the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, served as its first director, and received a Gold Medal award from the U.S. Department of Commerce for this contribution.
Brilliant! Ignore Singer's evidence and question his motives!!! How utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and how convenient. Why dont you take on people intellectually rather than personally you idiot?
@ThikSkindesign It makes him an Evil Capitalist. You call selling something that does not exist "making a living" selling carbon credits is like when the church used to sell "pardons" for sinning. You simply purchace the pardon, then when you sin you write it on the paper, turn it in then your forgiven.
@ThikSkindesign I think this is putting the cart before the horse though. What is a more logical answer? Singer was deliberately deceiving us ONLY because he is paid? or he genuinely DOES believe it (the tape of him saying "most scientists are democrats and it is as simple as that" report is called "HEAT" by Frontline) and so works in that direction. U might not agree /w Als opinion or the scientific data, but that is not evidence of lies, he puts his $ where he knows it should go, we all do.
It isn't only the earth that is going threw these changes.Its a solar system ordeal.Many other planets are having similar changes. What makes people think they are so powerful as to control the earth or the solar system?CO2 will cause an ice age not global warming. If not then the physics is wrong for airconditioning.We are coming out of a mini iceage .The fossil fuel theory is a hoax,earth excrements crude oil.Yes pollution is terrible but they have an agenda for more control.
I've read many reports and seen online lectures by people such as John Christy, Roy Spencer, William Kininmonth and Vincent Gray, to name a few. All these are highly qualified to speak on climate issues and have been in the field for decades.
You can tell the difference between people who show the data as it is, and give explanations, then to other people who try and twist the data, such as the alarmists, who won't accept simple facts such as Antarctica's record size.
Haha. Minority? It's not clear on how many scientists agree to which side, but 31,000 just signed a petition the other month disagreeing with catastrophic AGW. Plus, science isn't a majority game. 100 hundred people can have a theory, but it takes only 1 fact to disprove them.
Now, how have the 'outspoken minority' sold their scientific integrity to the devil?
Apart from the data being so transparently manipulated it is irrelevant to the debate of AGW v natural warming anyway. The tropics should warm at an increased rate in either case! Duh.
There's a credibility problem here. The two graphics used by Singer are actually on different scales. The simulation is a 41 year total whereas the observation is a decadal rate. He doesn't mention this but then he clearly hopes we won't notice. In the source material (CCSP) the sim was compared with the obs on a like for like basis where the two were quite similar. He could have used that but instead he swapped in a graphic from a different chapter showing a different thing. Very dodgy.
From the guy that also denied the science behind the hole in the ozone layer. The guy makes a living from denial
simonneville777 5 months ago
Fred Singer has made it a career to discredit any science that threatened private industry profits or involved the government. He championed what later became known as the "The Tobacco Strategy", working to sow doubt about not just the connection between smoking and health, but also the science on acid rain, DDT, and the ozone hole. He directed a program for R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. that funneled 45 million dollars to scientists paid to "defend the product". So much for Fred Singer.
charadester 7 months ago
@charadester hard science does show tobacco protects against lung cancer (thanks to MAOB). What it does do is increase needs in Vitamin C (0.5g a cigarette), which will in the long run lead to ill health. Lack of Vitamin C kills (only humans and guinea pigs do not create it internally), not tabacco. So much for charadester.
evenesteven 6 months ago
@evensteven You and Fred should team up. You're both peddling the same partial, misleading stories. And since you're a data lover, try diving into the millions of data points recorded in more than a dozen climate models, all of which show that temperature increases cannot be adequately explained without the human-induced variables including carbon dioxide generation from fossil fuels. Lastly, light one up and enjoy that cancer-free life...if you dare to trust your claim.
charadester 6 months ago
@charadester I'll team up with anyone who is out for truth, and ready to adapt his view to reality - which does not include lying scientists from the IPCC. Moreover, I was speaking of lung cancer, not all cancers, but again, the ill effects of smoking on the immune system can be couneterbalanced with vitamin C (though any addiction promises to be mortal in the long run).
evenesteven 6 months ago
@evenesteven Hey at least START with a real fact before you get into distorting it to suit your twisted view of the world. The IPCC and the UN do not have any scientists. The work from the IPCC is just a summary of thousands of independent pieces of work from scientists in many field who are employed by hundreds of different organisations, in many different countries. Who have often published despite governments trying to gag them to downplay the severity of the problem.
indulis1 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The last decade was the hottest on modern record. - WMO
The benefits of a price on carbon outweigh the costs several times over. -Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change
The warming trend over 1970 to 2001 is greater than warming from both 1860 to 1880 and 1910 to 1940. GISS/ NOAA
checkyoursources 8 months ago
Comment removed
pseudotruth 8 months ago
Singer received $143k for the NIPCC garbage. See part VII.
Tiny. cc slash Singer990NIPCC2008
pseudotruth 8 months ago
Of course Singer made his name as a big tobacco scientist. He still doesn't believe the like to cancer. He is a denier for hire. AGW just happens to be his issue de jour.
His arguments are easily refutable to anyone who honestly looks at the science.
rugbyguy59 11 months ago
Fred Singer is also sceptical about acid rain, nuclear winter, health problems from tobacco smoke and the ozone hole. He's a sceptic for hire.
If ever you want to attack science because it may impact on your industry, Singer's your man.
Why does he do it? He is somehow defending the free world from Stalinism! But don't worry, he is not sceptical of the idea there are cabals of communist scientists hell bent on extra pointless regulation. Why?
Well you see Singer made that one up himself!
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5
You can say precisely the same thing of supporters of global warming. They lie, distort the facts, and take things out of context with all the same skill as anyone else, and corporations benefit just as much from that. Look at the rise of our "green" culture. We spend so much more on things to reduce our carbon footprint, fooling people into believing we can affect our global climate.
No one is taking the facts for what they are. We let our opinions affect our view of the truth.
cactusjoe188 11 months ago
@cactusjoe188 "You can say precisely the same thing of supporters of global warming.." What? You mean 'supporters of global warming' also deny a link between smoking & cancer, sulfur emissions & acid rain, CFCs & ozone depletion? No. The case for anthropogenic global warming is based on science. Science that has passed the peer review process. If you have only read 'skeptic' arguments you should now familiarise yourself with the mainstream science on AGW.
Start here: /watch?v=5Pjbykd2ywU
cristop5 11 months ago
@cristop5
My meaning was fairly clear, but I shall take pains to make it so obvious that you will be able to understand it. I'm saying that people arguing in favor of global warming will make up lies and ignore the scientific method just as flagrantly as anyone else. Look at Al Gore and tell me otherwise, I dare you.
I have, in fact, educated myself on both sides of the issue, and if your side was the "mainstream science," I'm fairly certain there wouldn't be quite as much of a debate, eh?
cactusjoe188 11 months ago
@cactusjoe188 "..if your side was the "mainstream science," I'm fairly certain there wouldn't be quite as much of a debate"
There's no scientific debate about whether or not anthropogenic GHGs are causing global warming. The consensus among climatologists is clear (ht tp://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf). The 'debate' was manufactured from outside the scientific community by think tanks funded by oil companies.
Read this: ww w.euronet.nl/users/e_wesker/ew@shell/API-prop.ht ml
cristop5 11 months ago
@cristop5 Please don't misunderstand me. I am not trying to deny that the global temperature is, in fact, rising. Perhaps my diction leaves something to desire, because of how polarizing this issue is in our culture... When I say "global warming supporters," I'm referring specifically to our doomsayers, like Mr. Gore, for example. People who are trying to say that man's actions have dramatically and irreversibly altered our global climate. They can be just as bad as Singer, don't you agree?
cactusjoe188 11 months ago
@cactusjoe188 "People who are trying to say that man's actions have dramatically and irreversibly altered our global climate."
In the past 150 years we have destroyed 50% of the planet's forests and burnt billions of tonnes of fossil fuels. As a result the concentration of atmospheric CO2 has risen about 40% & temperatures are the hottest they've been in at least 1000 years.
There's no reason to think warming will just stop by itself. As with CFCs & sulfur emissions, we need to heed the science.
cristop5 11 months ago
@cristop5 I'm sorry, I disagree. Temperatures were on the rise before the rise of industry. It seems arrogant to say that we have the power to stop the planet's warming. We have had warm and cold cycles for millennia. I think we need to conserve our natural resources, but I don't think all this fretting over our carbon footprint is going to make that much of a difference. I think it's mass hysteria people are exploiting to sell the green culture.
cactusjoe188 11 months ago
@cactusjoe188
1. "Temperatures were on the rise before the rise of industry" If anything, temperatures were cooling between 1800 and 1900.
2. "It seems arrogant to say.." We now produce about 100 times as much CO2 per year than all the world's volcanoes combined. Arrogant or not, we humans are a now major player.
3. "We have had warm and cold cycles for millennia". True, and it seems CO2 played a part. Take ten minutes to watch this video:
watch?v=uE6at2IEUOU&feature=related
cristop5 11 months ago
@cristop5
1. Actually, no, they've been rising for about 300 years, since the little Ice Age we had.
2. Volcanoes or no, we still don't even produce 3% of the total CO2 output on earth.
3. But my point is, we've had warm and cold cycles for millennia. I've seen the videos, I don't know how else to say it.. I've looked at the facts, and it seems a non-sequitur argument. The temperature has gone up+ We produce CO2 does not necessarily equate to: We are the direct cause of global warming.
cactusjoe188 11 months ago
@cactusjoe188
1. "they've been rising for about 300 years.." Follow this link and go to Fig. 1 ww w.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf
2. "we still don't even produce 3% of the total CO2 output" By 'output' you mean turnover? As in business it is the net gain that counts, not turnover. Isotope studies show accumulation of CO2 is mainly due to antropogenic activities:
ww w.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf
3. /watch?v=5Pjbykd2ywU
cristop5 11 months ago
@cactusjoe188 Correction on point 1 I referred you to a graph of northern hemisphere temperatures. Global temps do show a rise over the last 300 years as you say. The steep gains over the last 40 years can only be explained by anthropogenic GHGs.
cristop5 11 months ago
@cristop5 Alright, alright. Listen, I can see that you are quite intelligent and well-informed, and entrenched in your position. I accept your premise but disagree with your conclusion. Yes, temperatures are on the rise. And yes, we are producing CFCs. I do not believe that this constitutes a global climate crisis, or that there is enough evidence to say that we are the sole cause of the warming. Links upon links upon links of people who agree with you doesn't make the logic work.
cactusjoe188 11 months ago
@cactusjoe188 "I do not believe that this constitutes a global climate crisis, or that there is enough evidence to say that we are the sole cause of the warming."
If you don't think we've caused most of the warming over the last 40 years, what has? The main forcing agents are already well known. There's no hidden "natural cause" waiting to be discovered. Without factoring in GHGs the warming can't be explained.
Right now it's tolerable, but unless we turn it around it can only get worse.
cristop5 11 months ago
@cristop5
If the GHGs in the atmosphere aren't resulting in warming, not only do we need to explain what's causing the warming plus we need to establish what's stopping the GHGs causing the warming we expect.
Of course, such needless complexity is gibberish. Occam's razor applies. As you said: We know that the temperature increases are almost entirely accounted for by the increases in GHGs from industry and land-use, aerosols, black carbon, and feedbacks etc.
pseudotruth 8 months ago
From 'satellite temperature measurements' on Wikipedia: "[The radiosonde] were designed to detect short term changes in temperatures and not long term trends so it would be inappropriate to criticize them for being poor for long term trend detection." Interesting how Fred here does not include the satellite data in his evidence, which are in agreement with the models.
minibrownliger 1 year ago
Comment removed
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
Comment removed
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@minibrownliger The satellite measurements are not in agreement with the models at all.In fact the correlation between the sattelite data and the ground stations(whats left of them) are a degree apart.
ezeeskank 1 year ago
@ezeeskank "The satellite measurements are not in agreement with the models at all."
Not quite, though it depends on what time scale you are looking at. On a month to month, or year to year basis, data is in complete agreement with models. On a decadal or longer time scale, the discrepancy between data and models is between 0.036 and 0.066 degrees depending on which analysis (i.e, RSS/UAH) of the data is used. (This is specifically in the tropics. The rest fits.)
minibrownliger 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium think you are focusing on irrelevant parts for the purposes of the basics?
The text is:
An introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry,
Daniel J. Jacob, Princeton University Press, 1999.
I think if you really want to get into this you will need to find a more thorough outlet then youtube comments.
jerkazoid 1 year ago
@jerkazoid I have left such texts behind long ago and one thing you find out as you go along is that those texts are riddled with errors.
Now the actual temperature of the earth is actually crucial to it's climate and our ability to measure it accurately and correctly crucial to our understanding of it. I have been able to point out sufficiently in the 500 byte available why we can ignore that particular text book.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago 8
@OvoidCranium Unless engaging science in non-scientific outlets, I don't think that book is largely dismissable at all actually. What exactly is your stance on the IPCC assessment for AGW rated with a high degree of confidence?
jerkazoid 1 year ago
@jerkazoid "What exactly is your stance on the IPCC assessment for AGW rated with a high degree of confidence?"
Along with everything else that comes from the UN :- a load of over priced bovine excreta.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago 5
@OvoidCranium I am not surprised; So why was the IPCC formed? When was it and what keeps it going?
How exactly does it bode for the scientific community, (including skeptical or just contrarian), if research is flawed, unreliable and corrupt?
Is your position on AGW that research is too weak to make conclusions on what has been observed? (since the work of MacDonald 65, Jason 79 and the Charney report)
simply the mantra "far from settled" ?
jerkazoid 1 year ago
@jerkazoid "I am not surprised; "
Of course not and no-one should be, because it's the truth. We only need to see such things as Lybia chairing Human rights to know it.
UN and it's children are ALL political and the sole purpose of members and employees is to perpetuate this place in the world funded by the taxpayers of all member nations, that they have made for themselves.
For the IPCC now it's to feather Rajeendra Pachauri's nest.
and yes it is giving science a bad name.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago 5
@OvoidCranium but more importantly since you call on Pachauri as a bit of the fulcrum to the issue, Does contention at the IPCC start before 2002 or only after?
alright, So how about != IPCC; WMO, the United Nations Environment Programme? National Climate Program Office, NOAA and the NAS... all of the various collaborators, & the institution of the peer review is in on this degradation of standards. You cant be saying that, right?
jerkazoid 1 year ago
@jerkazoid For ... now = of late but hopefuil will change so no Pachauri is not a fulcrum. If you want to argue the matter don't start with strawman. I won't bite that bait.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago 2
@OvoidCranium, well you brought him up alright, so don't blame Pachauri as the issue; An honest opinion is just info. Where would the big problems start in the information gathered over the last 150 years? would there be a capitulation on this you highly suggest?
jerkazoid 1 year ago
@jerkazoid "well you brought him up alright, so don't blame Pachauri as the issue"
Yep as a current visible example of UN corruption leads to but hardly a pivotal one could equally have discussed UN "aid workers" in refugee camps expecting favours from young ladies in exchange for food.
One huge problem comes with Arthur MIlne's use of semi-infinite approximation to solve the Schwarzschild radiation transfer equations in 1922 that hasn't yet been corrected in text books.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago 5
@OvoidCranium in texts where?
The Fundamentals of Stellar Astrophysics - George W. Collins, II
Chapter 10: Solution of the Equation of Radiative Transfer
ht tp://ads.harvard.edu/books/1989fsa..book/AbookC10. pdf
jerkazoid 1 year ago
@jerkazoid Your link doesn't work but let me point out that for stellar atmospheres that are thick, black and opaque it's OK to use Eddington's semi-infinite approximation but not for optically thin earth like atmospheres with a transparent optical window. You will for example find that approximation used in Goody and Yung Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis. And of course in Arthur Milnes text written in 1928 also in recent peer reviewed literature.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago 5
@jerkazoid " this degradation of standards. "
Start with the universities there has been a general degradation of standards since various socialist political parties have wanted to increase the number of graduates in their populations. They have been able to achieve this by a two pronged attack subsidising the courses and a relaxation of standards.
Actually it might start with high school when I attended HS the masters had degrees now it seems they need to fail HS to be a HS teacher.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago 4
@OvoidCranium
'For the IPCC now it's to feather Rajeendra Pachauri's nest.'
Why are you spreading lies? - Unless you respond truthfully, you will be branded a liar.
pseudotruth 8 months ago
@OvoidCranium
The only thing true that I have detected in your comments is 'a load of over priced bovine excreta.' That sums-up nicely the Heartland Climate Conference.
pseudotruth 8 months ago
@jerkazoid "I don't think that book is largely dismissable at all actually"
I agree it's always amusing to see chemists trying to do physics and getting it wrong.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago 4
@jerkazoid more from 7.2
"Instead we should view it as an effective temperature for the (Earth + atmosphere) system as would be detected by an observer in space."
Actually an observer from space who knew something about remote sensing would take emissivity into account when measuring temperature. If the NASA scientists and engineers who put men on the moon did things the way suggested in the book they would have fried the astronauts on landing.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago 6
@jerkazoid another in sect 7.3
"However, the Earth radiates almost exclusively in the IR where the absorption efficiency is in fact near unity. For example, clouds and snow reflect visible radiation but absorb IR radiation. We approximate here the emission flux from the Earth as that of a blackbody of temperature TE, so that the energy balance equation for the Earth is"
A lazy and ad hoc method also wrong as it turns out set up by that earlier incorrect statement. Integrate over the spectrum.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago 5
@OvoidCranium errrr that's sect 7.2
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@jerkazoid From that "textbook" you linked
7.1
"Because of the quantized nature of radiation, an object can emit radiation at a certain wavelength only if it absorbs radiation at that same wavelength."
Wrong it doesn't account for fluorescence or phospherscence earth surface absorbs SW (white if you like) and emits IR. Oooops.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago 3
Cont] As Roy Spencer put it:
a non-feedback radiation change causes a time-lagged temperature change which completely obscures the resulting feedback. it is not possible to measure the feedback in response to a radiatively induced temperature change that can not be accurately quantified..it is not clear their results demonstrate IPCC models as too sensitive.
LC09 basically even if current models are not 100% (& could they be), evidence to disprove them is even more tenuous.
jerkazoid 1 year ago
@jerkazoid "LC09 basically even if current models are not 100% (& could they be), evidence to disprove them is even more tenuous."
Problem is model output is not evidence.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago 3
jimbo is simply science illiterate
Callendars work is ameliorated /w prediction, (ultimate results) but more importantly J has demonstrated distrust for the scientific "clan"; indicative of politics/skeptics projection, not superseding evidence.
Science is fierce competition, there is no 'good ol' club' at all. When science can't create predictions, it goes away, it doesn't need politics/friends.
skeptics always project politics, it's a pathological clutch to denial of evidence.
jerkazoid 1 year ago
@jerkazoid "When science can't create predictions"
in the case of climate science it makes scary predictions and holds the hand out for more funds.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago 2
@OvoidCranium a good point, in fact it was Singers associate F. Seitz (George C. Marshall Institute) who said "As long as it was green. When money changes hands it's the new owner that decides how it's used, not the old." - Frontline [Hot Politics]
But the argument to follow money is reflective to the energy policy of the nation, and the industries that regulate that policy, freely. Any accusation about the $ is projection, but after all some of that aimed to halt reform was in Singers pockets.
jerkazoid 1 year ago 2
@jerkazoid "When money changes hands it's the new owner that decides how it's used"
If the new owner misused it (in the donor's eyes) he doesn't get a repeat donation. The money is not that good that the grant will last a lifetime.
"but after all some of that aimed to halt reform was in Singers pockets."
this is a good case to discuss only the science rather than following the money. Energy companies will benefit from cap and trade more than anyone else so why would they oppose reform?
OvoidCranium 1 year ago 2
@OvoidCranium If they had been prepared, speculation markets have problems like that. It is probably why large companies started buying up forests in South America during the early 90's, so they could catch up to where they knew they would need to be. No harm in slowing the market and diversifying their interests, so long as no one else does it first.
jerkazoid 1 year ago
and 1 final point on the energy policy; it is really simple.
If i was an oil company with the resources and team that understood the science, that team would be well positioned to poke holes in methodology, even down play consensus for a few years
And at the same time stifle political momentum, keeping down a speculative market and make economic moves for the future.
just free market, nothing new, nothing fancy no conspiracy,...plain ol fashion smart american business. simple answer.
jerkazoid 1 year ago
@jerkazoid "and 1 final point on the energy policy;"
Oh stop waffling energy companies will make many no matter what as long as people need energy.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
i have given about 6? pieces of raw literature/citations filled with methodology, you have provided Google searches.
ill give you only 1 more. Kruger & Dunning, (1999)
jerkazoid 1 year ago
sign ok, just a few more just to finish out the reading..
e.g. Pearson, PN and Palmer, MR (2000) "Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years"
M. Pagani et al. (2005) "Marked Decline in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations During the Paleogene", Science 309, 600 603.
T. K. Lowenstein and R. V. Demicco (2006) "Elevated Eocene Atmospheric CO2 and Its Subsequent Decline"
R. M. DeConto et al (2008) "Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation"
jerkazoid 1 year ago
@jerkazoid Also Ernst Georg-Beck has assembled thousands of CO2 measurements by chemical analysis going back some 180 years. The early 19th century spike of ~450ppm is apparent there also, indicating that the ice core data that Callendar discarded were not measurement errors but indicative of a real increase in CO2 that lasted several decades. The 280 ppm pre industrial baseline is yet another fraud. The Siple core, used by Siegenthaler & Oeschger, melted partially & should have been discarded.
jimbo1490 1 year ago
@jimbo1490 wait are you really using the word fraud? - "intentional perversion of truth"
If it was fraud, there could be no testable predictions, no building hypothesis.
Nothing would be picked apart by the scientific nerds more than outright false information.
Nothing would build to a theory, the establishment would collapse, and start over. That didn't happen, a Hypothesis that does not work is discarded or improved.
you dont seem skeptical to me anymore, this seems like denial now.
jerkazoid 1 year ago
@jerkazoid Ha! Then you guys must have been asleep at the wheel for MBH-98! NO AGW leaning scientists contested it AT ALL, or even asked for the raw data! YOU probably STILL believe that 20th century climate was unprecedented, despite all the papers of 'The Team" being discredited. Science doesn't happen in a vacuum; you bring your own prejudices and worldview to the game. Whether you admit it or not, you can't escape these or fully separate your scientific mind from them; no one can.
jimbo1490 1 year ago
@jimbo1490 E-G Beck is sloppy.
in 1958 callenders best guess was 289ppm, it was confirmed by siple AND Law dome cores... not something to scoff at.
i can't begin to write out how E-G Beck went about it wrong here, to long.
jerkazoid 1 year ago
@jerkazoid The Siple core partially melted. The protocols call for it to be discarded, but of the cores extracted, it was the ONLY one that showed the 'desired' trend. You slap Beck's work with the pejorative 'sloppy' without any substantiation of this charge. Do enlighten us? Perhaps it's that the he dares assert that the best record we have of the recent (200ybp) CO2 record is direct measurements taken by scientists over the years, and that that record does not agree with the AGW orthodoxy.
jimbo1490 1 year ago
@jimbo1490 i have listed many peer journals, i give up on you. listing the technical problems with E-G Beck only further illustrates your incompetence on this subject, in which case your approval isn't needed.
jerkazoid 1 year ago
@jerkazoid But your beloved "peer journals" swallowed MBH-98 without question; they never even asked for the raw data; only the 'skeptics' ever did that. Your peer journals are apparently perfectly OK with Callendar's practice of discarding of data that deviated more than 5% from his 'expected' results. It seems your deference to 'peer journals' is misplaced as they have become little more than a back-slapping 'good ol' boy's club' for the AGW crowd.
jimbo1490 1 year ago
@jerkazoid "in 1958 callenders best guess was 289ppm, it was confirmed by siple AND Law dome cores"
problem with ice core samples is that as the firn seals (it does so slowly) it samples the air which has to diffuse down the firn layer over a very long period of time. This results in the samples of air being a long term average that understates both the level and variability. Ice core compareed with 5 stomatal studies
3w. geocraft. com /WVFossils /PageMill_Images /image354. gif
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium You are submitting plant data as a proxy for confirmation for fully overwriting a wide theory? part of the puzzle that creates the info the IPCC reports on every few years....
Look why don't you just tell me "hide the decline" and then mention divergence, or is that too ironic? a good joke i think.
But you didn't site the peer review submission, just a graph made off other peoples data. please site the actual review.
jerkazoid 1 year ago
@jerkazoid there is no irony unlike the tree rings which are not a good proxy for temperature because of the non-linear response of trees to temperature (once it gets to warm trees become stressed and don't grow Mann found the limit but hid it ;-)) the stomata of these plants are well calibrated for C02 levels. You will have to test it for yourself like I did now you have the names of the peer reviewed studies on the chart and you know where the ice core data is (NOAA) so go for it.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium ha! Yes the tree "divergence"
i love the irony, you take the divergence quote mine as proof against AGW,
yet for Stomata. they are "well calibrated" a perfect proxy would you say? :) But this is really just for affirmation on my end, you are simply low on the awareness level and nothing breads confidence like incompetence.
those names are not the submitters of the (assumed) peer reviewed piece, just sited resources. Please link me the entire peer review submission.
jerkazoid 1 year ago
@jerkazoid Problem with your style is of course you refute by joke or appeal to ridicule (a fallacy of course) and one could say "a perfect proxy would you say?" this is a strawman but it shows you are:
1) unable to actually show the tree rings are good proxy for temperature.
2) unable to refute the stomatal data the peer reviewed studies are listed all 5 of them there are more of course but those 5 will do.
Like I said the rest of the work you'll have to do yourself get to it if you can.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium But you already know those forms of research is new to the GHG discussion, so it is fun to point out. As for the small gif that is of a much larger html i am finding...however if you could just link me to a peer review submission, it would be faster.
and fyi i could never refute the stomata data, though it is a curious addition to AGW theory, Now are you saying you can validate it for me?
jerkazoid 1 year ago
@jerkazoid "if you could just link me to a peer review submission"
What do you think I meant by the peer reviewed (stomatal) studies are listed the rest you'll have to do for yourself **like I had to**. Sure I used some ones picture that was already available doesn't necessariliy mean I agree with what the rest of the article had to say. Just saved me the trouble of creating the chart and posting it up somewhere to link to. you have a choice to accept it as it is or learn to us excel (yuko).
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium ok well let me just be clear, no jokes.
Ice core data provides a low-frequency estimation on CO2 of the atmosphere in Pleistocene glacial/interglacial cycles, the long term blueprint is very compelling.... However they underestimate the variability of interglacial CO2 levels as stomata suggests (+15%). short term annual C from fossils is less than 0.02%. so some assessment is needed, but accumulation of C02 is still known & attenuating conditions also have consequences.
jerkazoid 1 year ago
@jerkazoid OK let's put the jokes aside including the one heard so often that CO2 levels have not significantly risen above 280ppmv for the past 600K years. It may be a minor issue but it is another "error" in the longer and growing list of IPCC experts' errors. The pieces of their jigsaw are just not fitting.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium ~1/2 of sequestered Carbon (FFs) is accumulating in the atmosphere do to oxidation, and directly matching is obviously lower amounts of oxygen. The basic physics established by Arrhenius still hold up after 100+ years (w/ Gilbert Plass's work), then... we cant find reason there would be no warming. (the old science double-negative)
Co2 that took millions of years to sequester is introduced back at rates the deep oceans don't mitigate, and this is a grand geo-physical experiment.
jerkazoid 1 year ago
@jerkazoid "The basic physics established by Arrhenius still hold up after 100+ years"
First it was refuted by Koch & Angstrom then later by Einstein. Arrhenius (same for Koch and Angstrom) error was that he only took into account the absorption by radiatively active gasses they emit equally well. After Koch and Angstrom found a "logarithmic" relation, still believed by IPCC TAR, Arrhenius agreed.
continued.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@jerkazoid Problem is the equation can grow without limit but there is a limit determined by Kirchoff's law. Objects can only be heated to the point where they are in thermal equilibrium. Then they start emitting at the same rate as they absorb this those early experimenters missed. For a body orbiting a hot sphere in a vacuum this is given by T = Ts* sqrt(r/2R) where Ts is surface temperature of the source, r is the source radius and R the distance from it.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium I mentioned Plass, add Hulburtt in with that, they addressed the issues of Angstrom. i don't understand why you are giving me a lesson on equilibrium.
a nice reference by Spencer Weart online. "The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in the lower atmosphere...planet's temp is regulated by the thin upper layers.. Adding more greenhouse gas there will change the balance. even a 1% change would make a serious difference."
jerkazoid 1 year ago
@jerkazoid " "The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in the lower atmosphere"
I've heard the same argument from Garth Paltridge (google "Paltridge Arking Pook" for latest paper) in a workshop on LBL integration codes just before it was shown that it really is all over by 100 m altitude what happens above that is nothing but emission and reabsorption and re-emission at ever decreasing rates due to thinning of the atmosphere.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium reanalysis NCEP1 is known to have erroneous trends because of changes with instrumentation (ugh i could go on). i'm assume you have skeptic sources online so it's a moot point? ne way the only thing i have to say ; Denial = Skepticism - evidence, be it
+ or - arguments,
hey If a better theory that explains all data really starts to show up, If Linzden has a point, then AGW theory can change. pretty sure the next 25 years will see no change away from the current impetus.
jerkazoid 1 year ago
@jerkazoid "reanalysis NCEP1 is known to have erroneous trends because of changes with instrumentation (ugh i could go on)."
subtle inaccuracy here the reanalysis is *suspected* to have errors due to instrumentation changes. In fact there is fair agreement with the TIGR2 data which was used to train the neural nets on the satellite's instruments, and Garth et al used only later data where there is no controversy. Nice try at at a red herring now try to concentrate on the equilibrium problem.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium you mean the one where the distribution of re-re-radiated infrared in the troposphere is increased (in all directions) in a proportion to the concentration of Co2 bands?
jerkazoid 1 year ago
@jerkazoid "in a proportion to the concentration of Co2 bands?"
You are babbling nonsense the radiatively active species in atmosphere radiate according to temperature.The intensity of the radiation follow the Plank's law for the relevant bands at that temperature.
the bottom panel is the chart for atmosphere at 268K (remove spaces)
i229. photobucket. com /albums/ee272/JanPompe/PettyFig8-2-mod. jpg?t=1276984740
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium At thermal equilibrium emissivity of a body equals its absorptivity.
Since 28-30% re-radiates GHGs cause proportions of to re-re-radiate. As GHG concentrations increases ('grey' body) energy is scattered back down. Increase the concentrations of Co2, it causes a new equilibrium of re-re-radiated infrared energy. The same is true for increased water vapor, or methane.
(remove spaces)
h tt p:// acmg.seas. harvard. edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap 7. html
jerkazoid 1 year ago
@jerkazoid "At thermal equilibrium emissivity of a body equals its absorptivity."
right learn from it, instead of writing the crap that you do, that the equilibrium temperature of an object (or parcel of gas) is determined entirely by the intensity of the electromagnetic field it is in and NOT BY ITS COLOUR.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
cont] implying cloud formation increase will attenuate? Lindzen/Choi 09, it is an idea, but has its own slim conclusions. regardless, Lindzen won't make a comment on ocean acidification, (outside his field) But if you are going to be wildly contrarian suggesting all conclusions are slim after 150+ years, that automatically makes the same argument against your own myopic evidence.
It does make a wonderful strategy for the denialists to absorb though, "reasonable doubt" a fantastic court tactic
jerkazoid 1 year ago
@jerkazoid continued so even if a small change in concentration makes a big difference in optical depth in the high atmosphere it needs to have something substantial to absorb to make a difference so Spencer's and Garth's statement is hypothetical untested but largely irrelevant. Please try to concentrate and not bring up these red herrings. It has been years since I read Plass but I remember most about it is being unimpressed. Get a handle on equilibrium and it will fall into place maybe.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
Fred Singer is nothing but a corporate hired hack. He pulled the same BS defending big tobacco!
Bushvision should be ashamed for putting worthless material like this on youtube. Perhaps it isn't so worthless if you are getting paid by vested interests?
Try reading what the real experts have to say. Here's a recent book that spells it out pretty well.
NASA's James Hansen's wrote it last year.
Storms of My Grandchildren
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs S. Fred Singer Ph.D. is internationally known for his work on energy & environmental issues. He pioneered development of rocket and satellite technology, devised the instrument for measuring stratospheric ozone and was chief investigator on a satellite experiment retrieved by the space shuttle in 1990. He was the 1st scientist to predict that population growth would increase atmospheric methane--an important greenhouse gas.
jimbo1490 1 year ago
@jimbo1490
Singer? Credible? Not a chance. Was he credible when he backed big tobacco? No. Does he have a credible study to back up his claims? No. Has he been an oil industry contractor? Yes. Does his opinions run contrary to those that actively study the science, those that have respected studies? Yes.
Google... The Denial Machine Video
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs Pres. of The SEPP, a non-profit group he founded in 1990, prof. emeritus of envrnmntl sci @ the U of VA. Prvious gov't & academic posts include Chief Scientist, U.S. DOT (87- 89) Dpty Ass't Admin for Policy, U.S. EPA (70-71); Dpty Ass't Sec'y for Water Qlty & Rsrch, U.S. DOI (67- 70); founding Dean of the School of Environmental & Planetary Sci, U of Miami (64-67) 1st Dir of the Nat'l Weather Satellite Svc (62-64); and Dir of the Ctr for Atmospheric & Space Physics, U of MD (53-62)
jimbo1490 1 year ago
@jimbo1490
SEPP credible? LMFAO! How much of that corporate propaganda are you willing to consume?
Why gravitate to them and ignore SOCC, NASA, NOAA, AAAS, AGU, NAS, NCAR, and the many other RESPECTED scientific institutions? It's called denial. You are trying hard to maintain a belief that isn't supported by the best science available. Looks pretty silly.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs Meanwhile the AGW alarmist have yet to climb the first hurdle in the debate, which is to show that there was something-anything at all- unusual about 20th century climate. Warming events of similar or greater magnitude and rapidity have occurred in the past, even within recorded history. The null hypothesis is therefore one of natural climate variation rather than anthropogenic emissions.
jimbo1490 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs After reading Hansens sci-fi thriller, Try Singer's "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years"
From the preface:
It now may have become reasonable to consider the proposition that the theory of anthropogenic global warming is no longer a scientific theory. That is because, for a theory to be part of science, it must be possible for it to be falsified by observational evidence. It now looks like the theory of anthropogenic global warming, for its adherents, cannot be falsified.
jimbo1490 1 year ago
@jimbo1490
Why would any reasonable person waste their time on someone that has proven themselves to be a corporate hack?
Oh yeah! It's one of the few "scientists" that are deniers. With so little else, its no wonder you cling so tightly to that guy.
Global warming is but ONE symptom. Try reading about The Anthropocene Epoch and why it is being considered. Sorry, stinger didn't have anything to do with it.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
Conservatives are Bernard Russel's chickens and liberals are blind Utopian idealists...
Teralek 1 year ago
Edmund Burke: All that scam artists need to prevail is for intelligent people to ignore common sense.
digitalfilmvillage 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW truth - just out!
Global Warming -
SEE "Lord Christopher Monckton: From Global Warming to Global Governance"
A MUST see . . .
SEE "Lord Christopher Monckton: From Global Warming to Global Governance"
This has become a lot worse than we ever thought it could, and "Lord Christopher Monckton: From Global Warming to Global Governance" shows us why.
NEW truth - just out!
Global Warming - SEE "Lord Christopher Monckton: From Global Warming to Global Governance"
A MUST see . . .
weallknowitstrue 2 years ago
GW overall has more benefits that downsides. So even if it is there, i welcome it.
IF these guys lie, i don't understand why not embrace GW instead of refuting it?
coturnix19 2 years ago
The NIPCC report was funded and published by, you guessed it, the Heartland Institute.
Funny that "Institute" is mispelled on Hearland's page describing itself as the publisher of the report
TRUMPHENT 2 years ago
Learn more about singer.
Google... The Denial Machine Video
Then, look to a credible source.
UCSUSA(dot)org
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
@ReduceGHGs
When you say "credible source" do you mean like the IPCC? Or maybe "Team Hockey Stick"? :D
jimbo1490 1 year ago
@jimbo1490
Sure, the IPCC with their 4th determination that humans are warming the planet is a good credible source. They in relied on many, many studies that have been completed.
Other reliable sources include NASA, NOAA, SOCC, AGU, NCAR, AIP, AMS, AAAS, NAS, and others. They ALL concur on the core issue. Not ONE says otherwise.
As for the "Hockey Stick", it is still very much alive. Sure its been adjusted given errors and new info. That's just good science.
:-P
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs The adjustments that you speak of to the 'Hockey Stick' mean that it is now in agreement with all the hundreds of other paleoclimate reconstructions that came before it, in that it now shows a prominent Medieval Warm Period which was as warm or warmer than today. Any support for the idea that 20th century climate was in any was anomalous is now irrevocably lost as the world will never again fall for another fraud like the original MBH-98.
jimbo1490 1 year ago
@jimbo1490
Thanks for playing scientist but I prefer to rely on those that actively study science. Again, try some honest research. Read what James Hansen wrote about it in Storms of My Grandchildren.
This is well established science that dates bact to at least The Charney Report; just a little something the NAS put together in 1979. You can find it on the net but you won't bother, I know.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs The Charney Report just espouses the same set of erroneous, scientifically unsupported assumptions as the IPCC parades around as fact, such that there exists a fabled strong positive feedback between CO2 concentration and water vapor concentration though a simple thermal perturbation. This piece of the AGW narrative has been tested and it fails: the sign of the feedback in response to thermal perturbations is negative, just as we should expect of a natural system.
jimbo1490 1 year ago
@jimbo1490
Erroneous? Let's see the studies backing that up. What? Don't have any studies, only a belief? Sounds like a religious cult to me. Any speaking in tongues?
Thanks again for the "scientific" analysis on CO2 and water vapor. It will be given DUE consideration. Again, I prefer the experts, those professionals that have a clue.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs But your "experts" have NO STUDIES that back up their claims as to the sign and magnitude of the fabled feedback with water vapor; they are simply assumed Wild Ass Guesses. Using these WAGs in their computer models, your experts have consistently overestimated the effect of CO2 on climate. The best studies ever done on the subject of water vapor feedback show that the sign is negative, just as expected of a natural system. How else could the climate have remained stable so long?
jimbo1490 1 year ago
ABSTRACT:
The data set of proxies of past climate used in MBH98 for the estimation of temps from 1400 to 1980 contains collation errors, unjustifiable truncation/extrapolation of source data, obsolete data,geographical errors, incorrect calculations and other QC defects. We detail these, then apply MBH98 methods to construct a Northern Hemisphere average temperature index for the same period. The major finding is that the values in the early 15th century exceed any values in the 20th century."
jimbo1490 1 year ago
@jimbo1490 i cant comment on the study directly but if you are speaking about the medieval warming period.....there maybe attenuating circumstances that limit the Anthropogenic effects of Co2 in the close future however 1) in those medieval period population was NOT approaching 7billion, and more importantly 2) ALL supposed attenuating circumstances themselves have consequences.
h20 vapor feedback? Linzden/Choi (LC09) you'll notice even Roy Spencer thinks it needed better peer review/work
jerkazoid 1 year ago
@jerkazoid Evidence for a prominent global MWP as warm or warmer than 20th century climate is widespread. Practically the ONLY works that refuted this idea were the works of "The Team", but they have been deeply, irrevocably discredited. It is true that the H2O feedback needs more study. So then why are 'warmers' claiming "the science is settled" when perhaps the most crucial piece of the puzzle remains underexplored?
jimbo1490 1 year ago
@jimbo1490 w/e ur saying about the MWP, i dont follow. H20 feedback study likely isn't necessary partially to do with models by JASON in the 70's that made predictions (polar amplification) observed true over 25+ years. Based on the 150 years of AGW theory,as the IPCC words it, the 20th cent' has warmed with a high degree of certainty from Co2 in the form of fossil fuels that took mil' of years to naturally sequester, & that humans are conducting a grand geophysical experiment (cont..)
jerkazoid 1 year ago
Comment removed
jimbo1490 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jerkazoid What I'm saying about the MWP is simple: There is widespread evidence that it was both global in scale & as warm or warmer than 20th century climate, meaning that 20th century climate was not in any way anomalous, which refutes a key assertion of the AGW narrative namely, that 20th century climate was unprecedented in recent history. ~1000yrs ago is recent history WRT the climate. Anthropogenic CO2 wasn't an issue, meaning they needn't be the cause of 20th century warming either.
jimbo1490 1 year ago
@jimbo1490 it is crucial to understand how and why sceince knows
1) Co2 is rising in concentrations due to combustion, which is measured AND proportionally checked against the declining levels of oxygen.
2) Co2 is a green house gas
3) Co2 has a limit to its absorption into the deep ocean and only 1/2 goes there (based on isotope measurement into various sources)
4) milankovitch cycles are the explanation for ice ages paired with Co2 feedbacks
"high degree of certainty" means just that.
jerkazoid 1 year ago
@jerkazoid Though CO2 has recently risen, the isotopic signature of 'fossil' carbon is largely missing from the atmosphere, meaning that the burning of fuels has not contributed significantly to the observed rise in atmospheric CO2. Google: Tom V. Segalstad
CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas past ~150ppm. The scary warming scenarios come form the fabled strongly positive feedback with water vapor through simple thermal perturbation. By observation we now know that the sign of the feedback is negative.
jimbo1490 1 year ago
@jimbo1490 last submission, 13 years ago? & review "Ghosh 2003". Carbon started to be be tracked by Keeling in the 50's & can be checked against oxidation . Avg electric/car/industry use, estimates are just at ~29 g-tonnes/yr) roughly 40% absorbed (Tripati at el 2009) i'm curious if you are qualified in physics/chemistry to understand some of this peer review material? much is over my head. but it's about perturbed% & logarithmic effects. What peer review paper observed feedback to be negative?
jerkazoid 1 year ago
@jimbo1490 It is quite a test humans are performing. Exponentially releasing Co2 to levels human history never experienced, an exponentially increasing population. There is observed warming, in relation to the suns output of course, The only trouble is policy. What should be done? That is an on going debate & has nothing to do with the science, however using "reasonable doubt" is a court tactic developed by Singers fight against Tobacco & Reagan defense initiative strategy..it is very effective.
jerkazoid 1 year ago
@jerkazoid The idea that CO2 levels have been stable @ ~280ppm for centuries before industrialization is another fraud of the AGW alarmists. The IPCC got this figure from Callendar's presentation @ the 1st IPCC Conf. Yet when he published the same data a few years earlier, it showed a 450ppm spike of several decades in the 19th cent. He removed the spike when he re-presented the data to the IPCC. He later admitted that data that were more than 10% outside of his "expected result" was discarded.
jimbo1490 1 year ago
@jimbo1490 that was supposed to be "Tripati et al. , pp. 1394 - 1397" (Ice core proxies) Aradhna K. Tripati, Christopher D. Roberts, Robert A. Eagle.
"A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years"
this is an abnormal issue best explained with oxidation of fossil fuels
jerkazoid 1 year ago
@jimbo1490 wait a min? what? The IPCC didn't exist until after The JASON committee 1988 G.S. Callender died in 1964. What presentation are you refering too ? but also why are you citing the 1st assessment? There is a reason why the science keeps studying & the IPCC is working on it's 5th now.
jerkazoid 1 year ago
@jerkazoid You're right that Callendar did not personally re-present his data to the 1st IPCC as he was gone. But his data, with it's artificial filtration of "unexpected" data points was presented and is cited. The shotgun plots of his raw data clearly show the ~450ppm spike from ~1810-1860. Similarly, Neftel et al publishing in Nature 1982 show many spikes in CO2 >280ppm and large error bars. Republishing same data to 1st IPCC the spikes and large error bars are gone.
jimbo1490 1 year ago
@jimbo1490 well, 1st assesment? i mean this is a no where debate for me.. i cant defend old science from1982. Even "climate-gate" show 3-4 minor mistakes in IPCCs 4th..but thats not answers.
Callender was 30's-50, it really wasn't till the late 50's (Gilbert Plass, Revelle,Suess and Keeling) when big leaps (spectroscopy) got started and we have been observing over 25+ years.
1964 Gordan McDonald
& again JASON 77-79 (JASON is a very distinguished) & 2nd opinion by NAS (Charney report)
jerkazoid 1 year ago
@jimbo1490 and mind you, Singer didn't do research for these. no one at the Marshal institute did that, research was not its function. It was tasked to fight these battles in the publics view, against PBS broadcasts, or to politicians not peer reviewed science. so what we have is like the Discovery institute, non evidence based, non tested, doubt.
we know this bc things like tobacco lost the court battles & the info available to the public. "the dose makes the poison" was 1 of their sad defenses
jerkazoid 1 year ago
jerkazoid: Thank you for your ABJECTLY ignorant post. It was in 1993 that the two LIARS Rowland&Molina were invited to Cornell University to openly debate their "science." Two weeks before the-then already scheduled event (Bailey Hall), these two liars back down.
Please tell this channel EVERYTHING you know about the three familes of patents, and the expiration dates of such, and please tell us EVERYTHING you know about Edgar Bronfman (Oh Canada?) and his ownership of Dupont.
Idiot!
pvsheridan 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
24 hours later 30 poems done and all in Arabic or Urdu and handed away.
Nations Egypt,Syria,Israel,Jordan,UAE, Libya,Yemen,United Kingdom,France, Spain, Greece, Turkey,Serbia,China,Japan, Korea & others in Central America & theCarribean.
Obama please give up, You are such a loser to think I would stop.
35 black kids killed & you don't give a shit for them.
Oh by the way OBAMA a tabloid has printed about you being GAY. I saw the tabloid on Ninth Ave 45th Street.
ALGOREFOREVER blogspot
GodLovesJeffFisher 2 years ago
Singer was so smart and unbiased he and his Marshall institute claimed nothing needed to be done with the Ozone layer.
(Oct 1995) and 3 weeks later Molina, Rowland and Crutzen won the Nobel for proving that it did...
thus the Montreal Protocol passed and we are on track to fixing the Ozone this 21st cen'
good job. these conservatives are so scared of "communist" regulation they refer to people who advocate "green" as "watermelons" - red inside.
turning good science into a political war.
jerkazoid 2 years ago
if we didnt have an o-zone layer our atmosphere would be pulled into the void of space.
keggerous 2 years ago
It's the sun that is responsible for the creation/destruction of ozone. The Sun creates it.
ThikSkindesign 2 years ago
@jerkazoid Ozone is created in the stratosphere when high-energy UV strikes O2 molecules creating O3. Because the sun strikes so obliquely at the poles (that's why is so cold there :D ) the ozone concentration is thinner there . The thin distribution of the ozone at the poles was predicted decades before the invention and commercial deployment of the Halon gases. Furthermore, no plausible mechanism of transport of Halon gases from seal level to stratosphere has ever been posited.
jimbo1490 1 year ago
jimbo1490 and pvsheridan
you should publish those claims with data instantly in some type of peer review and show how the field of chemistry is a hoax and win BIG right?. that the work by Paul Crutzen, Mario Molina and F. Sherwood Rowland are a complete sham? no way they knew about the creation of O3...? Be sure to use data to form a hypothesis, then test that hypothesis with observable prediction that yield statistically significant correlations.
pvsheridan that was laughable.
jerkazoid 1 year ago
@jerkazoid
Well said!
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@jimbo1490 and actually to be a bit more thorough with regard to your scientific reply, the subject has been addressed. (Cant post links here) but "Scientific american" has an article on this subject Jean M. Andino in 99 writes, of course Molina, Rowland and Crutzen have known this question.
but a logically mundane retort i have, CfCs are found in the Stratosphere, (ways for them to get there are known) but just the fact they are there, correlating with production is the critical point.
jerkazoid 1 year ago
Hi all, I will be teaching students about climate change. I plan to provide them information from both sides as I want them to make an informed decision on their own. If you have properly researched this topic and come to a conclusion could people please flick me an email and direct me to some credible scientific information that supports your view. Personally, I have not yet come to any conclusion - however I desire the truth backed by fact not popular opinion or smear campaigns - much thanks.
darren181265 3 years ago
darren
"information from both sides as I want them to make an informed decision"
I'd refer you to the following video series here on YouTube.
Skeptic side of RCRC Climate Debate
The author, Warren Meyer, does an excellent job, working through many of the major issues and explaining why there is reasonable cause for doubt in the AGW hypothesis.
It will give you an insight into many "contra" arguments to set alongside the *pros*. Should help you balance the case for yourself.
gufpott 3 years ago
Darren while I am very skeptical about global warming not the least of which is do to the great 1970's panic of the virtually imminent ice age.
In our society reason has gone out the window and popular consensus and emotions now determines truth not empirical evidence correctly understood.
That being said I think your aproach is refreshing and your students will get the chance to think and reason instead of dogmatic based propaganda. I hope you use this aproach for all topics.
Jamesbowman777 3 years ago
there actually was no 70'ies craze.
check the connoly paper, clearly showing even thàt was invented by astroturf groups.
ZeDollyDots 2 years ago
@Jamesbowman777 This is a common issue, the 70's Ice age alarm-ism does not bode well for the AGW theory..., nevertheless the facts surrounding why that happened is more logical than your gut reaction. That "science" was typical of the meteorological researcher (the "they cant tell if it will rain tomorrow"! group).. not the actual PHD physicists/chemists .BTW AGW theory has existed for over 150yrs if you study the who/what/where/when/why/how. Id be happy to link you their names, LMK
jerkazoid 1 year ago
Check the study in Nature Scientific journal pertaining to the urban heat island effect in Houston. That explains much of the incorrect surface data used by the global warming alarmists. Since most reading are taken from urban areas which are subject to this phenomenon, they are therefore unreliable. Check another danish study pertaining to lower solar output, and the sun's relationship to warming and cooling trends.
Glockstar22 2 years ago 2
He also devised the instrument used to measure stratospheric ozone from satellites. Served as Deputy Assistant Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, chaired an interdepartmental panel of scientists studying possible effects on ozone. The first group to examine possible damage to the ozone layer from human activities and look into potential health consequences. Served as Chief Scientist of the U.S. Department of Transportation.
...and you're telling me he's not credible?
lutonduke 3 years ago
Dr S. Fred Singer: He hold a degree in engineering from Ohio State and a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University. For more than 40 years, he has specialised in atmospheric and space physics. He received a Special Commendation from President Eisenhower for the early design of satellites. In 1962, he established the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, served as its first director, and received a Gold Medal award from the U.S. Department of Commerce for this contribution.
He's not from Exxon...
lutonduke 3 years ago
Dispute the science, not the source. If the science is sound, would it matter if the Easter Bunny funded the research?
packrat76 3 years ago
Brilliant! Ignore Singer's evidence and question his motives!!! How utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and how convenient. Why dont you take on people intellectually rather than personally you idiot?
ComradeIvanov 3 years ago 2
I see, so the liberal point of view is based on how someone looks rather than the facts...
This explains sooooo much.
JustSomeGuy77 3 years ago
How much did Greenpeace pay for your comment?
Smearing is fun. Science is slightly less fun, but infinitely more important.
hayesy316 3 years ago 5
The real question is how much did Exxon pay Singer for his expertise? Answer: $75,000
pattycgy 2 years ago
oh yeah! I dont agree with you so you have been paid off!!!
dwambo 2 years ago 4
The real question is why does making a living make him wrong? How much does Gore get paid to lie?
ThikSkindesign 2 years ago 6
@ThikSkindesign It makes him an Evil Capitalist. You call selling something that does not exist "making a living" selling carbon credits is like when the church used to sell "pardons" for sinning. You simply purchace the pardon, then when you sin you write it on the paper, turn it in then your forgiven.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@ThikSkindesign I think this is putting the cart before the horse though. What is a more logical answer? Singer was deliberately deceiving us ONLY because he is paid? or he genuinely DOES believe it (the tape of him saying "most scientists are democrats and it is as simple as that" report is called "HEAT" by Frontline) and so works in that direction. U might not agree /w Als opinion or the scientific data, but that is not evidence of lies, he puts his $ where he knows it should go, we all do.
jerkazoid 1 year ago
Ahh apologies that might have been Fredrick Sietz who said that, not Fred Singer (though they were colleges at the George C Marshall institute)
jerkazoid 1 year ago
It isn't only the earth that is going threw these changes.Its a solar system ordeal.Many other planets are having similar changes. What makes people think they are so powerful as to control the earth or the solar system?CO2 will cause an ice age not global warming. If not then the physics is wrong for airconditioning.We are coming out of a mini iceage .The fossil fuel theory is a hoax,earth excrements crude oil.Yes pollution is terrible but they have an agenda for more control.
bludrums 3 years ago 3
That was in response to jffrynt's
"You say: In my view Fred`s contribution to climate change analysis is first class - I can`t fault it - Can you?.
Let me ask you this honestly, how would you know the difference?"
You can look at the data.
AnthonySG1 3 years ago
have you? do you know how to READ it, given a thorough understanding of the knowledge that has been gained regarding Earth science?
jffryfnt 3 years ago
I've read many reports and seen online lectures by people such as John Christy, Roy Spencer, William Kininmonth and Vincent Gray, to name a few. All these are highly qualified to speak on climate issues and have been in the field for decades.
You can tell the difference between people who show the data as it is, and give explanations, then to other people who try and twist the data, such as the alarmists, who won't accept simple facts such as Antarctica's record size.
AnthonySG1 3 years ago 2
Yes I'm sure you have...from the very well outspoken minority on the issue who have sold their scientific integrity to the devil.
jffryfnt 3 years ago
Haha. Minority? It's not clear on how many scientists agree to which side, but 31,000 just signed a petition the other month disagreeing with catastrophic AGW. Plus, science isn't a majority game. 100 hundred people can have a theory, but it takes only 1 fact to disprove them.
Now, how have the 'outspoken minority' sold their scientific integrity to the devil?
AnthonySG1 3 years ago 2
learned anything yet in the last month?
jffryfnt 3 years ago
Apart from the data being so transparently manipulated it is irrelevant to the debate of AGW v natural warming anyway. The tropics should warm at an increased rate in either case! Duh.
XPLAlN 3 years ago
There's a credibility problem here. The two graphics used by Singer are actually on different scales. The simulation is a 41 year total whereas the observation is a decadal rate. He doesn't mention this but then he clearly hopes we won't notice. In the source material (CCSP) the sim was compared with the obs on a like for like basis where the two were quite similar. He could have used that but instead he swapped in a graphic from a different chapter showing a different thing. Very dodgy.
XPLAlN 3 years ago