Debunking Global Warming: Satellite and Weather Balloons Evidence

[ComicPenius]

Catastrophic global warming cannot be falsified. How convenient.

[MsMrNoface]

Great upload! This is a really complex issue with serious ramifications. It's a shame some people have politicized it to the extent that they have.

[HomoCyborgZombie]

Global warming denialism belongs in the fiction section of the library.

[Joniversity]

@HomoCyborgZombie Couldn't have said it better myself.

[HomoCyborgZombie]

@Joniversity Then why did you call this "Debunking Global warming" if you agree that those whom deny global warming and humans being a main cause, are a crock of shit?

[Joniversity]

@HomoCyborgZombie Because i figured - why preach to the quire... so i gave it a name that will lure in deniers (don't you know who Stephen Schneider is??? he's the man who coined the term AGW)

Regarding the *main cause* - there is still some controversy about that issue, first of all what does main mean? (50%, 60%, 80%?) also can it be a constant percentage when you take the varying environmental contributions to the warming. But one thing is for sure - humans aren't helping.

[HomoCyborgZombie]

@Joniversity Ah, trolling.

I'll be honest and say I don't know David.

I try to stay away from too many faces.

It keeps me more on the merits of their arguments and not the authority.

For example, the quote by Einstein about common sense I agreed with before I knew it was Einstein who said it. This way, I eliminate just agreeing with somebody purely for their academics.

Also, it's Choir ;P

[HomoCyborgZombie]

@HomoCyborgZombie Here's a quick reason why:

In Canada, two doctors. Both have the same degree. One passes on the first shot, 100%. The other, five times tried, last time passed, but on 50%. Both now have the same degree. Do you judge on authority, purely by their name, and their credentials? Technically, they have the same.

But digging more, you'll find the other one is... less.

This type of shit happens a lot I hear. Don't quote me on it though.

[radoa1]

this is utter bullshit. Has any national scienttific academy/institution changed its position of AGW with regards to this shit?

[Joniversity]

@radoa1 What's bullshit?

[radoa1]

@Joniversity - in the context of what i said.

[Joniversity]

@radoa1 I'm not sure in the context what you said it. i don't understand why would any institution change its minds about AGW... I mean, that's the entire point of his talk - why NOT to change the theory about AGW (i.e. it's correct), i mean this guy practically invented the term. So i'm not sure what you meant... by "this shit"...

[radoa1]

@Joniversity - they would change their position statement on AGW if valid evidence was present to contradicted their current position on AGW. Yes?

[Joniversity]

@radoa1 Yes... and?

[radoa1]

@Joniversity - have they changed because of this?

[Joniversity]

@radoa1 Why would they change what they were saying if this guy is corroborating 1 to 1 everything the IPCC was saying all along and debunks all the claims made by deniers??? are you saying he's wrong and that GW is not anthropogenic? or what? i mean sorry if i sound thick (which occasionally i am) but i really don't understand what's your point.

[JonThm]

MIT and Oxford are donig experimeents into plasma nuclear fusion - which we know from lightening is massively exothermic! Othere fusion plants are endothermic.

[JonThm]

We should do nuclear fusion from water - power with no CO2

[Loathomar]

@JonThm LOL, you really are funny. The are multiple fusion plants, which are working on fusion power. The Joint European Torus, at a cost of 10 billion euros, which was build in 1997 and is still working on creating a fusion reaction which produced a reaction with a return of more energy they is put in. There is also the ITER project and then the working being done at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

[radoa1]

@Loathomar - sorry mate. I got it wrong. I thought tis guy was a denier after the first minute. How do you feel about he current response to this problem by our political leaders especially when they say its is the greatest moral challenge of our time.

[Joniversity]

@radoa1 Understood :-).

Regarding your question: as long as Politicians' campaigns are backed by petro-dollars i wouldn't expect anything exciting on their part - just look at Barak "yes we can" Obama and British "no we can't" Petroleum... morality and politics have very little in common. I think for now the best thing to do is educate the public and gain critical mass in terms of PR, once that's achieved, lets hope our legislators pay attention to the public that voted them into office...

[Loathomar]

@radoa1 I am guessing you meant @Joniversity, as it seems you where talking to him, but I generally agree that the US government response is extremely weak, though not unexpected. I am still hopeful for need tech to be the thing to make CO2 emissions truly drop. Dye-sensitized solar cell could get to be cheap enough so that solar cost = oil cost. Fusion power would likely be the long term solution, but that is at least 10-20 years away and could be over 50 years away.

[Joniversity]

@Loathomar I'm personally working on my dilithium chamber for now, though it's hard doing so without a scottish accent :-) ... BTW, I saw you know a thing or two about Fusion, any good source of information you recommend for me to read?

[Loathomar]

@Joniversity Not really, I have been following the different projects on and off since college, when a few of the sciences from the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory's NIF program gave an interesting lecture on it. You can go to llnl(dot)gov to see there work and they do a reasonable job explaining what they are doing to the pubic. Same with the JET site. There is also slash dot, which like to run story on any fusion news.

[Joniversity]

@Loathomar I'll check them out... Thanks!

[Loathomar]

@Joniversity dilithium chamber would only regulate the anti-matter-powered, you also need to product the anti-matter... LOL

[Joniversity]

@Loathomar Oh that's easy. You see, i live in Israel and we've got plenty of anti everything just laying around :-)

[radoa1]

@Loathomar - do honestly believe we can tackle AGW within the framework of capitalism??

[Loathomar]

@radoa1 yes, but it is a question of how long it will take and how much damage AGW might do between then and now.

[radoa1]

@Loathomar - but loathomar - its is because of this profit motive system called capitalism that this uncertainty exits. How can a system be the saviour when it is fundamentally the root cause.

[Joniversity]

@radoa1 I have the exact same question about god :-)

[radoa1]

@Joniversity - what "God"?

[Joniversity]

@radoa1 David Icke's dad :-)

[radoa1]

@Joniversity - the shape shifting goanna??

[Joniversity]

@radoa1 shhhh... his listening...

[radoa1]

@Joniversity - and what's "he" saying to you? Does "he speak to "you" every night?

[Loathomar]

@radoa1 Energy from fossil fuels is a limited resource and the cost is, and will continue to rise, when an renewable energy is not a limited resource and with new technology the cost is lower. If the cost of renewable energy cost is less then fossil fuels energy, everyone will use renewable energy to maximize profits.

[radoa1]

@Loathomar - the science demands 40% cut from 1990 levels by 2020. Capitalism wont deliver this as Big Oil and Coal have too much too lose. Peak Oil will change society but will it be too late?? Cant see exponential growth - which is fundamental to capitalsim - continuing in a period of scarcity. Peal Oil - peak everything!!!!

[Loathomar]

@radoa1 Too late? Too late for what? Really it is the exponential growth which will lead to the rising oil prices, leading to the affordable renewable energy, leading to the end of the dependence on oil and coal which mean the end of AGW. When this will happen, and how much AGW will cost the world are important questions which need answering. I can tell you that if we do nothing people will die but if we put the brakes on AGW too hard even more people will die do to the collapsed economies.

[radoa1]

@Loathomar - may be you have been too busy to notice lately, but economies are collapsing now in the current business as usual scenario. Too late is in reference to the window we have in the next 10 years to significantly reduce the our carbon out put and progress towards a target of atm Co2 <350ppm BEFORE the cross those tipping points that the climatologist keep referring to, where the rate of warming will be out of control and the irreversible.

[Loathomar]

@radoa1 Climatologist do not refer to a tipping point, the rate of warming will not be out of control and nothing we can do to the climate is irreversible. Damn, you are nearly as bad as the climate deniers with your false information. First the current CO2 level is 392ppm, so we are well past your "tipping point", 2nd no climatologist organization is predicting more then a 4'C rising in global temp in the next 90 years, 3rd there is NOTHING we can do to the world that is irreversible.

[radoa1]

@Loathomar - your forcing me to embarrass you in the public domain

1. May I refer you to the father of climatology - James Hansen - 2008 paper

“Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?” As Hansen put it, “humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted.”[1] From a CO2 concentration at the time of 385 pppm, Hansen argued, the level needed to be cut to 350 ppm at most.

cont

[Loathomar]

@radoa1 350 ppm is where the earths CO2 should be it is not, a tipping point for " rate of warming will be out of control". In the same paper he warms that "a large scale glaciation occurring when CO2 fell to 425±75 ppm, a level that will be exceeded within decades, barring prompt policy changes" thought that is such a MASSIVE range, is it not that useful of a data point, 350ppm is 1989 and 500ppm, we will not see tell 32 years at our current rate of CO2 ppm increase rate. A span of 53 years.

[radoa1]

@Loathomar - have finished Loather - I said <350ppm. He now says the 350 ppm to as a precautionary target to stop global loss of ice-sheets, however -

"CO2 amount must be reduced to 325-355 ppm to increase outgoing flux 0.5-1 W/m2, if other forcings are unchanged. A further imbalance reduction, and thus CO2 ~300-325 ppm, may be needed to restore sea ice to its area of 25 years ago."

[radoa1]

@Loathomar Can you give me an example of a climatologist org that is predicting no more than 4 degrees increase in next 90 years? As far as i understand the predicted temp rise is based on co2 conc. The higher the conc the greater the probability that temp rise will be in the order of 4, 5 6 degrees.

You understand the consequences of a 4 degree rise for the world as we know it? Yes?

[Loathomar]

@radoa1 To be fair, these are the 2001 productions from the change in the next 100, 2000 to 2100 so some may have revised their numbers. All number are for degrees in C.

CCSR/NIES 4.7

CCCma 4.0

CSIRO 3.8

Hadley Centre 3.7

GFDL 3.3

MPI-M 3.0

NCAR PCM 2.3

NCAR CSM 2.2

[radoa1]

@Loathomar are these for business as usual - do nothing scenario??

[Loathomar]

@radoa1 Do I think we should do nothing, no. Do I think if we did nothing that we, humans, get over it? yes. It could cost trillions of dollars for us and millions may die because it, but humanity will get past even the worst scientific prediction for AGW with losing more then a percent of the population.

[Loathomar]

From those numbers, it is safe to say we are looking at a 2.2 to 4.7 degree change for 2000 to 2100. I do know that much of the permanent ice in the world will likely melt with an increase in global temperature , water levels will rise by 0.18 to 0.59 meters (IPCC Fourth Assessment Report) and we'll see a lot of new weather patterns.

[radoa1]

@Loathomar - The IPCC itself acknowledged that it’s projections were underestimates, as they did not include the potential contribution from non-linear (accelerating) ice sheet melting, from Greenland and Antarctica. Observed sea level rise is tracking at the upper range of model predictions. Why? The main reason for the discrepancy is, no surprise, the effects of rapid flow ice changes. Ice loss from Greenland, Antarctica and glaciers are accelerating

[radoa1]

@Loathomar - However - making a an accurate projection of levels at the end of the century is difficult when considering that highly nonlinear responses of ice flow may

become increasingly important during the 21st century. These are likely to make our linear approach an underestimate."¨ But definitely way way higher than 0.59m.

[Loathomar]

@radoa1 Oh, I see, you know better then the IPCC... right.... if you are going to disagree with sighted source, please either sight a source or let me know you have a PhD in climatology with your publications.

[radoa1]

@Loathomar see - "Sea levels rising twice as fast as predicted - March 11 2009, The Indepedent

[Loathomar]

@radoa1 Really? A new paper? Really?

[radoa1]

@Loathomar - yes - something you obviously were unaware of. 

[Loathomar]

@radoa1 Reasons why using new paper as a source for global warming info...

"2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved" Dec 2008, Telegraph.

or

"Global warming may 'stop', scientists predict" Apr 2008, Telegraph

Neither of these have any scientific validity, but, according to your actions these are reasonable source to counter scientifically validated clams from the IPCC.

[radoa1]

@Loathomar - you have to look at the source of the story numbnuts. You dismiss the views of the experts in sea level rises - Professor Konrad Steffen, from the University of Colorado, Dr John Church, of the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research in Tasmania, Dr Eric Rignot, of Nasa's jet propulsion laboratory in Pasadena, and Professor Stefan Rahmsdorf, from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research?????????

cont.

[Loathomar]

@radoa1 The point of showing you those link was to prove that those stories where right, but to show how bad news stories can be. The point was to make you get a real source, as you linked a new stories to retort a peer reviewed study. I have no problem with using a peer reviewed study to retort a peer reviewed study. I do no dismiss the views of the experts, but there are many experts with varying thought on the amount the sea will rise.

[radoa1]

@Loathomar - no the point is you are totally out of your depth on this topic as If you were as informed and educated as you make out to be, you would have been aware that when I wrote " they did not include the potential contribution from non-linear (accelerating) ice sheet melting, from Greenland and Antarctica." it was not MY CLAIM" as you had inferred but actually contained with the text of the IPCC 4th Ass. Report.

[radoa1]

@Loathomar -

I bet you didnt even read the reference contained within the Independent's report? Either you are too lazy or its beyond you

[radoa1]

@Loathomar - how about these for your uneducated mind:

Kopp-et-al-2009-Global-and-Loc­al-Sea-Level-During-the-Last-I­nterglacial

pnas.org/content/early/2009/12­/04/0907765106

soest.hawaii.edu/coasts/public­ations/fletcher2009_sealevelre­view

sciencemag/content/abstract/sc­i;321/5894/1340

cont



[radoa1]

@Loathomar - and on that idiotic remark - "so you think you know better than the IPCC" - I got this from RealClimate and Skeptical Science:

"The two main contributors to sea level rise are thermal expansion of water and melting ice. Predicting the future contribution from melting ice is problematic. Most sea level rise from ice melt actually comes from chunks of ice breaking off into the ocean, then melting.

cont

[radoa1]

@Loathomar - This calving process is accelerated by warming but the dynamic processes are not strongly understood. For this reason, the IPCC didn't include the effects of dynamic processes, arguing they couldn't be modelled"

A new paper has just come out looking at sea levels during the last interglacial around 120,000 years ago (Kopp 2009). Polar temperatures were around 3 to 5 degrees hotter than now, which is the amount of warming expected for some of the lower emission scenarios.

cont

[radoa1]

@Loathomar - Sea levels at that time were between 6 to 9 metres higher than today. This is not to say sea levels will reach these levels by 2100 - it would take longer for the climate to reach equilibrium. What it does show is that ice sheets are vulnerable to sustained warming.

You asked for it!!!!!!!!!

[Loathomar]

@radoa1 Oh good, some reasonable sources, but the true of the matter is that scientist are not sure how much sea level will rise. The is good >1m and as much as 9m. It will likely be some where in between those numbers. IS92a prediction is 1.1m to 7.7m and SRES prediction 0.9m to 8.8m, but these are huge ranges, done by the some of the best scientist in the field, including Kopp.

[radoa1]

@Loathomar -why are you repeating what was already given to you?

[Loathomar]

@radoa1 So you think that "between 6 to 9 meters" is the same as " 0.9m to 8.8m"? ...strange

[radoa1]

@Loathomar - again you write as if it is my claim. Historical records shows us that when the world was 3-5 degrees hotter - sea levels were 6-9 meters higher. Read the fucking post properly imbecile.

[Loathomar]

@radoa1 Have you read many articles on the last interglacial stage and its sea level? How about the peer reviewed article "Constraints on the age and duration of the last interglacial period and on sea-level variations". The fact of the mater is that the measurement of sea level during the last interglacial stage are not particularly consistent or reliable. If you look at the data from 130k and not from 125k years ago, Kopp data has a range of 66% probability for +15 to -40... good data...

[Loathomar]

Kopp's paper could be right, but there are other peer review papers that good different results and Kopp's paper has the highest estimate of any paper that I could find. Most data that I could find show the range for last interglacial stage sea level to be 2-6m higher then today. As there has been a good bit of work on this subject and Kopp is outside the norm, I would generally trend to question his findings and stay to the older data, until more data and studies agree with Kopp's work.

[radoa1]

@Loathomar - a 1992 paper??? You make it too easy for me.

Probabilistic assessment of sea level during the last interglacial stage

Robert E. Kopp1,2, Frederik J. Simons1, Jerry X. Mitrovica3, Adam C. Maloof1 & Michael Oppenheimer. Nov 2009

"We find a 95% probability that global sea level peaked at least 6.6 m higher than today during the last interglacial; it is likely (67% probability) to have exceeded 8.0 m but is unlikely (33% probability) to have exceeded 9.4 m"

[Loathomar]

@radoa1 yes, I read the abstract and review some of the data from that paper. 1992 or 2009 does not really matter when the paper is talking about 120,000 years ago. There have been many papers on sea levels during the e last interglacial stage and no other paper gets results in the 9m+ range. The 9m+ range is also higher then any estimate done for the raise in sea levels done via the understanding of physics. This makes me question that paper.

[Loathomar]

The fact that the data seem to have less range where there is less data is a problem. If more data increase the range and does not decrease the range then the data has that range built into the data. If you look at the range for ~121k you can see a sea level range of double that of 125K, but + and - 5m, and yet the data collection from that point is a red line of Xs where at 120k you can see one clear X.

[radoa1]

@Loathomar what are you talking about??? Fig 4 does not mention temp. Data set is a collection of posterior dist samples. Why is there conflct and where has this been raised in the scientifc community. Are you familiar with ACMCA and GPR???

[Loathomar]

@radoa1 No, figure 4 does show sea levels though. I am not saying the temp for 125k was not what he says it was, that is generally agreed by all people. The conflict is simple that Kopp are outside the norms for the range of sea level in that time period. That does not mean that Kopp is wrong, or that he is falsifying data or anything, but one finding from a few data points also does not make you right. Kopp's paper does not do anything to address other findings, explain why those might be wrong

[Loathomar]

He could need more data, he could be misinterpretation that data, he could be write. As could the other peer reviewed papers that say that during that time period it sea level was 2 meters higher, or 6 meters. A newer paper do not mean it is correct, and correction are slow to come to these papers, (as seen with the idea the cosmic rays cause global warm, which was bigger deal and corrections where still slow to come out).

[radoa1]

@Loathomar - I am responding to your post " The data range show was both a larger range and lower temperature on both side of the point they choice" What few data points?

What other findings are you specifically talking about?

[Loathomar]

@radoa1 sry that was a mistake, it should be sea level.

[radoa1]

@Loathomar - mistake ay?? What else have you said is a mistake?? Repeat - Why is there conflict and where has this been raised in the scientifc community. Are you familiar with ACMCA and GPR and what other findings are you specifically talking about?

[radoa1]

@Loathomar -

2. how do you reverse events such as the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and major methane releases from increased permafrost melt?

cont

3. IPCC report that stabilising at 350ppm Equivalents would lead to mean global temp rise of 0.6-1.4. Even this temperature rise risks triggering further feedbacks, leading to far higher temperatures than anticipated. Significant feedbacks are already in progress from only 0.5 to 0.7 DegC mean temp rise.

cont

[Loathomar]

@radoa1 "how do you reverse events such as the melting of the Greenland ice sheet" I don't, we don't, earth does. The Earth have been considerable hotter and colder then it is today or at any time during human history, over time the CO2 will be recaptured and earth will return to is normal state, where ever that may be at that time. Mankind could, if we where willing to put in the work, cool the earth. We would, simply pain everything white, reflecting all the light energy and cooling the earth

[Loathomar]

we work to increase cloud cover for a year or two to allow the ice to reform, we could create a satellite system that used a thin foil to block out a few % of our sun light, and I am sure we could do a great many other things that would be far more costly then it would be to decrease the about of CO2 products.

[radoa1]

@Loathomar - you are a dickhead. These events will lead to our extinction. The fact that feedback loops will cause the melting of ice caps and sea ice-sheets will the end. So much for your paint job

[Loathomar]

@radoa1 LOL, ya right. The earth could increase by 5 times the amount the IPCC predicts and man kind we still live on. That may kill 90% of mankind, but mankind would live on. Not even a 40'C increase in global temperature would kill all of mankind, as it would happen slowly over years and year of time, we can build new houses, create new types of food, move to the coolest areas. Extinction from a few degrees... that is just retarded. The death toll would be in the millions from global warm.

[Joniversity]

@radoa1 A) I think you should the other video i posted of this guy about risks and propaganda (i.e. end of the world scenario vs. good for you). B) In general I would reserve apocalyptic scenarios to religion and take it out of science - a lesson from history. C) Different models used by climatologists produce different numbers and there are numerous debatable speculative components - some caution of statements is advised. E) Capitalism alone cannot be held accountable for the wrongs of men.

[radoa1]

@Joniversity A. whats the propaganda in advocating real action for tackling AGW ? B. Stick to history you say?? OK - the last time the planet was 5 degree warmer -35 million years ago, there were no ice sheets on earth. Think about the consequences of this and the increase in probability of a 5 degree rise more probable with higher and higher conc of co2.

[radoa1]

@Joniversity C. thats the point - nobody knows for sure how strong or quick/slow these feedback mechanism are going to be.ie generation of water vapour. The IPCC projections are conservative figures, but recent field obsevrations confirms this.

[radoa1]

@Joniversity E- (no D?) - no not all men. Only some - like you and me. You would blame the under developed world for 390ppm conc would you?

It is an undeniable fact that the conc of co2 starting to significantly increase at the start of the industrial revolution - the birth of capitalism.

[Joniversity]

@radoa1 And lastly, calling someone a "dickhead" does not constitute as a valid argument in this kind of discussion. If i was you i would apologize. All three of us are concerned about what's happening to our world and using profanity won't make things better.

[radoa1]

@Loathomar -What hope is there in for capitalism to solve this when those private owners of the means of production distribution and exchange have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and ensuring that the politicans elected are those that serve THEIR interest not the people's.

[radoa1]

@Loathomar We see this in the huge subsidies for the coal industry, promoting the oil and gas industry without over sight and the pathetic target of 17% reduction form 2005 levels which effectively is a 3 % reduction from 1990.

[Loathomar]

@radoa1 blah blah blah, I never said I agree with the current political action, just that AGW will be fix by capitalism at some point. I suggest that this might not be the right action and that our current path may cost us a lot more in the long run. Really, I do think the government should do more to stop global warming, but I am not sure how much and in what ways. But I would think a team of extremely smart, knowingly and well round group of people for figure out something in a few months.

[Joniversity]

@Loathomar I totally agree. furthermore new ideas and technologies are developing to actively take CO2 out of the atmosphere - meaning reduction rates can drop significantly once these technologies are in place. Good science and free market (if regulated properly) has proven over and over again that it is the most affective tool in the progress of mankind - that's not to say that everything with it is nice and dandy - but considering the alternatives - well there aren't any really.

[radoa1]

@Joniversity - What what sense is it a free market since you insist that it must be "properly regulated"?

Can you name some of these new ideas?

[Joniversity]

@Loathomar I'm with you on this.

[JonThm]

The world has been cooling from 1998: CO2 has no historic link with weather - except it FOLLOWS the natural climate with the was and wane of plants

[Joniversity]

@JonThm A) By which calculation model and measuring device do you infer these results (cooling) B) Even if it was true (which it ain't) even a cooling trend of two decades does not constitute a falsification (this is system science and we have a warming trend of over 100 years) C) CO2 is only one of the greenhouse gasses contributing to warming. D) There are several reliable models that show a direct causal affect D) I suggest you investigate a little more.

[JonThm]

@Joniversity We should get power from water, via moleculart nuclear fusion: Safe, clean and no CO2 or toxic death

[JonThm]

CO2=life: Nuclear power = death

[Joniversity]

@JonThm Isn't that over simplifying it a bit?

[JonThm]

@Joniversity The world has been cooling since 1998. And nuclear power kills. How simple are you?

[Joniversity]

@JonThm I advise you to watch the entire talk this guy gave (link in the description) and get back to me on that.

[SecularResponse]

Thank you SO much for this!

[Joniversity]

@SecularResponse My pleasure man. Really. I hope by the end of this weekend i'll have one or two more posted.

Peace,

Jonny.