Climate Change EXPLAINED!! Hoax claims EXPOSED!!

[alexey]

Let's see if we can get some traction with a catchy title...

See video #6 here for hack-specific info:

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/A4F0994AFB057BB8/5/7nnVQ2fROOg

Other videos are here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer.../0/52KLGqDSAjo

Check out videos 1 and 2 for science info.

Video 3 covers the claim: "they claimed earth war cooling in the 70ies".

Video 4 covers the bull pedaled by Al Gore and Durkin.

Video 5 covers the "anthropogenic" question any many others.

[PeterMP]

I was going to bump the other thread.

Nobody seems to want to defend George Will.

[Larry]

Confessing that I really haven't felt like investing a lot of time watching somebody's video. I'm lazy, and I tend to assume that if the information's important, than somebody on ES will post the parts that they think are important.

But it was on my "to do" list. Really.

[SnyderShrugged]

cant watch vids at work

[alexey]

I was going to bump the other thread.

Nobody seems to want to defend George Will.

Or Al Gore, for that matter! I like that he went after him.

Also love the quote by Rush:

"I've instinctively known this from the get-go 20 years ago. The whole thing is made up. And the reason I know it, is because Liberals are behind it" :hysterical:

Also enjoyed one of the emails he brings up towards the end, which says:

"This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a dis-service. To someone like me, who knows the science, it is apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed balanced scientific assessment" (Tom Wigley, email, 25 Nov 1997)...

"he's writing to a bunch of non-scientific academics soliciting signatures for a letter pushing for tougher controls for carbon emissions..."

[alexey]

Confessing that I really haven't felt like investing a lot of time watching somebody's video. I'm lazy, and I tend to assume that if the information's important, than somebody on ES will post the parts that they think are important.

But it was on my "to do" list. Really.

This guy really doesn't waste your time. He moves quickly and without BS.

People may post individual pieces that they liked, but you'd be missing out because pretty much all of it is important info.

[PeterMP]

Or Al Gore, for that matter! I like that he went after him.

Also love the quote by Rush:

"I've instinctively known this from the get-go 20 years ago. The whole thing is made up. And the reason I know it, is because Liberals are behind it" :hysterical:

Also enjoyed one of the emails he brings up towards the end, which says:

"This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a dis-service. To someone like me, who knows the science, it is apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed balanced scientific assessment" (Tom Wigley, email, 25 Nov 1997)...

"he's writing to a bunch of non-scientific academics soliciting signatures for a letter pushing for tougher controls for carbon emissions..."

Well, realistically, I'm not surprised nobody here wants to defende Gore.

Wigley's e-mails are good. There are a couple of times that he takes Mann, Jones, and/or one of their close associates to tasks for various issues.

Somebody in one of the other threads thought this was "proof" that warming was a "hoax" so I pointed out that Wigley believes that humans are causing significant warming. He just doesn't believe it will cause a 7 feet sea level increases any time soon, but that doesn't mean it won't have a substantial effect that shouldn't be prevented and has pretty much said so in multiple interviews over the years.

I liked the part about the "missing" warming that has also already been put into press. My only real issue with that part is that he didn't bring out that the issues with the figure discussed in the e-mail are well known and have subject to multiple investigations by different people already and several of papers in the peer reviewed literature.

[Skins24]

Let's see if we can get some traction with a catchy title...

Couldn't you have just edited the previous title instead of creating a whole new thread?

Anyway, seen the vids last night. Pretty good.

Vid 2 is interesting for what isn't explained re solar forcing. Solar output can explain most of the warming (and cooling) up until about the '90s. That's when solar output begins to drop but temps still rise. So...basically...when pollution and output from humans went unregulated the sun was still the main driver of climate change. But when we started regulating stuff, then apparently humans became the main cause of global warming. Talk about fail on our part :hysterical:

Anyway, still haven't seen anything to scientifically show climate change (warming or cooling) to be a bad thing

[alexey]

Anyway, seen the vids last night. Pretty good.

Vid 2 is interesting for what isn't explained re solar forcing. Solar output can explain most of the warming (and cooling) up until about the '90s. That's when solar output begins to drop but temps still rise. So...basically...when pollution and output from humans went unregulated the sun was still the main driver of climate change. But when we started regulating stuff, then apparently humans became the main cause of global warming. Talk about fail on our part :hysterical:

I think the question is about isolation - we could not isolate effects of the CO2 because the solar radiation was rising as well.

Anyway, still haven't seen anything to scientifically show climate change (warming or cooling) to be a bad thing

Science can tell you what's likely to happen... Science can tell us that we are likely to see rising sea levels, extreme weather, droughts, floods, drastic changes in weather patterns, things like that. It's up to us to figure out whether that's a good or a bad thing... I think it's a bad thing

Here is another way of looking at it. Humans are adapted to current weather patterns. Any drastic change will cause problems.

I often hear a notion that we are trying to engage in some kind of climate engineering... Which brings up questions such as, how do we know what the "right" climate is? My understanding is that we are simply trying to prevent drastic changes from happening very quickly.

[NavyDave]

Yeah I'm of the mindset if its a crisis that liberals have been pushing for over half a century and then you can see the potential money trails with companies like GE and Carbon Credits regulation benefiting Chicago, the words Scam, hoax, money grab come to mind.

Remember back in the 80's where actors on the liberal soapbox claimed in less than 20 years the oceans wouldn't be able to substain human life??

[PeterMP]

Science can tell you what's likely to happen... Science can tell us that we are likely to see rising sea levels, extreme weather, droughts, floods, drastic changes in weather patterns, things like that. It's up to us to figure out whether that's a good or a bad thing... I think it's a bad thing

Here is another way of looking at it. Humans are adapted to current weather patterns. Any drastic change will cause problems.

If the VAST MAJORITY of the world's population didn't live near a major body of water, then climate change wouldn't be much of an issue realistically. But that's not the world we live in.

[Skins24]

I think the question is about isolation - we could not isolate effects of the CO2 because the solar radiation was rising as well.

It fell during the 60s and 70s. Temps followed.

Science can tell us that we are likely to see rising sea levels, extreme weather, droughts, floods, drastic changes in weather patterns, things like that.

There is no proof at all we'd see more extreme weather or drastic changes in weather patterns.

Here is another way of looking at it. Humans are adapted to current weather patterns. Any drastic change will cause problems.

I often hear a notion that we are trying to engage in some kind of climate engineering... Which brings up questions such as, how do we know what the "right" climate is? My understanding is that we are simply trying to prevent drastic changes from happening very quickly.

Who says any changes will be drastic and where are they getting that from?

The Earth is a big boy. It's a huge system with mechanisms in place to prevent drastic changes. And when drastic changes do occur, (aside from super volcanoes erupting or meteor impacts) from trigger to completion still takes on the order of thousands of years....

[PeterMP]

The Earth is a big boy. It's a huge system with mechanisms in place to prevent drastic changes. And when drastic changes do occur, (aside from super volcanoes erupting or meteor impacts) from trigger to completion still takes on the order of thousands of years....

The Earth has NO mechanism in place to PREVENT anything. The Earth does NOT prevent anything. There MIGHT BE "mechanisms", but the Earth did NOT place them there. If they are there, it is just the result of random effects and interactions (or God, unless you think the Earth is God).

The idea of ONLY slow climate change is just wrong. For example:

"The Younger Dryas saw a rapid return to glacial conditions in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere between 12,900–11,500 years before present (BP)[5] in sharp contrast to the warming of the preceding interstadial deglaciation. It has been believed that the transitions each occurred over a period of a decade or so,[6] but the onset may have been faster.[7] Thermally fractionated nitrogen and argon isotope data from Greenland ice core GISP2 indicate that the summit of Greenland was ~15°C colder during the Younger Dryas[6] than today. In the UK, coleopteran (fossil beetle) evidence suggests mean annual temperature dropped to approximately 5°C,[8] and periglacial conditions prevailed in lowland areas, while icefields and glaciers formed in upland areas.[9] Nothing of the size, extent, or rapidity of this period of abrupt climate change has been experienced since."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

Climate change can happen quickly (on the time scale of decades).

[Skins24]

The Earth has NO mechanism in place to PREVENT anything. The Earth does NOT prevent anything. There MIGHT BE "mechanisms", but the Earth did NOT place them there. If they are there, it is just the result of random effects and interactions (or God, unless you think the Earth is God).

Umm...yeah?

I didn't say the Earth put them there, just that they are there.

The Earth doesn't cool to -500F. Why? Because there are mechanisms in place to prevent that from happening. The earth VERY rarely sees runaway warming or cooling. Why? Because it takes (unknown?) triggers to overcome the "random effects and interactions" that prevent runaway warming and cooling from happening.

The idea of ONLY slow climate change is just wrong. For example:

"The Younger Dryas saw a rapid return to glacial conditions in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere between 12,900–11,500 years before present (BP)[5] in sharp contrast to the warming of the preceding interstadial deglaciation. It has been believed that the transitions each occurred over a period of a decade or so,[6] but the onset may have been faster.[7] Thermally fractionated nitrogen and argon isotope data from Greenland ice core GISP2 indicate that the summit of Greenland was ~15°C colder during the Younger Dryas[6] than today. In the UK, coleopteran (fossil beetle) evidence suggests mean annual temperature dropped to approximately 5°C,[8] and periglacial conditions prevailed in lowland areas, while icefields and glaciers formed in upland areas.[9] Nothing of the size, extent, or rapidity of this period of abrupt climate change has been experienced since."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

Climate change can happen quickly (on the time scale of decades).

Things like that are the exception, not the rule. According to the Wiki link, maybe 25 times over the course of Earth's history.

[Baculus]

Yeah I'm of the mindset if its a crisis that liberals have been pushing for over half a century and then you can see the potential money trails with companies like GE and Carbon Credits regulation benefiting Chicago, the words Scam, hoax, money grab come to mind.

Remember back in the 80's where actors on the liberal soapbox claimed in less than 20 years the oceans wouldn't be able to substain human life??

It is amazing how you can mention the "potential money trails with companies like GE" when you completely ignore the money trail involved with anti-global warming/anti-emissions control movement. Money that fills the pockets of Republican legislators and the astroturf groups resisting any climate change legislation.

Big Business has long been involved with anti-pollution groups. This ain't new -- it has been going on for half a century as well.

Also, carbon credits were supported by Republicans since the George H.W. Bush administration, as well as during his son's administration when Republicans supported carbon credit legislation earlier this decade. But hey, let's ignore their flip-flopping on this issue, right? (BTW, I am not a fan of carbon credits because it allows corporations to continue with their emission spewing without getting to the root of the problem.)

And what does this have to do with Chicago?

I am not sure which actors were making the "twenty years" claim that you mentioned, but if you've paid attention to recent research, the oceans are encountering a number of challenges and issues at this time.

If anything is a hoax, it is the right-wing acting as if no human behavior is causing environmental problems. Even if we weren't discussing global warming, many conservatives would still oppose clean air and water legislation. Because, to them, corporate profitability is more important than human habitability and the health of our planet.

What do you expect when you have faux-Christians whose moral imperative is the afterlife, and when the material world is less important?

[Baculus]

Umm...yeah?

I didn't say the Earth put them there, just that they are there.

The Earth doesn't cool to -500F. Why? Because there are mechanisms in place to prevent that from happening. The earth VERY rarely sees runaway warming or cooling. Why? Because it takes (unknown?) triggers to overcome the "random effects and interactions" that prevent runaway warming and cooling from happening.

Things like that are the exception, not the rule. According to the Wiki link, maybe 25 times over the course of Earth's history.

There are variables, such as the infusion of fresh water into the north Atlantic, that can cause cooling in the Northern hemisphere in just a few decades. And that human activity in just a smaller portion of the globe can negatively affect air and water currents, which can lead to unforeseen consequences.

Here is what conservatives do not understand: Warming can lead to cooling.

[alexey]

Umm...yeah?

I didn't say the Earth put them there, just that they are there.

The Earth doesn't cool to -500F. Why? Because there are mechanisms in place to prevent that from happening. The earth VERY rarely sees runaway warming or cooling. Why? Because it takes (unknown?) triggers to overcome the "random effects and interactions" that prevent runaway warming and cooling from happening.

I'm going to go ahead and conclude that you did not watch those videos....

[PeterMP]

Things like that are the exception, not the rule. According to the Wiki link, maybe 25 times over the course of Earth's history.

Well first we have to start with it CAN happen, then we can talk about if it WILL happen.

Now, how many times in the Earth's history has carbon sources been brought up from deep in the Earth and burned to produce CO2, while simultanously removing much of the CO2 sinks on the land?

Rare (unique) events tend to trigger rare (unique) events (I'm not claiming that any given rare event is likely to be triggered here, just that saying something that is historically rare isn't likely to happen is not accurate. I'd be willing to bet that something that is historically rare and maybe even unique WILL happen.)

[Skins24]

I'm going to go ahead and conclude that you did not watch those videos....

?

Watched them a few times. Not sure what in my post would lead you to believe I didn't see them :whoknows:

When he talks about feedbacks, he's talking about normal warming and cooling cycles. Or you can even include human induced warming in that. I'm talking about runaway warming or cooling. Positive feedbacks don't necesarily cause that. Now THAT would cause drastic changes in weather and weather patterns.

Now, how many times in the Earth's history has carbon sources been brought up from deep in the Earth and burned to produce CO2, while simultanously removing much of the CO2 sinks on the land?

I'm going to take a wild guess and say not many.

But....isn't it generally believe that atmospheric CO2 has been generally much higher than it is now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

(.... I'd be willing to bet that something that is historically rare and maybe even unique WILL happen.)

Since nothing happens the same way twice you are 100% correct

[alexey]

?

Watched them a few times. Not sure what in my post would lead you to believe I didn't see them :whoknows:

Because he does a very good job breaking up climate dynamics, explaining triggers and interactions, etc... and you're talking about "unknown triggers to overcome random effects and interactions".

[alexey]

But....isn't it generally believe that atmospheric CO2 has been generally much higher than it is now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

This one is covered in video #5.

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/A4F0994AFB057BB8/4/w5hs4KVeiAU

Please do yourself a favor and watch all of them.

[PeterMP]

When he talks about feedbacks, he's talking about normal warming and cooling cycles. Or you can even include human induced warming in that. I'm talking about runaway warming or cooling. Positive feedbacks don't necesarily cause that. Now THAT would cause drastic changes in weather and weather patterns.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say not many.

But....isn't it generally believe that atmospheric CO2 has been generally much higher than it is now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

Since nothing happens the same way twice you are 100% correWct

Sure, but other things were different too, including solar output.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Life_cycle

When you are talking about hundreds of millions of years ago, there isn't much of a comparision that makes any sense. The complete system is very different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Life_cycle

[Skins24]

Because he does a very good job breaking up climate dynamics, explaining triggers and interactions, etc... and you're talking about "unknown triggers to overcome random effects and interactions".

We were talking about runaway warming and cooling. Thanks for your help though....

Sure, but other things were different too, including solar output.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Life_cycle

When you are talking about hundreds of millions of years ago, there isn't much of a comparision that makes any sense. The complete system is very different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Life_cycle

Yeah and the continents were different too, which would also help explain various changes in climate over the history of Earth. And unless those processes (plate tectonics, the Earth spinning and orbiting, etc.) have stopped they'll continue to play a role.

Bottom line, increased CO2 even with a general increase in solar output doesn't necessarily mean that any changes we see will be "drastic" or abrupt or even permanent for that matter.

[PeterMP]

Bottom line, increased CO2 even with a general increase in solar output doesn't necessarily mean that any changes we see will be "drastic" or abrupt or even permanent for that matter.

First, let me point out that you've moved from there are systems in place to prevent drastic and abrupt changes to there is no guarantee that they will happen.

How do you want to define "drastic" and/or "abrupt"?

The non-drastic/abrupt change is a continual warming based on "base line" conditions (the last million or so years) that will cause continual increasingly high sea levels (remember the vast majority of the world's population lives near a major body of water and think about what that means), plus an assortment of other issues as local climates change.

If a drastic and abrupt change happens, it is essentially unpredictable, but as the current state of the human population as essentially "evolved" under the "current" climate conditions, it is very difficult to see how the effects won't be negative. Drastic and/or abrupt changes in the enviroment are rarely good for the existing evolutionary systems.

No change is ever permanent.

[Skins24]

First, let me point out that you've moved from there are systems in place to prevent drastic and abrupt changes to there is no guarantee that they will happen.

Not sure how the two are different. There's no guarantee they'll happen because there are systems in place to prevent it.

How do you want to define "drastic" and/or "abrupt"?

How about noticable to humans.

Remember this started when talking about weather and weather patterns.

So I'm saying there is absolutely no current evidence or guarantee that during this current warming cycle humans will see drastic changes in weather (i.e., increased natural disasters) or abrupt climate change (i.e., during Younger Dryas)

The non-drastic/abrupt change is a continual warming based on "base line" conditions (the last million or so years) that will cause continual increasingly high sea levels (remember the vast majority of the world's population lives near a major body of water and think about what that means), plus an assortment of other issues as local climates change.

And these are changes humans can easily adapt to.

(and if I'm not mistaken about 40% of the world's population live along the coasts. Hardly a "vast majority.")

If a drastic and abrupt change happens, it is essentially unpredictable, but as the current state of the human population as essentially "evolved" under the "current" climate conditions, it is very difficult to see how the effects won't be negative.

Since this apparently is one if not the warmest time in human history wouldn't it be that we "evolved" under cooler conditions.

We're not doing too bad now that it's warmer, no?

Drastic and/or abrupt changes in the enviroment are rarely good for the existing evolutionary systems.

Which is probably why it doesn't happen often.