Does The "renaming" Of Global Warming/climate Change Prove It's A Hoax?

[pgrmdave]

 I am more of writing than reader.

This explains so much.

[Buffy]

This is a product of my own ingenuity. I am more of writing than reader. If this is part of propaganda, those who took my idea should give me credit. 

 

Wow. Absolutely *amazing* how Sen. James Inhofe, Sean Hannity and Alex Jones are *all* stealing your arguments virtually verbatim! You get around, dude! You should totally sue them for copyright infringement!

 

Direct measurements are self standing. If these measurements occur in real time, we  can see continuous changes in parameters. The older inference data is not self standing. Thai data needs inference. It is also a range of time and does not allow one to see continuous changes. Tree rings would not allow the local weather news to make a big deal day after day about anything and everything. The one ring makes the entire year appear like an average.

 

Not even *time* is continuous. Get down to Planck time and you've got a period of uncertainty over which, heck the universe could like totally turn inside out and upside down for 5.3x10^-44 seconds and heck, you'd never know it!

 

You're arguing that unless you can stand there long enough to physically watch the entire continuous change happen, it didn't happen and there's no proof.

 

We'd have no science at all if that were the case.

 

What you're arguing here is totally and completely insane, and has no basis in reality.

 

You should join us back here on planet Earth.

 

 

When you deal with a political issues that involves billions of dollars of funding, I don't trust the inference bridges that are put forth by a self serving consensus. This is why I said, why not make both sets of data play by the same rules, to factor out any room for majority rule cheating. What is there to lose with one standard? 

 

Why the unwillingness to examine the "self-serving consensus" from the carbon companies? You uncritically parrot their arguments--oh excuse, me, they plagiarize yours--without for a minute questioning what I'm sure you believe are their totally altruistic beliefs about global warming.

 

You're in fact *demanding* that one set of data--which happens to be real--be restricted to disallowing any interpretation at all, while you insist a completely bogus set of data be uncritically accepted as "just as legitimate." 

 

By the same argument you could insist that granite is a nutritious source of protein because during the middle of a Planck time, heck anything could happen!

 

Who knows? You can't observe it then! It MIGHT BE EDIBLE!

 

And if one does not accept this hypothesis as just as legitimate as the one that granite will crack your teeth if you try to chew it, then one is totally closed minded.

 

 

You can't go back into time and measure day to day and second to second. But we can apply the rules applied to the past onto the present. We should see all the same hype if the inferences are correct? 

 

There you go! That's what I said in my previous post: we can indeed replicate the past methods and calibrate them and validate their interpretation, and that's what the vast majority of climate science has been doing, you just don't like the results.

 

By the way, that's actually the important question here: why *don't* you accept the science that's right in front of you? What is *your* self-serving agenda?

 

 

Buffy, your solution is to discredit a level playing field. I am a scientist, which is why it has to be tried in various combinations to test the assumptions. Magic uses science to create illusions. The idea is to hide the wires so the audience doesn't see the source of the levitation trick. My suggestion helps prove there are no wires. While no magician will want the audience that close to the act. 

 

No dear, you're not trying to create a level playing field at all: you're trying to redefine it so that the world accepts your completely groundless theories and treats them as if they were just as good as anyone else's.

 

World doesn't work that way. Just like Plato, you might want the universe to revolve around you, but that doesn't mean everyone has to accept that as a legitimate alternative theory.

 

Your assumptions have long been found bogus. Just screaming that they should doesn't prove anything.

 

 

Repeat after me: pharma being **** does not mean magic beans cure cancer, :phones:

Buffy

[HydrogenBond]

So a level playing field is out of the question? How about a compromise, where a few teams get funded to take this approach to see what happens. 

 

Maybe the reason we need the playing field to remain, apple versus oranges, is you can't sensationalize the new and improved climate change brand, with tree rings, alone. One snap shot for the marquee poster, that summarizes the movie, is not the same as watching the movie. The rebranding from global warming, to climate change, would not be able to take that change. If both the marquee poster and the movie are the same, why buy the movie? If these are not the same, then why are snap shots good enough for the past but not the present? Is it about merchants and science supplies? 

 

As far as others saying the same thing, often good ideas appear in many places at the same time. I write about all the topics in these forums and don't have time or need to look for new ideas.

 

Even since I was young, I never liked reading, because I could invent my own stories and drama, while i did other things, outside. After a good science education and then a spell of reading 100 classic literature books, I took the advice of Walt Whitman, which was to read all you can and learn from the masters. After that, forget it all, and come up with your own ideas. 

[HydrogenBond]

Another angle that just appeared in my mind is connected to creating jobs. Jobs are good and a good paying job with benefits is even better. Since jobs are good, does it really matter, if the jobs and products are necessary of not? If we can create jobs selling bottles of mountain air, jobs are still good.  

 

The homeland security angle sounded good, but the size and scope is way more about jobs than need. The change in the health care is good, but again this appears to be more about creating jobs in insurance, medical industries and government compliance, since it could have been done by addressing just the uninsured.

 

Say manmade global warming and climate change is really about jobs and jobs are good; science, media news, and all the support industries, does this make it OK, even if it is bottled mountain air? 

[Buffy]

So a level playing field is out of the question? How about a compromise, where a few teams get funded to take this approach to see what happens.

 

That's exactly what's been going on for the last 50 years of climate research.

 

If you bothered to spend 5 minutes with Teh Google, you'd know that.

 

Oh but of course you can't be bothered to look:

 

 

Even since I was young, I never liked reading, because I could invent my own stories and drama, while i did other things, outside. After a good science education and then a spell of reading 100 classic literature books, I took the advice of Walt Whitman, which was to read all you can and learn from the masters. After that, forget it all, and come up with your own ideas. 

 

Walt Whitman wasn't talking about science, dear.

 

Issac Newton's modest quote about "standing on the shoulders of giants" is all about egotistical nincompoops who think that they can go reinvent science all on their own without spending one instant of time actually doing research or examining the work of those giants, but blithely picking up silly ideas from time to time from people who believe in watery tart.

 

...and that's why, no, your "level playing field" is nothing of the sort. 

 

Maybe the reason we need the playing field to remain, apple versus oranges, is you can't sensationalize the new and improved climate change brand, with tree rings, alone. One snap shot for the marquee poster, that summarizes the movie, is not the same as watching the movie. The rebranding from global warming, to climate change, would not be able to take that change. If both the marquee poster and the movie are the same, why buy the movie? If these are not the same, then why are snap shots good enough for the past but not the present? Is it about merchants and science supplies? 

 

AHHAHAHAHAHAhahaha!

 

Oooooh, so you're proposing we throw out ALL modern measuring methods and go back to the old ways? That would certainly serve the oil company's intent to reduce the amount of damning data being gathered I suppose....except for the fact that that's actually being done dear. And the data correlates.

 

Which means your whole concept there has been tried and found false.

 

Of course you wouldn't know that because you refuse to read anything.

 

That by the way is called "fantasy," not "science."

 

 

As far as others saying the same thing, often good ideas appear in many places at the same time. I write about all the topics in these forums and don't have time or need to look for new ideas.

 

Yes, unfortunately you do spew quite a bit of drivel around here, and I have to spend all this time cleaning up your selfish egotistical crap.

 

Men.

 

Another angle that just appeared in my mind is connected to creating jobs. Jobs are good and a good paying job with benefits is even better. Since jobs are good, does it really matter, if the jobs and products are necessary of not? If we can create jobs selling bottles of mountain air, jobs are still good....

...Say manmade global warming and climate change is really about jobs and jobs are good; science, media news, and all the support industries, does this make it OK, even if it is bottled mountain air?  

 

Now I have to point out that in these forums you have many times repeated the over-used and just plain ignorant trope that we shouldn't do anything about climate change because it will cost jobs and we can't afford it.

 

So now you're going to argue that it will create jobs--which it will by the way if the oil companies stop trying to get congress to defund and set up market barriers to any energy source that does not involve burning carbon--but that we shouldn't do it nonetheless because it's for the "wrong" reasons?

 

Yow.

 

The homeland security angle sounded good, but the size and scope is way more about jobs than need.

 

Okay, I'm the first to point out the economic principle that government spending that does not at least indirectly increase the efficiency of capital (human or physical as an aside of interests to actual students of economics, unlike the fellow I'm addressing here) such as overspending on defense is a drag on economies. 

 

But of course you're demanding we *assume* that there's no Climate Change going on, so your argument here completely falls flat on it's big fat Gluteus Maximus.

 

So, in this case, yes, we need to watch out because the Chinese are whipping our butts on solar technology, while Big Oil is doing everything in it's power to stop Elon Musk from trying to build a business around battery technology.

 

That you fully back Big Oil on this--albeit you're willfully unaware that you are (or at least claim to be)--I guess is not surprising, but I'll point out you're advocating that the US should continue on it's course to becoming a second-world economy. 

 

My how patriotic conservatives are, huh?

 

 

The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain, :phones:

Buffy

[fahrquad]

I have been on this planet for 56 years, and have shoveled snow higher than my head.  I personally welcome global warming, if it is at all human induced.

[fahrquad]

I am a "tree hugger" in as  as much as I have personally planted and watered almost daily 21 of my own babies, whom I love dearly, at my first house.

[fahrquad]

I planted the three rows of 7 Tulip trees (aka Yellow Poplar or Liriodendron Tulipifera) around 1986 parallel to the rear property line, and 12 Hybrid Poplars (Populus deltoides x Populus nigra) along the right side fence line.  I neglected to include the Hybrids in the count above.  I also forgot to include the 12 Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) on the left side line and 12 Leyland Cypress, another hybrid (Cupressus × leylandii), that I also planted on the rear property line.  I also neglected to include the Tulip tree that I grew from a seed that I planted in the front yard to shade the living room window from the Summer sun, bringing the total that I planted and nurtured there to 58.  The wife and I drove by a few weeks ago, and I was happy to see that the current owner has left all of my babies unmolested for the last 13 years that he has owned the property (it has been 30 years since i bought it, and 13 years since I sold it). 

 

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

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

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

https://www.arborday.org/trees/treeguide/TreeDetail.cfm?ItemID=908

Edited November 6, 2016 by fahrquad

[fahrquad]

Getting back on topic, all of the global warming/global climate change articles I have seen have failed to take into account the effect of increased solar activity.  I am not denying that humans releasing sequestered carbon has had some impact on the environment, but I fail to see that all of the blame lays on the use of fossil fuels.  Remember that human activity increases the reflectivity (albedo) of the planet, and I have seen no assessments of increased carbon dioxide intake by the trees, the ocean, and other vegetation.  Increased solar activity, increased atmospheric carbon dioxide content, increased temperature, and increased moisture result in increased growth in plants and increased sequestration of carbon dioxide.  I tend to think that for the most part we live in a biologically self regulating system with the exception of outside influences (i.e. the sun).  The Earth has all of the carbon it will ever have in one form or another, absent a nearby nova or supernova seeding the planet with more elements.  In either case we will all be dead from the radiation, so who gives a flying f***? 

 

The Sun's impact on climate has only recently been investigated. Recent studies show that an increase in solar output can cause short-term changes in Earth's climate, but there is no firm evidence linking solar activity with long-term climate effects.

 

The rise in solar activity at the beginning of the last century through the 1950s or so matches with the increase in global temperatures, Usoskin said. But the link doesn't hold up from about the 1970s to present.

 

"During the last few decades, the solar activity is not increasing. It has stabilized at a high level, but the Earth's climate still shows a tendency toward increasing temperatures," Usoskin explained.

 

He suspects even if there were a link between the Sun's activity and global climate, other factors must have dominated during the last few decades, including the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

 

http://www.space.com/2942-sun-activity-increased-century-study-confirms.html

[billvon]

Getting back on topic, all of the global warming/global climate change articles I have seen have failed to take into account the effect of increased solar activity.

Every single IPCC study that has been done has taken solar activity into account.  Here's the link to the IPCC list of forcings:

[billvon]

 I am not denying that humans releasing sequestered carbon has had some impact on the environment, but I fail to see that all of the blame lays on the use of fossil fuels. 

 

You are correct.  Only about 90% is due to fossil fuels. The remainder is changes in albedo due to land use, high altitude aerosols, CFC releases and changes in solar irradiance.

 

>I tend to think that for the most part we live in a biologically self regulating system with the exception of outside influences (i.e. the sun).

 

Yes, we do.  We are currently trying our best to "un-regulate" it.

 

>In either case we will all be dead from the radiation, so who gives a flying f***?

 

You do.  You post pages on the topic.

[HydrogenBond]

The renaming or rebranding of ManMade Global warming, into Climate change was done because global warming allowed the critics to quantify and compare, while the new brand, climate change, is more qualitative. 

 

The temperature of the earth has risen 1-2 degrees over the last century. However, all the computer models, since the beginning of this saga, are predicting much higher temperature increases. There should no polar ice by now, based on some of the models. One way to fix this is to downgrade the man made greenhouse gas effectiveness quotient, so the models align with reality. This could be anywhere  from 50%-90% less efficient However, this simple change will take away the urgency. The alternative, to maintain urgency, was to start with a fresh branding which is more nebulous and subjective; Climate change. 

 

The climate change branding is useful because it provides the basis for a science magic trick that can rekindle the urgency. We appear to see more climate change today, because we have more eyes and tools collecting data. This is due, in part to all the funding for Global warming. It also connected to amateurs with cameras who post on the internet and TV. This magic trick helps to rekindle the fire of urgency. 

 

The way this trick works can be explained with a simple experiment. In this experiment I will gather the students from a high school science class and tell them to bring their cell phone cameras. We are going to the park to photograph the birds. We will form a plan to thoroughly cover the entire park. After a full day of pics, as evidence, I will make the claim that there are now more birds in that park, than anytime in history of the universe. I can back up my claim with hundreds of pictures, all with todays time stamp. I will then ask the doubters to show me their hard evidence, that there were more birds any other time in history.

 

Technically, I would have the preponderance of the data, since nobody may have ever thought it necessary to photograph the birds in that park with so many helpers and tools. This does not mean I am right, but I have the best data. They may only be able to produce  a couple of old pictures and lot of anecdotal evidence, where old timers remember large flocks. But this will easy to discredit without pictures. Like magic, there is more birds than ever before. 

 

Say the next year, other scientists decide to text my theory. Instead of high school students, they have a herd of professional researchers who know everything about birds. They gather even more bird pictures. Now the data says there is a quickening in climate change, based on the new preponderance of data. 

 

You can't do this trick with global warming. 

[billvon]

The temperature of the earth has risen 1-2 degrees over the last century. However, all the computer models, since the beginning of this saga, are predicting much higher temperature increases. There should no polar ice by now, based on some of the models.

 

Incorrect.  The IPCC models (the most supported models out there) are matching quite closely to actual temperature rises.

 

 

Say the next year, other scientists decide to text my theory. Instead of high school students, they have a herd of professional researchers who know everything about birds. They gather even more bird pictures. Now the data says there is a quickening in climate change, based on the new preponderance of data.

More observations does not equal warmer average temperatures.  People are not saying that "there are more measurements now so there is more temperature" - they are saying "the average temperature is higher."

[exchemist]

Incorrect.  The IPCC models (the most supported models out there) are matching quite closely to actual temperature rises.

 

 

More observations does not equal warmer average temperatures.  People are not saying that "there are more measurements now so there is more temperature" - they are saying "the average temperature is higher."

This is Wellwisher. He makes no more sense here than on the other forum.  :sad:

[billvon]

This is Wellwisher. He makes no more sense here than on the other forum.  :sad:

Oh, thanks!  Good to know.

[Maine farmer]

To go off on a bit of a tangent here, I would say a lot of the problem with the climate change issue is that too many people of power that are "true believers" in climate change don't alter their actual behavior and lead by example.  For example John Kerry's recent jaunt to Antarctica.  What was the carbon footprint of the trip and the helicopter tour he took at the expense of the American taxpayers?  John Kerry is a supposedly a true believer the urgency of climate change, so he should not need to see Antarctica firsthand.

[billvon]

To go off on a bit of a tangent here, I would say a lot of the problem with the climate change issue is that too many people of power that are "true believers" in climate change don't alter their actual behavior and lead by example.  For example John Kerry's recent jaunt to Antarctica.  What was the carbon footprint of the trip and the helicopter tour he took at the expense of the American taxpayers?  John Kerry is a supposedly a true believer the urgency of climate change, so he should not need to see Antarctica firsthand.

To me, that's like saying that any politician who doesn't walk to work can't be taken seriously on climate change, any politician who flies can't be taken seriously when he says we should curb spending, and any politician with self-defense training can't be taken seriously when he campaigns against violence.  Sometimes people's jobs require spending money (or fuel, or producing carbon) even though they are trying to reduce the negative effects of those things.