global warming hoax

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

"OG" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

"OG" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:41:31 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

What? Let me get this straight. You are saying that 600 million years
of
data on the correlation between CO2 levels and temperature is of zero
value
to the theory of anthropogenic change?

Yes, because as you have been taught before, there is no general
direct
correlation between CO2 and temperature. The only reason we a nice
correlation at the moment (and over the last centuries) is because
CO2
is the only primary input to the system that is changing
significantly.
If you go back farther, you also have to consider all the other
factors
that were different than they are now (different air and sea
currents,
different concentrations of other greenhouse gases, different albedo,
etc).

But the earth has been warming for 150 years.

So far you have not shown any evidence for any general warming between
1850 and 1920.

Since you keep on making this claim I challenge you to provide data
that shows such warming.

There are some other challenges that are outstanding, but let's see
what you come up with on this one.


Rather than argue about the exact dates, how about we agree that the
earth has warmed since the little ice age?

You snipped my argument, which does not depend on an exact date, so
rather than argue about the exact date when it started to warm again,
lets just substitute "the end of the Little Ice Age" for "1850" in my
argument?

It rather proves you don't know what you're talking about though. Which
is fine.

Now, how about your implication that the apparent increasing trend in
temperature over the last decade is only because I chose to manipulate
the raw data *in a particular way*. Can you come up with a data smoothing
that shows anything other than an increasing trend? You seem to claim
that the trend is only there because of the smoothing, so prove it's
possible to come up with a smoothing that doesn't show an increasing
trend.


So let me get this straight. You have deliberately modified the graph data
in an arbitrary manner, because you say it makes the trend clearer. Now
you are saying that you wasted your time, because you didn't need to
modify the data, the trend shows up anyway, and you want me to prove this
is true by modifying your data in a different way?

I showed 2 plots, one of the raw data (which shows annual variations due to
El Nino and La Nina climate effects), and another of smoothed data (which
shows the underlying increasing trend).

You claimed that the increasing trend is an artifact of the 'smoothing', so
I am asking you to smooth the data in another way to show that the
increasing trend is 'produced by the smoothing'. If you think it's possible,
do it.


And lets remember folks the earth either warmed ... or it cooled over the
last decade. Just guessing will give you a 50:50 chance. So that's the
predictive power of climate science - it maybe got a 50:50 guess right.
Not real compelling, even if the earth did warm slightly, is it

Your initial post implied that there was some doubt over whether there was
*any* warming over the last decade. Having looked at the annual data, do you
think there has been a general warming trend over the last decade or not?

Have you looked at the data before, or are you relying on what someone else
has said ? You cannot show any warming between 1850 and 1920, and you were
unaware of the warming trend between 1998 an 2008. What do you have left?

"Nightcrawler" wrote in message
...

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...

Ah, that would be the 20,000+ volcanoes that have spontaneously appeared
in the last 150 years? Sorry, I guess I missed the news about those.


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12218

How many of these are active volcanos?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0619093259.htm

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/st...e-f48c0dc90304

Oh, and a sort of related crank story?

http://tinyurl.com/y8drau3

Tropospheric temperature measurements may be less relevant than surface
temperature measurements.

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 23:18:20 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

As I understand it, climate science cannot
explain any of the last 500 million years of climate change, except
miraculously the the last - what - 100 years?

And that lack of understanding goes a long way towards explaining your
grossly incorrect views on the subject.

If there was no anthropogenic CO2, would the earth be warming or cooling?

If there was no anthropogenic CO2, the rate of change of the Earth's
temperature would be much lower. It's the rate that matters to us, not
the direction. This is extremely well established by very high quality
observations and solid theory.


OK, so if it wasn't for anthropogenic CO2, the temperature would still be
rising?

We keep hearing of the terrible things that will happen if we don't limit
CO2.

What would happen if we stopped all anthropogenic CO2 tomorrow? What are
the predictions for the earth's temperature and sea levels with no further
anthropogenic CO2 ? The warming which you say is occuring even without
anthropogenic CO2 - when would it finish, and at what global temperature
and sea level?


You ask lots of questions. Is this because you don' t know much about the
subject?

On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 15:35:19 -0600, "Nightcrawler"
wrote:

Ah, that would be the 20,000+ volcanoes that have spontaneously appeared
in the last 150 years? Sorry, I guess I missed the news about those.


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12218 ...

These are newly _discovered_ volcanoes. They aren't newly _active_
volcanoes. Again, global volcanic activity hasn't changed for thousands
of years. There's nothing here that changes the scenario of AGW.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Dec 2, 10:30*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:

We know exactly how much CO2 is released by human activity. We know
exactly how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, and its rate of change. We
understand the major carbon sinks, and can measure the carbon absorption
rate. We know what the major natural sources of CO2 are, and we measure
those. It isn't even science, it's just grammar school arithmetic.

The CO2 contribution to the atmosphere from natural sources is well
understood, and is accounted for. They haven't changed in a long time.
There are carbon sources, and there are carbon sinks. Normally, over
millennial (and certainly decadal) time periods these are in
equilibrium. Right now, the only thing significantly increasing is CO2,
and that is increasing by just the amount you'd expect given human
inputs. And the carbon cycle is no longer in equilibrium as a result.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

Google "missing sink" and tell me how precisely we know the arithmetic
of the carbon cycle.

In article
,
Jax wrote:

On Dec 2, 10:30*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:

We know exactly how much CO2 is released by human activity. We know
exactly how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, and its rate of change. We
understand the major carbon sinks, and can measure the carbon absorption
rate. We know what the major natural sources of CO2 are, and we measure
those. It isn't even science, it's just grammar school arithmetic.

The CO2 contribution to the atmosphere from natural sources is well
understood, and is accounted for. They haven't changed in a long time.
There are carbon sources, and there are carbon sinks. Normally, over
millennial (and certainly decadal) time periods these are in
equilibrium. Right now, the only thing significantly increasing is CO2,
and that is increasing by just the amount you'd expect given human
inputs. And the carbon cycle is no longer in equilibrium as a result.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

Google "missing sink" and tell me how precisely we know the arithmetic
of the carbon cycle.


I concur. It isn't vaguely true at all that we know all the sinks and
sources of GHG.

The increase in temperature across the tundra over the past 1,000
years has added a huge amount of new sources for methane and C02.The
perma frost melting release enormous amounts of gases to the mix, from
rotting vegetation that has been frozen since the last ice age.

Each volcanic eruption blasts mega tonnages of S02, C02, CH4 and
Flouro carbons into the upper and lower atmosphere. The amount and
quantity varies with the type of eruption and parent source of the
melt. there is no way to predict this until after it erupts.

And lastly, if we knew exactly how much C02 was man made and not man
made, then NASA would never have launched that C02 measuring satellite
that unfortunately crashed into the ocean.

All we have is guesses and a few hundred sampling points around the
world.

Milton Aupperle
Geoscientist.and Software developer.

You strike me as somebody who would spend your day banging your head
into the wall, and complaining about the continuous pain. But you
wouldn't stop, because you have no proof that the banging and the pain
are related.

Funny thing is, I don't see any pain at all. For all the dire predictions,
the sky has not fallen in. As far as I can tell, nothing particularly bad
has happened at all, the earth seems to be getting on just fine. What has
changed is that predictions of doom become ever more shrill, in the seeming
complete absence of any actual ill effects at all.

Reminds me a lot of the Y2K hysteria. At least that had a use-by date of
1/1/2000.

"OG" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 23:18:20 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

As I understand it, climate science cannot
explain any of the last 500 million years of climate change, except
miraculously the the last - what - 100 years?

And that lack of understanding goes a long way towards explaining your
grossly incorrect views on the subject.

If there was no anthropogenic CO2, would the earth be warming or
cooling?

If there was no anthropogenic CO2, the rate of change of the Earth's
temperature would be much lower. It's the rate that matters to us, not
the direction. This is extremely well established by very high quality
observations and solid theory.


OK, so if it wasn't for anthropogenic CO2, the temperature would still be
rising?

We keep hearing of the terrible things that will happen if we don't limit
CO2.

What would happen if we stopped all anthropogenic CO2 tomorrow? What are
the predictions for the earth's temperature and sea levels with no
further anthropogenic CO2 ? The warming which you say is occuring even
without anthropogenic CO2 - when would it finish, and at what global
temperature and sea level?


You ask lots of questions. Is this because you don' t know much about the
subject?

No, I ask them because climate science has no good answers for these
questions, which discredit its claim to be a valid scientific theory.

That they largely lie unanswered rather proves my point: climate science is
not science.

In article ,
Milton Aupperle wrote:

Each volcanic eruption blasts mega tonnages of S02, C02, CH4 and
Flouro carbons into the upper and lower atmosphere. The amount and
quantity varies with the type of eruption and parent source of the
melt. there is no way to predict this until after it erupts.

On the other hand, the rate of volcanic eruptions is reasonably
well-known and there's no particular reason to believe that the
statistics are changing; Pinatubo, which was the biggest eruption in
eighty years, produced 42 megatons of CO2, and total average annual
volcanic CO2 is something like 130 megatons.

For comparison, the Drax power station in Britain (our most
CO2-efficient coal-fired station, which is rather like being the
tallest dwarf) produces 807 grams of CO2 per kWh, and 22 billion kWh a
year, so is *in itself* about an eighth of worldwide volcanic CO2
production. And there are more than eight such.

And lastly, if we knew exactly how much C02 was man made and not man
made, then NASA would never have launched that C02 measuring satellite
that unfortunately crashed into the ocean.

The Japanese launched their own CO2-measuring satellite, of a slightly
different design (much less efficient at getting datapoints) at about
the same time; the public data release is end of January, but there's
some preliminary uncalibrated data available at

http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2009/10/20091030_ibuki_e.html

It's interesting; looks as if the methane concentration is higher in
the Sahara Desert than over Siberia.

Tom

And lets remember folks the earth either warmed ... or it cooled over the
last decade. Just guessing will give you a 50:50 chance. So that's the
predictive power of climate science - it maybe got a 50:50 guess right.
Not real compelling, even if the earth did warm slightly, is it

Your initial post implied that there was some doubt over whether there was
*any* warming over the last decade. Having looked at the annual data, do
you think there has been a general warming trend over the last decade or
not?

Have you looked at the data before, or are you relying on what someone
else has said ? You cannot show any warming between 1850 and 1920, and
you were unaware of the warming trend between 1998 an 2008. What do you
have left?



So, let me get this straight.

Do you deny that there have been extended periods of warming and cooling of
the earth from (say) 0 AD right up until the current time, or are you
quibbling over the dates that I have picked for the purposes of making my
point?

As to whether there has been any warming over the last decade, this is
rather hard to judge. Lets face it, some curve you produce isn't going to
convince anyone, your "raw data" is not exactly the actual temperature
readings of every temperature buoy in the North Atlantic, is it? This is all
massively manipulated before it comes anywhere near being raw data.

What I can say with some confidence is that sea levels have not risen 20m,
and giant dinosaurs do not again rule the earth, and indeed we appear to
have suffered exactly zero ill effects whatsoever from global warming.
Indeed world agricultural production has grown sharply over the last 100
years, it is hard to identify any ill effects whatsoever from the warming
that has occurred.

Of course, I am sure that all the signs point to it becoming an actual
problem sometime real soon now, or maybe not so soon now.