Climate science denialism - the remarkable inconsistency of

The ability to observe motions which have been present throughout the entire history of life on Earth for the first time is quite an experience as it combines both technological and conceptual innovations which rarely coincide. The last time in human history when this happened was when telescopes and accurate watches emerged however much damage was done at that time and is still carried on by those who unfortunately allow the timekeeping part to dominate observations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFrP6QfbC2g

The ability to condense long term imaging from this vantage point makes something as wonderful as explaining the seasons such a thrill as both surface rotations to the Sun can actually be seen and with it a focus on global temperatures among other things.

It is only a case of pearls before swine if people knowingly avoid looking at the details which were going on before humanity emerged, before the dinosaurs and when only simple forms existed on the surface of the planet. If some observers wish to make the wider population have a more intimate knowledge and experience of the motions of the Earth as we,as individuals, pass through existence .

Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 11:41:02 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:

Gary Harnagel wrote:

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/

"The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 gigatonnes of ice
per year since 2002"

and compare it with this:

http://phys.org/news/2015-10-mass-ga...ice-sheet.html

"According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet
showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001.
That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and
2008."

"The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea
level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,"
....
And if anyone asserts that we have to rush to "save the planet" RIGHT NOW
OR WE'RE DOOMED, he is selling a bill of goods and likely has a hidden
agenda. Or they are just a science denier.
....
The earth is definitely in a
warming trend. It's been going on for hundreds of years, much longer than
humans have been producing significant atmospheric CO2. Furthermore,
water vapor is a MUCH more significant greenhouse gas than CO2. But when
presented with this evidence, Peterson digs in his heels and starts hurling
ad homs.

I dot think you are a science denier but you seem to have a pair of Zaphod
Beeblebrox - like AGW sensitive sunglasses which cloud your mind when it is
presented with facts.

I see people advocating AGW as having ZB sunglasses that turn black when
contradictory data is presented :-)

You keep on coming up with the "water is a much more significant greenhouse
gas" meme when you have been told and can easily research that the water
vapour content of the atmosphere and is dependent on temperature.

Sure it is, and the hotter it is, the more goes into the atmosphere and the
bigger effect it has.

Temperature is much more sensitive to fluctuations in CO2. Increased CO2
increases temperature and the increased temperature increases water vapour
which in turn increases temperature more.

This sounds like an attempt to dethrone the major contributor by pretending
that CO2 is the controlling factor.

No! This has been known for over a century.

It's not a runaway effect but it means that increasing CO2 also increases
water vapour.

There are lots of models but little actual experimental data, which is the
only thing that really counts in science. Fitting parameters of a model
to match observation doesn't mean that the parameters are right.

We are experimenting with a whole planet but unfortunately there's no
control available.

Just like stellar evolution we can't perform controlled experiments on a
planetary scale. However if you purchase the right equipment or do a
chemistry degree you will be able to do practical work on IR spectroscopy
to demonstrate the greenhouse effect.
Are you suggesting that stellar evolution is not science because we can't
put stars in a test tube?

Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 and the great danger
here is that methane and methane clathrates in tundra and on the sea bed
will be released by rising temperatures.

Humans had an effect on CO2 long before significant industrialisation by
clearing freest for agriculture. Abandoning agriculture in much of Amazonia
after the conquistadors contributed to the little ice age and was
accompanied by the only sustained falls in CO2 in the last 2000 years.

Doesn't clearing forests increase CO2 levels from decay of the trees? Why
weren't CO2 levels high when Amazonia began clearing land for agriculture?

Yes a slow increase in CO2 (medieval warm period) followed by a very large
decrease when most of the Amazonian population died (of disease).

This is a VERY complex subject and "the powers that be" have already made
some giant goofs. Given the fact that present rates allow time for deeper
study, and given that alternative technologies exist, rushing into serious
change may be foolhardy, particularly if the warming trend peters out in a
few years.

Its not the powers that be but the experts you should be trusting. These
experts tell the truth, the newspaper's lie and cherry pick, governments
can lie to keep their support. In the US many politicians have to be
financed by interest groups. Why do you only trust the politicians who are
supported by the fossil fuel industry? Those same politicians who have to
pretend they are stupid enough to reject evolution. I have to admit some of
them don't pretend - they are stupid enough to reject evolution.

Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 11:05:30 AM UTC-6, Razzmatazz wrote:

On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 10:45:11 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:

So just which NASA sourve was "discredited"?

http://phys.org/news/2015-10-mass-ga...ice-sheet.html

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/

You have taken a small selective part of the research that NASA did on
Antarctic glaciation. Yes, Antarctic snowfall has increased the ice
slightly, but this is a long term trend that started 10,000 years ago.
It is due to warming air, which can hold more moisture, but it is not
enough to offset the rising sea levels that we now experience. If the
rising temperatures continue, the melting of glaciers will accelerate
and offset any gains due to increased snowfall. That is the bottom line.

This is true IF the temperatures keep rising. The rise over the past 15
years is 0.79 degree (0.053 degree/year) with a sigma of 0.08 degree.

Right now glaciers in Greenland are definitely melting faster than they
can be replenished by new snowfall. One reason is that the snow is being
covered by more soot, which degreases the reflectivity and increases the
melt rate.

Yep.

If I have this right, pure snow reflects about 90% of the incoming solar radiation,

I see 95% on the web.

dirty snow reflects only 60%, and once melted the resulting melt water
reflects only 7% of the incoming radiation.

If the water runs into the ocean, there will be no net change in the
reflection of that body, so you should use zero.

This is the real reason that the Arctic is heating up 3 times as fast as
tropical regions, and is a huge concern to scientists. Once the arctic
ice melts, there is no stopping a runaway warming of the earth. We will
see conditions not experienced by mammals, rather we will see climate
conditions of eons ago when only bacteria survived on earth.

The Antarctic contains an order of magnitude more frozen water than the
Arctic, so that claim may be a bit hyper. And I just ran across this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-29-year.html

"Since publication of the original version of this article, the US source
of the figures – the NASA-funded National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC)
- was discovered to have made a huge error and then quietly corrected
the figure without mentioning it."

Comparing 2012 vs. 2013. This does not engender a lot of confidence in the
"experts" to make the error in the first place and then to surreptitiously
correct it. This dishonesty seems to be widespread with the government
bureaucracies. The EPA doesn't even consider the biggest contributor, water
vapor in their pie chart on greenhouse gases:

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/g...ons/gases.html



You will note that they include fluorinated hydrocarbons. These have such a
high greenhouse effect that their minuscule concentrations, (almost
entirely due to humans) are responsible for % of atmospheric greenhouse
effect. The contribution of water is basically constant and not affected by
humans except in overall temperature since it's in equilibrium.

On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 7:40:20 AM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:


We are experimenting with a whole planet but unfortunately there's no
control available.

Just like stellar evolution we can't perform controlled experiments on a
planetary scale. However if you purchase the right equipment or do a
chemistry degree you will be able to do practical work on IR spectroscopy
to demonstrate the greenhouse effect.
Are you suggesting that stellar evolution is not science because we can't
put stars in a test tube?


The corruption of empiricists is founded on the notion that science is only possible when scaling up analogies at an experimental level to large scale phenomena -

"Rule III. The qualities of bodies, which admit neither [intensification] nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever." Newton

All that gibberish of the laws of gravity/motion/physics is basically summed up in that statement and reinforced through the education system.

A silly old fool who can't manage to equate the rise and fall in temperatures over the course of a 24 hour day with one rotation is unlikely to grasp what is being said. Stick two thermometers at opposite sides of an object and rotate it slowly to a heat source and you might discover how to use an analogy properly to arrive at a proper conclusion. In this case, the thermometer facing the heat source (Sun) will see a rise in the reading while simultaneously the thermometer facing in the opposite direction (stars) sees a fall in temperature.


Instructing a guy who says he has a chemistry degree and can't work this out is remarkable but the issue is resolved for everyone else. As for Newton, what a joke !.

On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 6:09:13 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 12:54:47 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

You've had it. YOU snipped it.

Drivel snipped.

Yep, Peterson has a hermetically-sealed mind. And he's nasty :-))

On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 12:40:20 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:

Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 11:41:02 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:

Gary Harnagel wrote:

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/

"The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 gigatonnes of ice
per year since 2002"

and compare it with this:

http://phys.org/news/2015-10-mass-ga...ice-sheet.html

"According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice
sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992
to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year
between 2003 and 2008."

"The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea
level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,"
....
And if anyone asserts that we have to rush to "save the planet" RIGHT
NOW OR WE'RE DOOMED, he is selling a bill of goods and likely has a
hidden agenda. Or they are just a science denier.
....
The earth is definitely in a
warming trend. It's been going on for hundreds of years, much longer
than humans have been producing significant atmospheric CO2.
Furthermore, water vapor is a MUCH more significant greenhouse gas
than CO2. But when presented with this evidence, Peterson digs in his
heels and starts hurling ad homs.

I dot think you are a science denier but you seem to have a pair of
Zaphod Beeblebrox - like AGW sensitive sunglasses which cloud your mind
when it is presented with facts.

I see people advocating AGW as having ZB sunglasses that turn black when
contradictory data is presented :-)

You keep on coming up with the "water is a much more significant
greenhouse gas" meme when you have been told and can easily research
that the water vapour content of the atmosphere and is dependent on
temperature.

Sure it is, and the hotter it is, the more goes into the atmosphere and the
bigger effect it has.

Temperature is much more sensitive to fluctuations in CO2. Increased CO2
increases temperature and the increased temperature increases water vapour
which in turn increases temperature more.

This sounds like an attempt to dethrone the major contributor by pretending
that CO2 is the controlling factor.

No! This has been known for over a century.

Not exactly:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...r_warming.html

"Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the
extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated."

It's not a runaway effect but it means that increasing CO2 also increases
water vapour.

There are lots of models but little actual experimental data, which is the
only thing that really counts in science. Fitting parameters of a model
to match observation doesn't mean that the parameters are right.

We are experimenting with a whole planet but unfortunately there's no
control available.

Then it's not REAL science. REAL science uses the scientific method, which
uses controls and actual experiments. We are just getting to the point
where we have other planets to play with. There's already some interesting
things, like:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

"Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says"

Just like stellar evolution we can't perform controlled experiments on a
planetary scale. However if you purchase the right equipment or do a
chemistry degree you will be able to do practical work on IR spectroscopy
to demonstrate the greenhouse effect.

Sure, but when you start talking about "amplifying effects" you really
need to do experiments. This nonsense about water vapor greenhouse effect
being due to CO2 is a case in point. By that argument, the effect of
methane, etc., is also due to CO2, so why is methane, etc., mentioned by
the EPA but not water vapor? Don't you see the dishonesty in this?

Are you suggesting that stellar evolution is not science because we can't
put stars in a test tube?

Ever heard of the red Sirius problem? Maybe we don't know as much as we
think we do about stellar evolution.

....

Doesn't clearing forests increase CO2 levels from decay of the trees? Why
weren't CO2 levels high when Amazonia began clearing land for agriculture?

Yes a slow increase in CO2 (medieval warm period) followed by a very large
decrease when most of the Amazonian population died (of disease).

You seem to be implying a VERY large pre-disease population.

This is a VERY complex subject and "the powers that be" have already made
some giant goofs. Given the fact that present rates allow time for deeper
study, and given that alternative technologies exist, rushing into serious
change may be foolhardy, particularly if the warming trend peters out in a
few years.

Its not the powers that be but the experts you should be trusting.

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.� -- Richard P. Feynman

These experts tell the truth,

yes, as they see it. But they are people, and people aren't omniscient, nor
are they free of bias.

These predictions came from "experts":

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/u...acularly-wrong

the newspaper's lie and cherry pick, governments can lie to keep their
support.

And who pays the salaries of the "experts"?

In the US many politicians have to be financed by interest groups. Why
do you only trust the politicians who are supported by the fossil fuel
industry?

I don't trust ANY of them. Why do you trust the "experts" who are supported
by politicians?

Those same politicians who have to pretend they are stupid enough to reject
evolution. I have to admit some of them don't pretend - they are stupid
enough to reject evolution.

You will note that most politicians are gung ho about AGW. By your argument,
maybe they're stupid enough to believe in it :-)

On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 12:52:11 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:

The contribution of water is basically constant and not affected by
humans except in overall temperature since it's in equilibrium.

And increased water vapor produces more cloud cover, which has an ameliorating
effect.

On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 04:37:09 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

Yep, Peterson has a hermetically-sealed mind. And he's nasty :-))

Yes, another marker of science denialists (like conspiracy theorists,
which are closely related) is to treat being called out as irrational
as "nasty".

On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 7:41:28 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 04:37:09 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

Yep, Peterson has a hermetically-sealed mind. And he's nasty :-))

Yes, another marker of science denialists (like conspiracy theorists,
which are closely related) is to treat being called out as irrational
as "nasty".

As you well know, it is not irrational to ask for confirmation of the
evidence, particularly when actual experimental data cannot be obtained
and where models are fitted to observations by adjustable parameters.
Several recent work has demonstrated that the models are incomplete and
even wrong. So someone who asks for more evidence is not in any way a
"science denier" (as you have dishonestly claimed). Thus someone like
you who says such - and worse - is indeed nasty (unpleasant, fetid, etc.)

On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 07:23:11 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 7:41:28 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 04:37:09 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

Yep, Peterson has a hermetically-sealed mind. And he's nasty :-))

Yes, another marker of science denialists (like conspiracy theorists,
which are closely related) is to treat being called out as irrational
as "nasty".

As you well know, it is not irrational to ask for confirmation of the
evidence...

No. But it is irrational to ask for confirmation and refuse to accept
that confirmation when it is provided, which is what you and all
science deniers do.