The Global Warming Hoax is falling apart

[drjekyllus]

Quote from traderNik:



That's not how science works.

I am well aware of the problems with the GW theories. In addition, I have a better understanding than you of the extent to which our Universities have been hamstrung by PC thinking.

Your post sort of exemplifies the concept of 'knee-jerk'. I've read your posts over the years and you didn't strike me as that type. Maybe you're just having a bad day today.

Thats exactly how science works. Lets say for instance, someone comes up with an experiment that gives a different result than is predicted by the general theory of relativity, guess what, it proves Einstein was wrong and its back to the drawing board.

When your model is spewing out bogus predictions, you dump the model. Its the same with trading. If your model is giving you shitty entries and exits, you dump the model and try something new. At least thats what the winners do. The losers come up with up with all kinds of excuses.

There are countless really intelligent people who have wasted their careers by chasing a bad idea. Everytime reality smacked them in the face, they did not abandon their idea, they pressed forward instead. People like that get to retire from their lifes work with no real accomplishments when they had the ability to do something great if they just let go. The global warming people need to do that. They just need to accept that they were scammed and get on with their lives. Imagine how bad they are going to feel in 50 years when they let the government sic some bureacrat on them, counting how many times they flushed the toilet and they find out it was all for not. This GW stuff is really about government control and people who think the government should be allowed to dictate how much energy a person can use are really leading us down a dangerous path.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Haroki:

How was the 386 measurement taken? Air measurements?

And how was the past CO2 levels determined? Ice core?

How do you know that they correlate?

Because ice traps air bubbles, and air correlates with air.

If the present CO2 levels are higher than ever before, then why aren't temps ALSO the highest they've ever been, if CO2 is the "major factor" in global warming?

Average temperatures are the highest since recording of temperatures began.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from drjekyllus:

The MMGW hypothesis is what we refer to as 'junk science'. I call it a hypothesis because it has not reached the baseline required to be considered a theory. The model put forth has made predictions and those predictions have failed. When your model makes false predictions you have to abandon your model and look elsewhere. This is not happening with the GW crowd. They continue their politically driven quest to use GW to crush the US economy and place restrictions on our everyday lives. Its that simple.

Predictions? "in 1988, James Hansen of NASA GISS fame predicted that the temperature would climb over the next 12 years, with a possible brief episode of cooling in the event of a large volcanic eruption. ...

"12 years later, he was proven remarkably correct, requiring an adjustment only for the timing difference between the simulated future volcanic eruption and the actual eruption of Mount Pinatubo."

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Haroki:

So where's the causation then?

If CO2 causes warming, why is it not the warmest on record today? It's been going on for 150 yrs.

It is. You can see the trend here:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

As another poster on your side of the srgument pointed out, CO2 absorbs long wave IR reflection from the earth. There shouldn't be a lag.

How do you know that the temp measurements are accurately given to you by somebody looking for grant money?

Don't believe NASA? Okeee, how about the Climate Research Unit of the UK government here:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

Why do you believe a politican when he says that global warming is our biggest enemy? Do you trust politicans when they are bolstered by scientists looking for grant money?

Okay, don't like NASA or the CRU? How about satellite measures:

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

Why did the cooling period from 1940-1980 get deleted from Al Gore's movie to make the infamous and now discredited "hockey stick" model, and then used by all the climatologists in favor of the whole global warming hypothesis?

I haven't seen the movie, but there was no "cooling period" from 1940 to 1980.

Why do you discredit solar activity as the main driver of global warming? It happens every year - spring, summer, fall, winter...

It is not the main driver of global warming because the planet is being subjected to a solar minimum.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Haroki:

Why do you think that?

There are 6 Nobel Laureate scientists that disagree with the whole global warming hypothesis.

Please list them so that everyone can see how many are climatologists.

Or do you think that Universities are above bending to political winds?

Are you that naive?

Satellites bend too?

 

[dtrader98]

http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~tapio/papers/skeptic_2008.pdf

 

[Haroki]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Because ice traps air bubbles, and air correlates with air.


Average temperatures are the highest since recording of temperatures began.

1- yes, but how do you know that it's an accurate comparison? I've seen air flask measurements from the 1800's that show CO2 at 550ppm. Which means that the method of collecting the data set and constructing the graph to be wrong and invalid.

2- temp recording began when? Just as we were coming out of the Little Ice Age, right? So why use THAT when there are other graphs from 100's of thousands of years that indicate that there have indeed been hotter periods?

 

[Hombre]

US weather service used to report Atlantic ocean temperatures but stopped doing that 2 years ago.
Reason is that temperature of Atlantic oceaniwas down two years in the row.
If anyone has a link to Atlanic 's temperatures, please, post it.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Haroki:

1- yes, but how do you know that it's an accurate comparison? I've seen air flask measurements from the 1800's that show CO2 at 550ppm. Which means that the method of collecting the data set and constructing the graph to be wrong and invalid.

Please cite the 550 ppm measurement so that I can address it. Secondly, please understand that ice cores correlate with other measures of atmospheric CO2 measures, such as walking outside and measuring it and is not the sole methodology used.

2- temp recording began when? Just as we were coming out of the Little Ice Age, right? So why use THAT when there are other graphs from 100's of thousands of years that indicate that there have indeed been hotter periods?

There are a multitude of ways that we know that the Earth is warming:

* Satellite Data
* Radiosondes
* Borehole analysis
* Glacial melt observations
* Sea ice melt
* Sea level rise
* Proxy Reconstructions
* Permafrost melt

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Hombre:

US weather service used to report Atlantic ocean temperatures but stopped doing that 2 years ago.
Reason is that temperature of Atlantic oceaniwas down two years in the row.
If anyone has a link to Atlanic 's temperatures, please, post it.

Two years is not a sufficient sample size. Additionally, here's a link showing the Atlantic temperature measurements:

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/dsdt/cwtg/catl.html