The Global Warming Hoax is falling apart

[Matt8200]

Actually there are 4 complete cycles. Can you document the 4 events that caused 4 large spikes and can also show that no similiar events ever occured other than at the spikes?

I want to know the answer to these questions because if climate models can't explain and correctly model the historical data they certainly aren't correct and can't predict the future.

We reached +.55 a few years ago. So increasing the temperature another 1.5 degrees will kill millions of people? The ocean is predicted to rise 10" under this scenario. I find it hard to believe that will cause the end of the world.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Matt8200:

Actually there are 4 complete cycles. Can you document the 4 events that caused 4 large spikes and can also show that no similiar events ever occured other than at the spikes?

So if you had a stock, such as IBM, that cycled four times, would you generalize about the entire NYSE average from that?

Of course not. So why do that here?

I want to know the answer to these questions because if climate models can't explain and correctly model the historical data they certainly aren't correct and can't predict the future.

Models aren't needed to predict anything -- we can see the rise in CO2 levels, we know about the energy absorption of CO2 and we can see the temperature rise.

But since you've recited this old tale about how models can't predict, here's a short list of things that the models have so far predicted correctly:

* the warming at the surface should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere and this has indeed been observed

* as well as surface temperatures warming, models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid and upper troposphere even while satellite readings seemed to disagree. But it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been observed

* models expect warming of ocean surface waters as is now observed

* models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation. This has been detected

* models predict sharp and short lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this.

* models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region and this is happening

We reached +.55 a few years ago. So increasing the temperature another 1.5 degrees will kill millions of people? The ocean is predicted to rise 10" under this scenario. I find it hard to believe that will cause the end of the world.

Kill? I don't know, but endanger millions of people, yes.

Picture a hot cup of coffee with "tides" rolling back and forth on your lap. Raise the level of the coffee by adding just a little extra and watch the "tides" slurp over the sides.

 

[Matt8200]

No unless I had some fundamental reason explaining the cycles and why they would continue. There is a model explaining why and how the arctic ocean must cycle between being frozen and unfrozen:

The postulated driver, or mechanism, developed some 30 years ago to account for the “million-year” temperature oscillations, is best known as the “Arctic Ocean” model (2). According to this model, the temperature variations are driven by an oscillating ice cap in the northern polar regions. The crucial element in the conceptual formulation of this mechanism was the realization that such a massive ice cap could not have developed, and then continued to expand through that development, unless there was a major source of moisture close by to supply, maintain, and extend the cap. The only possible moisture source was then identified as the Arctic Ocean, which, therefore, had to be open—not frozen over—during the development of the ice ages. It then closed again, interrupting the moisture supply by freezing over.

So the model we now have is that if the Arctic Ocean is frozen over, as is the case today, the existing ice cap is not being replenished and must shrink, as it is doing today. As it does so, the Earth can absorb more of the Sun’s radiation and therefore will heat up—global warming—as it is doing today, so long as the Arctic Ocean is closed. When it is warm enough for the ocean to open, which oceanographic (and media) reports say is evidently happening right now, then the ice cap can begin to re-form.

As it expands, the ice increasingly reflects the incoming (shorter-wave) radiation from the sun, so that the atmosphere cools at first. But then, the expanding ice cap reduces the radiative (longer-wave) loss from the Earth, acting as an insulator, so that the Earth below cools more slowly and can keep the ocean open as the ice cap expands. This generates “out-of-sync” oscillations between atmosphere and Earth. The Arctic Ocean “trip” behavior at the temperature extremes, allowing essentially discontinuous change in direction of the temperature, is identified as a bifurcation system with potential for analysis as such. The suggested trip times for the change are interesting: They were originally estimated at about 500 years, then reduced to 50 years and, most recently, down to 5 years (2). So, if the ocean is opening right now, we could possibly start to see the temperature reversal under way in about 10 years.
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/ci/31/special/may01_viewpoint.html


If models aren't needed why does the IPCC even bother with them. Correlation does not prove causation. And once again like I have explained before you are totally ignoring any negative feedback systems that occurs when temperatures become high.

I never said the models could not predict those things. My argument is that if the models do not take into account the negative feedback that occurs at temperatures then it will not be able to predict future temperature trends.

If you are stupid enough to build a house that close to sea level and do not engineer a way to protect then you deserve to lose it if the sea level rises.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Matt8200:

No unless I had some fundamental reason explaining the cycles and why they would continue. There is a model explaining why and how the arctic ocean must cycle between being frozen and unfrozen:

I'm sure there is, but studying the arctic alone does not prove or disprove global climate.

They were originally estimated at about 500 years, then reduced to 50 years and, most recently, down to 5 years (2). So, if the ocean is opening right now, we could possibly start to see the temperature reversal under way in about 10 years.
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/ci/31/special/may01_viewpoint.html

Look, this is the same paper that I've already addressed -- his point (2) for example doesn't even address that the CO2 has been proven to have come from man -- he still thinks it's naturally generated.

If models aren't needed why does the IPCC even bother with them.

To assess potential outcomes, for one.

Correlation does not prove causation.

No correlation needed, as it's proven that CO2 molecules absorb IR and re-emit it in two ways due to its molecular bonds.

Correlation would imply that we only have two graphs in sync, temperature and CO2 and knew nothing about either, and knew nothing about how CO2 relates to energy absorption and temperature. We do.

And once again like I have explained before you are totally ignoring any negative feedback systems that occurs when temperatures become high.

Huh? Your own statements were that, no worries, the temperature will drop after it hits +2 degrees, which would likely be catastrophic.

I never said the models could not predict those things. My argument is that if the models do not take into account the negative feedback that occurs at temperatures then it will not be able to predict future temperature trends.

Undoubtedly the temperatures will drop eventually (after all humans are dead and vegetation takes over again.)

Additionally the models have created effective predictions.

Additional to that, the models do predict a maximum temperature of something like six degrees (which would be catastrophic.)

If you are stupid enough to build a house that close to sea level and do not engineer a way to protect then you deserve to lose it if the sea level rises.

I've often said that about people who live in Earthquake areas, flood areas, tornado alleys, hurricane areas, or fire areas.

When will you be moving away from whichever area you're in?

 

[trefoil]

Quote from TraderZones:

This is so ludicrous, that I cannot believe you are not embarra

Without an atmosphere, we would be like the moon. Extremely close to absolute zero even a foot off the ground. Many Deserts (including Antarctica) have almost no water vapor day or night, and you cannot say they are even within 33 degrees C (or even far more than that) of abs zero

You might want to google before you put your foot firmly in your mouth? Thats a global average, first of all. For the rest, do a little research. Don't post on a subject when you're so utterly ignorant about it.
Honestly, the stuff that gets posted on here is an embarrassment. Where do posters like this even come from?

 

[Arnie]

Quote from bigdavediode:

So if you had a stock, such as IBM, that cycled four times, would you generalize about the entire NYSE average from that?

Of course not. So why do that here?



Models aren't needed to predict anything -- we can see the rise in CO2 levels, we know about the energy absorption of CO2 and we can see the temperature rise.

But since you've recited this old tale about how models can't predict, here's a short list of things that the models have so far predicted correctly:

* the warming at the surface should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere and this has indeed been observed

* as well as surface temperatures warming, models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid and upper troposphere even while satellite readings seemed to disagree. But it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been observed

* models expect warming of ocean surface waters as is now observed

* models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation. This has been detected

* models predict sharp and short lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this.

* models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region and this is happening



Kill? I don't know, but endanger millions of people, yes.

Picture a hot cup of coffee with "tides" rolling back and forth on your lap. Raise the level of the coffee by adding just a little extra and watch the "tides" slurp over the sides.

Dave, dave , dave....

Do any of your models prove the warming is caused by C02?. No, they don't. They just show the effects of warming, no matter what the cause. In fact that little graph Matt posted shows that all those peaks in C02 were preceded by a rise in temps. Not exactly what you would be looking for if your theory is the opposite.

And why would you assume that the net effect of warming would be negative? Some areas will be greener, some browner. Sea levels will rise, increasing the surface area of the oceans, which will cause an increase in evapoaration, (especially with those higher temps), which will cause increased rainfall, which will lead to more vegetation, which will lead to more carbon being absorbed, which will lead to.....and on and on it goes. Who knows, in 100 years we could look back on this as one of the best things that;s ever happened.

 

[trefoil]

Quote from Matt8200:

I am not changing the subject at all. You can do your same calculation for the x and y components of a sine curve and it will look great in the middle 2/3s of the amplitude and then it fails miserably when it reaches peaks. You are trying to model a complex dynamic system that has feedback with a simple logarithmic equation. It does not work that way. I can send you my 1000 page book on the feedback control of dynamic systems if you would like to read that.

I also did the simple calculation of the formula, as I said before. That gives you

a) correlation, and
b) causation,

by the numbers. You are ignoring the causation part. You still haven't come up with an alternate explanation for why the CO2 forcing formula so closely predicted what the temp anomalies would be in 2003-2008.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Arnie:

Dave, dave , dave....

Do any of your models prove the warming is caused by C02?. No, they don't.

The models don't prove anything, that's why they're called models.

The proof is in the fact, the inarguable, undebateable fact, that CO2's exact energy absorption has been measured.

They just show the effects of warming, no matter what the cause. In fact that little graph Matt posted shows that all those peaks in C02 were preceded by a rise in temps. Not exactly what you would be looking for if your theory is the opposite. [/quoet]

His charts are of non-anthropogenic CO2, while we're discussing man-made CO2. Just because CO2 came from some other source before does not prove that all CO2 always comes from other sources.

And why would you assume that the net effect of warming would be negative?

It's not that warming will be all negative, it's that rapid change is difficult for mankind to accomodate (and the biosphere to accomodate).

Given enough time we can adjust to floods and high temperatures or other adjustments. The biosphere cannot adjust as quickly.

Some areas will be greener, some browner. Sea levels will rise, increasing the surface area of the oceans, which will cause an increase in evapoaration, (especially with those higher temps), which will cause increased rainfall, which will lead to more vegetation, which will lead to more carbon being absorbed, which will lead to.....and on and on it goes. Who knows, in 100 years we could look back on this as one of the best things that;s ever happened.

One island has already been covered by rising ocean levels, I doubt its inhabits are looking that far into the future.

 

[Haroki]

Quote from bigdavediode:

So if you had a stock, such as IBM, that cycled four times, would you generalize about the entire NYSE average from that?

Of course not. So why do that here?

IOW, after Dave said that meteor strikes, volcanic eruptions, etc could explain the decrease in temps, he doesn't have the concrete evidence to show that this is the case.

Dodge noted.

 

[Haroki]

Quote from bigdavediode:

You can tell this about the globe from only three cycles, and even then from the antarctic?

Please.

LMAO.

Ice core data is used by the IPCC for determining CO2 levels from long ago.

And now, Dave questions its validity.