The Great Global Warming Swindle

[377OHMS]

Quote from futurecurrents:

So 377, you were an engineer, looking at this chart, can we say the warming trend has stopped?

Yeah, I'm an engineer. My degree is in EE/Electrophysics.

I'm not a meteorologist and don't have any expertise on climate. I don't know any more about terrestrial climate than Al Gore.

I've done some work on "space weather" but that has almost nothing to do with real weather or climate.

I've worked with a couple of PhD meteorologists though, both of them pretty sharp.

I worked with Dr. Elena Lobl at Hughes Aircraft Company on UHF multipacting in resonant cavities aboard space vehicles in the 80s. Multipacting is the unwanted acceleration of electrons in a cavity or waveguide in a hard vacuum. It damages space based communications systems.

I worked with the staff meteorologist on Sea Launch investigating ionospheric scintillation occurring along the geomagnetic equator under a USAF grant in the late 90s. We traveled back and forth between Oahu and the equator (at 154 degrees West longitude) and collected data which we turned over to the USAF. We also post-processed the data, produced some graphic data products and co-wrote a paper. Scintillation is the variation of the propagation velocity of different frequency components of a signal traveling through the ionosphere due to the "clumping" or non-homogeneity of the ionosphere in the evening after the influence of the sun is absent.

I've also done some work on small Larmor radius gyration of protons along the flux lines of the Earth's magnetic field which emits photons (northern lights or aurora borealis) and designed the pre-modulating cavity for the USC Electron Cyclotron Maser (same principle) under another USAF grant.

So, some fun science but not climate. Never said I was a climate guy. Never said there was no warming. Never commented either way regarding the scientists cited from both sides of the issue here. I just stopped paying any attention a few years ago when it was evident that the issue was politicized.

Look, I don't need to be grilled about the chart. I've told you that I've seen convincing data that shows that average global temperatures have increased about 2-degrees over the last 100 years. I've told you that I think that represents warming.

But I've also clearly told you that I don't believe that the warming evident over the last 100 years is anthropogenic. I've told you that the reason I don't believe global warming is anthropogenic is that the very long term data taken from ice cores and other sources shows much larger variations of average global temperatures occurring over 100,000 years ago, that is, before there was any significant human industrial activity.

That is what I believe. It doesn't make me a retard. It doesn't have anything to do with my political affiliation. It doesn't have anything to do with my socioeconomic status or whether I like Coke or Pepsi. Its just a belief that I hold and it is based purely on the data.

You like to argue. Fine. You like to hurl a few insults. Fine. But if you think you are going to shame or goad somebody like me into believing bad science you are going to be unhappy with the result.

 

[pspr]

Quote from 377OHMS:

It doesn't have anything to do with my socioeconomic status or whether I like Coke or Pepsi.

Great post, OHMS. You've been able to use your degree to do some amazing work.

On the Coke/Pepsi thing, I prefer Pepsi but my wife will only drink Coke. She's also a closet liberal and I'm an outspoken conservative although I think of myself as just a purveyor logic and truth. Proof that opposites attract? Sort of like your relationship.

 

[jem]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Do you know how to read a chart? Has the long term warming trend stopped? Do you understand why 16 years is a deceptive trick?

have you ever been profitable trading.

your realize that unless you are at all time highs... the trend is dependent on time frame.

If you look at a long term chart we are in the trading range.

But all this is nonsense.

stocks are frequently driven buy a rational expectation of higher prices... because profits are going up or a turnaround is in play.

at the moment you have not produced a shred of science showing
man made CO2 is causing warming.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from 377OHMS:

Yeah, I'm an engineer. My degree is in EE/Electrophysics.

I'm not a meteorologist and don't have any expertise on climate. I don't know any more about terrestrial climate than Al Gore.

I've done some work on "space weather" but that has almost nothing to do with real weather or climate.

I've worked with a couple of PhD meteorologists though, both of them pretty sharp.

I worked with Dr. Elena Lobl at Hughes Aircraft Company on UHF multipacting in resonant cavities aboard space vehicles in the 80s. Multipacting is the unwanted acceleration of electrons in a cavity or waveguide in a hard vacuum. It damages space based communications systems.

I worked with the staff meteorologist on Sea Launch investigating ionospheric scintillation occurring along the geomagnetic equator under a USAF grant in the late 90s. We traveled back and forth between Oahu and the equator (at 154 degrees West longitude) and collected data which we turned over to the USAF. We also post-processed the data, produced some graphic data products and co-wrote a paper. Scintillation is the variation of the propagation velocity of different frequency components of a signal traveling through the ionosphere due to the "clumping" or non-homogeneity of the ionosphere in the evening after the influence of the sun is absent.

I've also done some work on small Larmor radius gyration of protons along the flux lines of the Earth's magnetic field which emits photons (northern lights or aurora borealis) and designed the pre-modulating cavity for the USC Electron Cyclotron Maser (same principle) under another USAF grant.

So, some fun science but not climate. Never said I was a climate guy. Never said there was no warming. Never commented either way regarding the scientists cited from both sides of the issue here. I just stopped paying any attention a few years ago when it was evident that the issue was politicized.

Look, I don't need to be grilled about the chart. I've told you that I've seen convincing data that shows that average global temperatures have increased about 2-degrees over the last 100 years. I've told you that I think that represents warming.

But I've also clearly told you that I don't believe that the warming evident over the last 100 years is anthropogenic. I've told you that the reason I don't believe global warming is anthropogenic is that the very long term data taken from ice cores and other sources shows much larger variations of average global temperatures occurring over 100,000 years ago, that is, before there was any significant human industrial activity.

That is what I believe. It doesn't make me a retard. It doesn't have anything to do with my political affiliation. It doesn't have anything to do with my socioeconomic status or whether I like Coke or Pepsi. Its just a belief that I hold and it is based purely on the data.

You like to argue. Fine. You like to hurl a few insults. Fine. But if you think you are going to shame or goad somebody like me into believing bad science you are going to be unhappy with the result.

You said.....

"But I've also clearly told you that I don't believe that the warming evident over the last 100 years is anthropogenic. I've told you that the reason I don't believe global warming is anthropogenic is that the very long term data taken from ice cores and other sources shows much larger variations of average global temperatures occurring over 100,000 years ago, that is, before there was any significant human industrial activity. "


^You realize that there is no logic to that. Saying that just because there were large swings in temps in the past that therefore man cannot affect temperature today makes no sense. I believe it's called a non-sequitur.

One reason you may not believe it is that you don't think that CO2 levels have gone up 35% in the last 150 years due to man's activities. They have. It's been proven.

I really doubt that your position on AGW is due to anything but political ideology.

 

[Lucrum]

The temp at 38,000 above sea level was 7 deg C above normal this morning across northern Florida.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

have you ever been profitable trading.

your realize that unless you are at all time highs... the trend is dependent on time frame.

If you look at a long term chart we are in the trading range.

But all this is nonsense.

stocks are frequently driven buy a rational expectation of higher prices... because profits are going up or a turnaround is in play.

at the moment you have not produced a shred of science showing
man made CO2 is causing warming.

I guess you missed this then......proof that CO2 can lead temps.

Figure 2: Average global temperature (blue), Antarctic temperature (red), and atmospheric CO2 concentration (yellow dots).

And I guess you missed seeing this chart here. It seems like anyone with a shred of intelligence can surmise that the increase in CO2 from man's activities has lead to an increase in temps. Particularly since we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we have seen it lead temps in the past. I don't what your definition of "a shred of science" is, but these things taken together seem to be pretty compelling evidence that man-made CO2 is causing the warming.

 

[377OHMS]

Quote from futurecurrents:

You said.....

"But I've also clearly told you that I don't believe that the warming evident over the last 100 years is anthropogenic. I've told you that the reason I don't believe global warming is anthropogenic is that the very long term data taken from ice cores and other sources shows much larger variations of average global temperatures occurring over 100,000 years ago, that is, before there was any significant human industrial activity. "


^You realize that there is no logic to that. Saying that just because there were large swings in temps in the past that therefore man cannot affect temperature today makes no sense. I believe it's called a non-sequitur.

One reason you may not believe it is that you don't think that CO2 levels have gone up 35% in the last 150 years due to man's activities. They have. It's been proven.

I really doubt that your position on AGW is due to anything but political ideology.

Nonsense. AGW does not exist.

The data is clear. I understand you aren't equipped to understand the data but you are operating on emotion. The temperature varied by a larger amount before man was around than it is right now. That makes it impossible to attribute current temperature variation to anything but natural processes.

We all know you just like to yammer about AGW and that you aren't subject to logic. Its just bunk. Sorry.

 

[PHOENIX TRADING]

Quote from 377OHMS:

Nonsense. AGW does not exist.

The data is clear. I understand you aren't equipped to understand the data but you are operating on emotion. The temperature varied by a larger amount before man was around than it is right now. That makes it impossible to attribute current temperature variation to anything but natural processes.

We all know you just like to yammer about AGW and that you aren't subject to logic. Its just bunk. Sorry.

awe c'mon ohms you know for a fact AGW is causing increased asteroid activity and warming throughout most of the solar system .
It's not just for geeks who couldn't get laid if their life depended on it and
studied climatology(IOW flunked meteorology) 30 yrs go.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from 377OHMS:

Nonsense. AGW does not exist.

The data is clear. I understand you aren't equipped to understand the data but you are operating on emotion. The temperature varied by a larger amount before man was around than it is right now. That makes it impossible to attribute current temperature variation to anything but natural processes.

We all know you just like to yammer about AGW and that you aren't subject to logic. Its just bunk. Sorry.

What data? You've presented no data or science or anything factual to support your contention. If you don't understand the non-sequitur of saying that because in the past the earth got warm and so therefore man today cannot affect temperatures, well then I have to conclude you are simply stupid.

But equally likely is that you have simply been deluded by a steady diet of Fox News, The Wall St Journal, right-wing blogs and fraudulent videos like "The Great .....Swindle". That's what happens when one is a political ideologue, as you most certainly are, and you don't go outside the echo chamber.

 

[377OHMS]

Quote from futurecurrents:

What data? You've presented no data or science or anything factual to support your contention. If you don't understand the non-sequitur of saying that because in the past the earth got warm and so therefore man today cannot affect temperatures, well then I have to conclude you are simply stupid.

But equally likely is that you have simply been deluded by a steady diet of Fox News, The Wall St Journal, right-wing blogs and fraudulent videos like "The Great .....Swindle". That's what happens when one is a political ideologue, as you most certainly are, and you don't go outside the echo chamber.

The problem with what you are saying is that AGW does not exist.

Hard to get past that fact. You can toss all the insults you like. I think people here can tell the difference between you and I. I'm not troubled by your yammering. Carry on.