APS and the Global Warming Scam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If there is any disagreement among the actual scientists it's about how much the average temperatures will rise over time.

You mean like Hartmann's claim that "HUMANS ARE DOMINANT CAUSE OF CHANGES IN THE CLIMATE SYSTEM" linked above? That kind of how much?

This is just getting too easy.

Are you in middle school or high school?

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Nothing presented in this article suggests that AGW isn't happening. If there is any disagreement among the actual scientists it's about how much the average temperatures will rise over time.

There you look as if you mean by "AGW" any temperature rise at all, even if insignificant, caused by human-produced CO2.

But see above, where you stipulated to "'disruptive' to 'catastrophic.'"

Most researchers in the area indeed agree that if there's been CO2-implicated warming, human-produced CO2 has contributed to that warming. But how much? Not enough to bother about unless strong positive feedbacks are posited which turn the negligible human-produced percentage of atmospheric CO2 into a "tipping point" trigger.

Ellen

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Seems you have a good-ole-fashion'd contradictarino going on there...

Not at all. You have made the claim that AGW has been proven.

(A definition reminder. Upon my saying, "I'm taking you to mean the idea that human-produced CO2 is having a 'disruptive' to 'catastrophic' effect on climate dynamics," you replied, in post #183, "That is what I mean.")

You've provided nothing in support of the claim but the (reported) say-so of persons whom you consider to be authorities. You've tried to argue that you're being rational in considering these persons authorities. But unless I've missed it, you haven't even provided any specifics of what these persons state to be the case, or any arguments which they give.

So all you have is, "I'm telling you it's so." And then you say that others have to disprove a case you haven't presented.

I on the other hand have not told you to disprove what I've said about the models, only that your unawareness of the problems with the models indicates to me that you haven't explored the subject matter enough to be entitled to say that you have an informed opinion.

One whole textbook is still infinitely more than what you have, i.e., nothing.

Again, unless, I've missed it, you haven't even said what's in the textbook, just, in essence, "here, this answers everything; read it."

Was the textbook used in a college course you took?

Ellen

You asked for research that supports AGW, and I gave it to you. I'm sorry I simply assumed that someone as well-informed as you would be aware of the data and arguments that appear in any standard mainstream source, so I thought you would be starting things off with an attempt to refute any of the standard stuff. That I never made those arguments explicit is because you never asked me to until just now.

But what the hey, I will, just give me a few minutes.

And no I never took a course on climatology in college.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Nothing presented in this article suggests that AGW isn't happening. If there is any disagreement among the actual scientists it's about how much the average temperatures will rise over time.

There you look as if you mean by "AGW" any temperature rise at all, even if insignificant, caused by human-produced CO2.

But see above, where you stipulated to "'disruptive' to 'catastrophic.'"

Most researchers in the area indeed agree that if there's been CO2-implicated warming, human-produced CO2 has contributed to that warming. But how much? Not enough to bother about unless strong positive feedbacks are posited which turn the negligible human-produced percentage of atmospheric CO2 into a "tipping point" trigger.

Ellen

What I'm saying is that human produced CO2 will increase average global temperatures, which will in turn feed into other positive feedbacks on the climate, which will lead to further increases in average global temperatures.

Like I said gimme a sec.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here comes a copy/paste dump of a lot of crap...

(That's what always happens at this point in these kinds of AGW arguments. Never explanations in the person's own words. )

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Nothing presented in this article suggests that AGW isn't happening. If there is any disagreement among the actual scientists it's about how much the average temperatures will rise over time.

There you look as if you mean by "AGW" any temperature rise at all, even if insignificant, caused by human-produced CO2.

But see above, where you stipulated to "'disruptive' to 'catastrophic.'"

Most researchers in the area indeed agree that if there's been CO2-implicated warming, human-produced CO2 has contributed to that warming. But how much? Not enough to bother about unless strong positive feedbacks are posited which turn the negligible human-produced percentage of atmospheric CO2 into a "tipping point" trigger.

Ellen

What I'm saying is that human produced CO2 will increase average global temperatures, which will in turn feed into other positive feedbacks on the climate, which will lead to further increases in average global temperatures.

Like I said gimme a sec.

There are natural drivers of the temperature increase then cutting or eliminating human produced CO2 will do little or no good

unless there effect is weighted accurately against man made factors.

There was no human produced CO2 when the Siberian Traps erupted. That killed off most of the surface life of the planet and poisoned the oceans. The AGW crew is telling us that if we cut out CO2 production (other than exhaling) our temperature rise will stop. Unless they can eliminate the effects of natural drivers or weigh them properly then their conclusions might not hold.

We are asked to become beggars and paupers on the basis of an ill formed sloppy easily manipulated statistical model. The underlying science is shaky at best but we are urged to take a pauper's oath on that basis. I am not all that ready to do so.

I want to see a sound and scientifically corroborated -science- of climate. Right now all we have are models, not a solid theory.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Ellen Stuttle]

Naomi,

I'll list four statements and then ask you a couple questions.

1) If there's been CO2-implicated average global temperature increase over about the last 100 years, human-produced CO2 has contributed a small amount to that warming.

2) Human-produced CO2 is having a "disruptive" to "catastrophic" effect on climate dynamics, the statement which, in post #183, you said is what you mean by "AGW."

3) "Human produced CO2 will increase average global temperatures, which will in turn feed into other positive feedbacks on the climate, which will lead to further increases in average global temperatures" - the statement which, in post #254, you said is what you're saying.

4) "Humans are [the] dominant cause of changes in the climate system" - wording I picked up from Michael's post 247, in which he gave a link to a panel discussion which included Dennis Hartmann.

First question: Do you recognize that the four statements above are different claims?

Second question, assuming you've answered "yes" to the first: Which of these claims is the one which you assert has been proven, is subscribed to by every "reputable" climate scientist, is supported by thousands of peer-reviewed articles and countered by none?

Ellen

[SoAMadDeathWish]

I did some research recently, and I decided to take a look at the recent IPCC report itself. I think that the AR5 report for policy makers summarizes the consensus of the whole field and does a great job of stating and supporting the AGW claims. (The full report is even better, but it's over 1500 pages long and the file size is huge).

Basically, according to Hartmann (and the scientific community), the climate works like this:

The Earth receives energy from the sun in the form of radiation. The Earth also emits blackbody radiation out into space, and thereby loses energy. Because of the law of conservation of energy, the amount of energy dumped into the climate system must balance the amount that leaves and stays in it. Since greenhouse gases, such as CO2 and H2O have absorption spectra in the infrared range, they let radiation from the sun reach the Earth's surface. However, since the Earth radiates blackbody radiation in the form of infrared waves, these gases absorb that radiation, and its energy remains trapped in the atmosphere. This energy heats the atmosphere and the Earth's surface. Thus, if the atmosphere wasn't there, the Earth's surface would be much cooler than it is. Now, any increase in the concentration of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, makes the climate system absorb more infrared radiation, thus making it heat up overall.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and humans have increased its concentration from 278 ppm in the pre-industrial era, to 391 ppm in 2011 (an increase of about 40%), primarily through the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land-use such as deforestation. Thus, from what we know of physics, it is physically impossible that human activity could not have contributed directly to the increase in average global temperatures.

Furthermore, this temperature increase has important effects on other aspects of the climate system. An increase in average global temperatures results in more boiling of the Oceans, thereby increasing the concentration of H2O (the most important greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere, trapping even more infrared radiation.

An increase in the amount of CO2 also means that the oceans absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere, and thereby heat up as well. This has a number of important effects for weather phenomena. Furthermore, an increase in the amount of CO2 in the ocean also increases its acidity levels, which affects its ecology.

Higher temperatures also contribute to increased melting of the polar ice caps. This melt results not only in an increase in sea levels, but also exacerbates the greenhouse effect since less radiation from the sun is reflected back into space by polar ice.

Cumulatively, these processes explain all of the recent climatic trends. Current climate models fit historical data, and have only increased in their accuracy over time. They also make a number of predictions up to 2100 under several possible scenarios with regard to CO2 and other gas emissions.

According to the AR5, the official consensus of climate scientists is that:

• Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed
  changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have
  warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the
  concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased (see Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.3 and
  SPM.4). {2.2, 2.4, 3.2, 3.7, 4.2–4.7, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5–5.6, 6.2, 13.2}
• Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any
  preceding decade since 1850 (see Figure SPM.1). In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012
  was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence). {2.4, 5.3}
• Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting
  for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence).
  It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0−700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010 (see Figure
  SPM.3), and it likely warmed between the 1870s and 1971. {3.2, Box 3.1}
• Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass,
  glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern
  Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent (high confidence) (see
  Figure SPM.3). {4.2–4.7}
• The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate
  during the previous two millennia (high confidence). Over the period 1901 to 2010, global
  mean sea level rose by 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m (see Figure SPM.3). {3.7, 5.6, 13.2}
• The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have
  increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Carbon dioxide
  concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel
  emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed
  about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification (see
  Figure SPM.4). {2.2, 3.8, 5.2, 6.2, 6.3}
• Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system.
  The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric
  concentration of CO2 since 1750 (see Figure SPM.5). {3.2, Box 3.1, 8.3, 8.5}
• Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse
  gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and
  understanding of the climate system. {2–14}
• Climate models have improved since the AR4. Models reproduce observed continentalscale
  surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades, including the more rapid
  warming since the mid-20th century and the cooling immediately following large volcanic
  eruptions (very high confidence). {9.4, 9.6, 9.8}
• Observational and model studies of temperature change, climate feedbacks and changes in
  the Earth’s energy budget together provide confidence in the magnitude of global warming
  in response to past and future forcing. {Box 12.2, Box 13.1}
• Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes
  in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and
  in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for
  human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been
  the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}
• Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all
  components
  of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and
  sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. {6, 11–14}
• Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed
  1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. It is likely to exceed 2°C
  for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, and more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5. Warming will
  continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. Warming will continue to
  exhibit interannual-to-decadal variability and will not be regionally uniform (see Figures
  SPM.7 and SPM.8). {11.3, 12.3, 12.4, 14.8}
• Changes in the global water cycle in response to the warming over the 21st century will not
  be uniform. The contrast in precipitation between wet and dry regions and between wet
  and dry seasons will increase, although there may be regional exceptions (see Figure SPM.8).
  {12.4, 14.3}
• The global ocean will continue to warm during the 21st century. Heat will penetrate from
  the surface to the deep ocean and affect ocean circulation. {11.3, 12.4}
• It is very likely that the Arctic sea ice cover will continue to shrink and thin and that Northern
  Hemisphere spring snow cover will decrease during the 21st century as global mean surface
  temperature rises. Global glacier volume will further decrease. {12.4, 13.4}
• Global mean sea level will continue to rise during the 21st century (see Figure SPM.9). Under
  all RCP scenarios, the rate of sea level rise will very likely exceed that observed during 1971
  to 2010 due to increased ocean warming and increased loss of mass from glaciers and ice
  sheets. {13.3–13.5}
• Climate change will affect carbon cycle processes in a way that will exacerbate the increase
  of CO2 in the atmosphere (high confidence). Further uptake of carbon by the ocean will
  increase ocean acidification. {6.4}
• Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st
  century and beyond (see Figure SPM.10). Most aspects of climate change will persist for many
  centuries even if emissions of CO2 are stopped. This represents a substantial multi-century
  climate change commitment created by past, present and future emissions of CO2. {12.5}

The supporting facts and figures can be found within the AR5 for policy makers as well as the full AR5 report linked above.

EDIT: I hope this also answers your questions in post #257

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Nothing presented in this article suggests that AGW isn't happening. If there is any disagreement among the actual scientists it's about how much the average temperatures will rise over time.

There you look as if you mean by "AGW" any temperature rise at all, even if insignificant, caused by human-produced CO2.

But see above, where you stipulated to "'disruptive' to 'catastrophic.'"

Most researchers in the area indeed agree that if there's been CO2-implicated warming, human-produced CO2 has contributed to that warming. But how much? Not enough to bother about unless strong positive feedbacks are posited which turn the negligible human-produced percentage of atmospheric CO2 into a "tipping point" trigger.

Ellen

What I'm saying is that human produced CO2 will increase average global temperatures, which will in turn feed into other positive feedbacks on the climate, which will lead to further increases in average global temperatures.

Like I said gimme a sec.

There are natural drivers of the temperature increase then cutting or eliminating human produced CO2 will do little or no good

unless there effect is weighted accurately against man made factors.

There was no human produced CO2 when the Siberian Traps erupted. That killed off most of the surface life of the planet and poisoned the oceans. The AGW crew is telling us that if we cut out CO2 production (other than exhaling) our temperature rise will stop. Unless they can eliminate the effects of natural drivers or weigh them properly then their conclusions might not hold.

We are asked to become beggars and paupers on the basis of an ill formed sloppy easily manipulated statistical model. The underlying science is shaky at best but we are urged to take a pauper's oath on that basis. I am not all that ready to do so.

I want to see a sound and scientifically corroborated -science- of climate. Right now all we have are models, not a solid theory.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Simulations have been run taking into account only natural drivers, and they conclude that, in the absence of anthropogenic effects, global average temperatures would remain stable.

The models are physical models, and not mere statistical models. That claim is absurd. And as I've told you before, the underlying science is physics, but you seem to have ignored everything from our previous discussion, so I'm not gonna bother repeating myself.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I will go through this stuff a little later when I get more time, but I sure hope these government-supported scientists find all that missing heat that was supposed to be causing havoc by now.

(Actually I don't.)

Just as musing, though, the premise behind the entire AGW argument is that the earth is a closed system where heat goes in and heat goes out and the atmosphere filters what heat gets in and out. What if it were not that simple? What if heat transforms from one energy to another? In fact, on a really superficial skim of Google, it looks like it does.

In other words, what if this were not at all a zero sum game restricted only to heat?

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

I will go through this stuff a little later when I get more time, but I sure hope these government-supported scientists find all that missing heat that was supposed to be causing havoc by now.

(Actually I don't.)

Just as musing, though, the premise behind the entire AGW argument is that the earth is a closed system where heat goes in and heat goes out and atmosphere filters what heat gets in and out. What if it were not that simple? What if heat transforms from one energy to another? On fact, on a really superficial skim of Google, it looks like it does.

Michael

Heat in the climate system is the result of energy from infrared radiation being transformed into kinetic energy of molecules. However, this process can neither increase nor decrease the total amount of energy.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Heat in the climate system is the result of energy from infrared radiation being transformed into kinetic energy of molecules. However, this process can neither increase nor decrease the total amount of energy.

What does this have to do with what I mused about?

I wasn't talking only about "this process" of going in and out of the atmosphere.

I probably need someone who is not on a religious crusade to save the world from the evil humans to answer my question, that is answer the questions I actually ask, not yap out factoids about nothing in particular.

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Heat in the climate system is the result of energy from infrared radiation being transformed into kinetic energy of molecules. However, this process can neither increase nor decrease the total amount of energy.

What does this have to do with what I mused about?

I wasn't talking only about "this process" of going in and out of the atmosphere.

Michael

I meant the process of transforming one form of energy into another.

[Selene]

Heat in the climate system is the result of energy from infrared radiation being transformed into kinetic energy of molecules. However, this process can neither increase nor decrease the total amount of energy.

Net net your statement is meaningless...

[william.scherk]

The Earth receives energy from the sun in the form of radiation. The Earth also emits blackbody radiation out into space, and thereby loses energy. Because of the law of conservation of energy, the amount of energy dumped into the climate system must balance the amount that leaves and stays in it. Since greenhouse gases, such as CO2 and H2O have absorption spectra in the infrared range, they let radiation from the sun reach the Earth's surface. However, since the Earth radiates blackbody radiation in the form of infrared waves, these gases absorb that radiation, and its energy remains trapped in the atmosphere. This energy heats the atmosphere and the Earth's surface. Thus, if the atmosphere wasn't there, the Earth's surface would be much cooler than it is. Now, any increase in the concentration of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, makes the climate system absorb more infrared radiation, thus making it heat up overall.

This is a good place to re-enter discussion. It gives an opportunity to define and understand concepts that animate the theory of AGW/Greenhouse Earth. This short summary from the head of Naomi's post may or may not be understood by everyone reading this thread, but it does a creditable job of laying out what many of us probably were looking forward to -- something relatively brief, but with substantive information.

That said, the paragraph can be improved for comprehension. For example, "blackbody radiation." I could cut and paste from a host of places that explain blackbody radiation, but I don't have the gift to cut an explanation to size.

Ellen and Ba'al are steeped in physics, Naomi a student/amateur. Would any of you tackle 'blackbody radiation' for the intelligent laymen of OL?

I suspect that some readers' eyes glazed over in the rest of Naomi's post. It has some heft, even if only in a list of items that can further be discussed. But I suggest that concepts and 'laws' likely to be mis or partly understood get a bit more explanation. Besides blackbody radiation, I expect some of us paused or furrowed the brow when reading "absorption spectra in the infrared range." Also, the law on the conservation of energy (as it applies to Earth's climate system) may not have rang the bell of understanding.

Similarly, assuming that the "amount of energy dumped into the climate system must balance the amount that leaves and stays in it" may need further explication.

I am noting these items because I find climate science interesting. Interesting in an epistemological way (how a theory grows to considered 'knowledge' or 'best guess to date') and in a fact-based way, and interesting socially. I think the rational denizens of this list may or may not find climate science interesting to the degree I do, nor may any two of us understand even such basics as 'greenhouse gases' and 'greenhouse effect' to mutual agreement. But I am interested, rationally, in extending knowledge, and I still have hope that investigating issues together in a forum can push back the edge of my own ignorance and bias.

Here's a question that occurred to me after a read through the paragraph. If we replaced Earth with another planet under our scrutiny, how would the paragraph change to explain the differences/similarities? How would one tweak it to apply to both planets?

Mars receives energy from the sun in the form of radiation. Mars also emits blackbody radiation out into space, and thereby loses energy. Because of the law of conservation of energy, the amount of energy dumped into the climate system must balance the amount that leaves and stays in it. Since greenhouse gases, such as CO2 and H2O have absorption spectra in the infrared range, they let radiation from the sun reach Mars' surface. However ...

And Venus?

_________________

I've been spectating at OL since an earlier cramp of AGWA acrimony sent me back to the stacks to explore a lot of questions and critiques from earlier in this thread. I still feel I owe considered responses to several posts by Jonathan and Ellen, but have been looking for a logical place to re-enter.

I have to thank MSK, Ellen, Ba'al, Naomi for keeping so many balls in the air. The earlier AGW thread (itself probably more acrimonious than this one) that MSK has referred to a couple of times is called Inconvenient Truth versus Inconvenient Swindle. It did not, in the end, help me understand a damn thing as much as this thread has, but it shows how this forum deployed itself on the issues in the past, with a different mix of opinion and focus.

What is it I hope to find by discussion, overall? Agreement, basically. Find out where we generally agree -- on definitions, processes, variables. From the edge of that agreement, seek further agreement/mutual comprehension in the field of contested knowledge.

So, you may find me a plodding bore as I trace my own territory of understanding.

Here's a picture of beautiful weather to uplift my readers.

Edited May 25, 2014 by william.scherk

[James Heaps-Nelson]

WSS, Vancouver is such a beautiful city!

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That said, the paragraph can be improved for comprehension. For example, "blackbody radiation." I could cut and paste from a host of places that explain blackbody radiation, but I don't have the gift to cut an explanation to size.

Ellen and Ba'al are steeped in physics, Naomi a student/amateur. Would any of you tackle 'blackbody radiation' for the intelligent laymen of OL?

William,

Does this work for a layman's explanation in your understanding?

Michael

[Selene]

Willam:

Remarkable city.

Can we all agree on some basic climate facts, for example:

1) between the "appearance" of man on the historical fact pattern, the levels of C0² in the atmosphere has varied from what it is today; and

2) this vast and complicated Earth that we inhabit is much more comlpex than a model that a human mind can create at this point in time.

If we can agree on that we can actually accept that we are a part of this climate and we pretty much couldn't tip the level enough to even tweak Archimedes.

A...

[BaalChatzaf]

If we can agree on that we can actually accept that we are a part of this climate and we pretty much couldn't tip the level enough to even tweak Archimedes.

A...

This is precisely the issue with the AGW folk. They -assume-, nay, they -insist- that most of the global climate change in the last hundred or two hundred years is primarily the result of human activity. There is no doubt that there has been a warming of atmosphere and oceans as evidenced by the shrinking of the Greenland glacier and the decrease of floating ice in the arctic. No one is arguing these facts. The entire dispute is over the causes of these changes. Is the cause mostly human activity, in particular, man made effluence of CO2 or do other causes, in particular natural causes account for what we see. Clearly human activity has some influence on the warming, but -how- much-???

I think cosmic radiation has been under weighted. Cosmic radiation affects the formation of clouds of water vapor in the atmosphere. Now clouds are like window shades or Venetian Blinds. Suppose your living room has a large south facing window (and it is located in the Northern Hemisphere) between 10 A.M and 3 P.M. on a sunny summer day if you leave the blinds or shades or curtains open and the light comes streaming in your living room heats up from its morning cool to an uncomfortable temperature. Whereas if you keep the shades drawn or the blinds closed the room does not heat up so much.

Clouds reflect sunlight back to space (the technical term is albedo). If more light is reflected then less light is absorbed below the clouds or by the atmosphere. How hot would a hothouse be if one sprayed high reflectivity paint over the glass of the hothouse? It would be a luke warm house. Cosmic ray affect how well clouds form. See

The Chilling Stars: A Cosmic View of Climate Change by Henrik Svensmark

for an account of how cosmic radiation affects the formation of clouds and how this affects long term climate.

Now-a-days any scientific worker who -dares- to suggest that there are significant natural causes to the current warming trend is branded as a Skeptic, a Heretic, an Incompetent, a lick spittle and running dog for the Corporate Cronies etc. etc.

To get the tone of this please refer to Ibsen's play, An Enemy of the People.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Now-a-days any scientific worker who -dares- to suggest that there are significant natural causes to the current warming trend is branded as a Skeptic, a Heretic, an Incompetent, a lick spittle and running dog for the Corporate Cronies etc. etc.

Bob,

They are using hardcore propaganda techniques, too, like guilt by association for one example.

Here's a typical one. People who don't follow their party line are branded "Climate Change Deniers." They like to tout at times that skepticism (which is good for science) is different than denial, but in practice, they are always very quick to level the "Climate Change Denier" charge at a skeptic and they constantly frame the climate change issue in "denier" terms, even with people they, one minute ago, recognized as skeptics and not deniers.

In other words, they might be forced to admit a person is merely a skeptic, but when they talk about any issue, it is to prove the "deniers" are wrong. It is never about the point of skepticism itself.

Denier denier denier denier denier denier denier...

That word keeps coming from those people.

Hmmmm...

Where have I heard that term before and why does it tug at my unconconscious so negatively?

Holocaust deniers?

How about that one?

On the surface, a person charged as a "climate change denier" is merely a cognitive issue that is either correct or exaggerated (and it is usually--the vast majority of the time from what I have seen--exaggerated).

On a normative and emotional level though, with constant drumming, the negative emotional charge from "holocaust denier" bleeds over into "climate change denier" because the term "holocaust denier" is so deeply entrenched in the unconscious--it is common term that is part of the culture.

Linking terms like this to provide an uneasy feeling of guilt by association to an audience is wicked stuff and they do it well. Note, the guilt is not about the holocaust. The guilt they seek to link to the climate change term is being a quack.

It works, too.

I think this is why they are so perplexed about the public opinion drifting away from them. They did their propaganda correctly. Theory and practice are in perfect order. So what the hell happened?

Well, the good thing about the Internet is that you can find all kinds of information about anything. No more gatekeepers and you are free to check on any claims anyone makes. There is no quality control, so you get the full range from quack on up to real experts, but the good news is that YOU are in charge of judging the material. There is no elite group who knows better for you what you should be allowed to see and just wants you to shut up and sit down.

That is what is happening to the AGW people's carefully constructed propaganda campaign. (That one term "climate change denier" is merely a flea egg in a scratch on the tip of the iceberg.)

Let's put it in simple terms. They have lied so much they believe in their own lies. They live in a mental bubble. They dismiss any discussion of those lies and almost NEVER own up to what they did. They don't get it that people who have seen their lies exposed over and over don't trust them anymore.

There is no propaganda technique to counter that so long as the Internet exists.

They are going to have to start facing the truth as it is if they want to influence public policy. They overdid the crowd manipulation stuff and blew themselves out of the water.

The only alternative to truth is shutting the Internet down and, since I believe some of them actually do get it, that is why you see them trying so hard to grab control of the Internet.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

To be objective and mention the other side, here is the same guilt by association technique run by The Heartland Institute, albeit in a much clunkier ham-handed, and frankly, incompetent manner.

The image is from an article on a NYT blog: Heartland Pulls Billboard on Global Warming

Thank God they took that thing down. It was embarrassing.

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Willam:

Remarkable city.

Can we all agree on some basic climate facts, for example:

1) between the "appearance" of man on the historical fact pattern, the levels of C0² in the atmosphere has varied from what it is today; and

2) this vast and complicated Earth that we inhabit is much more comlpex than a model that a human mind can create at this point in time.

If we can agree on that we can actually accept that we are a part of this climate and we pretty much couldn't tip the level enough to even tweak Archimedes.

A...

I like this approach of trying to agree on some basic facts. I actually agree with both, but I have some concerns about the second in particular. While it is true that a real physical system is always more complicated than any model we have access to, that doesn't mean that the models can't make accurate predictions about what the system will do.

I also disagree with the conclusion. An increase of atmospheric CO2 by 40% is not small potatoes whether it is due to natural or anthropogenic causes. That kind of change will definitely affect the climate, and it has historically.

If we can agree on that we can actually accept that we are a part of this climate and we pretty much couldn't tip the level enough to even tweak Archimedes.

A...

This is precisely the issue with the AGW folk. They -assume-, nay, they -insist- that most of the global climate change in the last hundred or two hundred years is primarily the result of human activity. There is no doubt that there has been a warming of atmosphere and oceans as evidenced by the shrinking of the Greenland glacier and the decrease of floating ice in the arctic. No one is arguing these facts. The entire dispute is over the causes of these changes. Is the cause mostly human activity, in particular, man made effluence of CO2 or do other causes, in particular natural causes account for what we see. Clearly human activity has some influence on the warming, but -how- much-???

I think cosmic radiation has been under weighted. Cosmic radiation affects the formation of clouds of water vapor in the atmosphere. Now clouds are like window shades or Venetian Blinds. Suppose your living room has a large south facing window (and it is located in the Northern Hemisphere) between 10 A.M and 3 P.M. on a sunny summer day if you leave the blinds or shades or curtains open and the light comes streaming in your living room heats up from its morning cool to an uncomfortable temperature. Whereas if you keep the shades drawn or the blinds closed the room does not heat up so much.

Clouds reflect sunlight back to space (the technical term is albedo). If more light is reflected then less light is absorbed below the clouds or by the atmosphere. How hot would a hothouse be if one sprayed high reflectivity paint over the glass of the hothouse? It would be a luke warm house. Cosmic ray affect how well clouds form. See

The Chilling Stars: A Cosmic View of Climate Change by Henrik Svensmark

for an account of how cosmic radiation affects the formation of clouds and how this affects long term climate.

Now-a-days any scientific worker who -dares- to suggest that there are significant natural causes to the current warming trend is branded as a Skeptic, a Heretic, an Incompetent, a lick spittle and running dog for the Corporate Cronies etc. etc.

To get the tone of this please refer to Ibsen's play, An Enemy of the People.

Ba'al Chatzaf

That's because that is where all the evidence points.

There is a vast literature out there on Svensmark's hypothesis, and just about every test of it fails to support and sometimes outright contradicts it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There is a vast literature out there on Svensmark's hypothesis, and just about every test of it fails to support and sometimes outright contradicts it.

That's great.

So I looked into the vastness to see what would look back.

Is the following part of the "vast literature" where Svensmark's hypothesis fails just about every test?

More support for Svensmark’s cosmic ray modulation of Earth’s climate hypothesis

by Anthony Watts

Watts Up With That?

April 10, 2014

From the article:

There is a new paper in Environmental Research Letters that give additional support to Henrik Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis of climate change on Earth. The idea is basically this: the suns changing magnetic field has an influence on galactic cosmic rays, with a stronger magnetic field deflecting more cosmic rays and a weaker one allowing more into the solar system. The cosmic rays affect cloud formation on Earth by creating condensation nuclei.

. . .

(quoting the paper): The effect of solar cycle perturbation on CCN0.2 based on the present study is generally higher than those reported in several previous studies, up to one order of magnitude. Clouds play a key role in the energy budget of Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere.

Small modifications of the amount, distribution, or radiative properties of clouds can have significant impacts on the climate.

. . .

The paper at ERL:

Effect of solar variations on particle formation and cloud condensation nuclei

Fangqun Yu and Gan Luo

. . .

The paper is open access and can be downloaded here: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/4/045004/pdf/1748-9326_9_4_045004.pdf

I'm no expert on this. I just did a simple Google search for the words: Svensmark's hypothesis, and this was one of the first things that came up.

I certainly didn't see a vast literature of failures in the search results. I did see a lot of bickering and rebuttals back and forth.

Also, I looked up Environmental Research Letters (and here) just to make sure it is peer-reviewed.

It is.

It's even run by Obama's own dude, Daniel Kammen.

About that "vast literature," it's the vastness of the bullshit that gets to me with AGW zealots.

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

There is a vast literature out there on Svensmark's hypothesis, and just about every test of it fails to support and sometimes outright contradicts it.

That's great.

So I looked into the vastness to see what would look back.

Is the following part of the "vast literature" where Svensmark's hypothesis fails just about every test?

More support for Svensmark’s cosmic ray modulation of Earth’s climate hypothesis

by Anthony Watts

Watts Up With That?

April 10, 2014

From the article:

I'm no expert on this. I just did a simple Google search for the words: Svensmark's hypothesis, and this was one of the first things that came up.

I certainly didn't see a vast literature of failures in the search results. I did see a lot of bickering and rebuttals back and forth.

Also, I looked up Environmental Research Letters (and here) just to make sure it is peer-reviewed.

It is.

It's even run by Obama's own dude, Daniel Kammen.

About that "vast literature," it's the vastness of the bullshit that gets to me with AGW zealots.

Michael

According to the authors:

The effect of solar cycle perturbation on CCN0.2 based on the present study is generally higher than those reported in several previous studies, up to one order of magnitude.

In these previous studies, like this one, the effect of solar cycle perturbations is "two orders of magnitude too small to account for the observed changes in cloud properties".

[

1

] Although controversial, many observations have

suggested that low-level cloud cover correlates with the

cosmic ray flux. Because galactic cosmic rays have likely

decreased in intensity over the last century, this hypothesis,

if true, could partly explain 20th century warming, thereby

upsetting the consensus view that greenhouse-gas forcing

has caused most of the warming. The ‘‘ion-aerosol clear-

air’’ hypothesis suggests that increased cosmic rays cause

increases in new-particle formation, cloud condensation

nuclei concentrations (CCN), and cloud cover. In this paper,

we present the first calculations of the magnitude of the ion-

aerosol clear-air mechanism using a general circulation

model with online aerosol microphysics. In our simulations,

changes in CCN from changes in cosmic rays during a solar

cycle are two orders of magnitude too small to account for

the observed changes in cloud properties; consequently, we

conclude that the hypothesized effect is too small to play a

significant role in current climate change.

Citation:

Pierce,

J. R., and P. J. Adams (2009), Can cosmic rays affect cloud

condensation nuclei by altering new particle formation rates?,

Geophys. Res. Lett.

,

36

, L09820, doi:10.1029/2009GL037946.

So close... but it just doesn't cut it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Naomi,

Where the hell did that fail and "outright contradict" anything?

Don't you understand that by spinning the way you do, you actually lose the argument?

You should stick to facts and totally leave evaluations--including ALL adjectives and adverbs--out of your writing for at least 3 weeks. That won't fix it, but it will give you a start on learning how to think and communicate with precision.

That's about all the serious advice I am going to give you.

Back to mocking the suckup and toady who sounds just like the people who said the government was not spying on us--until Snowden did his thing, of course. The toadies and suckups said nothing on a massive scale like that could be possible. They constantly moved the goal posts in discussions just like you are doing. They kept up the mantra of conspiracy theory, tin foil hat, etc.

Man did they look stupid.

I hope for the sake of your kind Snowden or Wikileaks or similar are not sitting on stuff about climate change.

Michael