Anthropogenic Global Warming Laf
Object lesson in dogma:
- There exists long term global warming. It’s not cyclical per se, but is probably driven by positive feedback (hockey stick) and not negative feedback—as predominates nature, but not nuclear fission.
- Human activities towards human prosperity is what’s principally driving it.
Problem is, none of the models that contemplate #1 and #2 have predicted the reality. So, what is one to do? Simple, since #1 and #2 are “settled,” one must come up with ways to explain misbehaving data.
There Are Now 52 Explanations For The Pause In Global Warming
It’s been a busy year for climate scientists, who have been trying to explain why there has been no global warming for nearly two decades.
The Daily Caller News Foundation reported in February there were eight mainstream explanations for the pause, but there are now a whopping 52 explanations for why there has been no warming trend for the last 215 months.
Explanations for the pause in global warming range from ocean oscillation cycles to Chinese coal plant emissions, volcanic activity to some scientists even saying there is no hiatus in warming.
One recent study found that the warming hiatus is due to “heat transported to deeper layers in the Atlantic and the southern oceans, initiated by a recurrent salinity anomaly in the subpolar North Atlantic.”
As per usual when lots of money is at stake, “we never checked our premises,” is not one of the 52 explanations for the absence of observed global warming for 215 months and counting.
WHAT IT'S ABOUT AND HOW IT WORKS
Free The Animal is an eclectic writing project about everything since November 2003. 23 years, 5,500 posts, 5 million words.
It's a paid membership blog. Most posts are free and public, but only paid members can comment. What determines whether it's free or paid is when I publish. Monday through Friday, free and public. Saturday and Sunday, for paid members. That's it. Membership info here.
Nobody cares what you think of climate change Richard.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
You do, apparently. Didn’t look at the link, obviously you’re enamored of argumentum ad populum, and so dunning kruger you don’t even recognize the depth of your own ineptitude.
By the way, fucktard: the post is about AGW, not “climate change,” demonstrating further your fucktarded bias.
Go put a bullet in your head. Nothing short of that will help you.
You’re not a climate scientist; neither am I. I’m master’s student in engineering, studying something totally unrelated climatology.
In science, you can’t be an expert in every field. There are times when it’s best to just resign to the scientific consensus. There’s an _overwhelming_ scientific consensus, and it’s laughable when I see dumbass layman like you try to point fingers at the scientists saying, “there all wrong! I’m so smart!”
Btw, read just the first sentence of that Wiki article.
“There are times when it’s best to just resign to the scientific consensus.”
No, you’re a fucktard.
Listen, you fucking fucktard waste of sperm and vaginal fluid:
There is NEVER A REASON TO RESIGN TO CONSENSUS.
You fucking waste of sperm and vaginal fluid: people are out there still testing Einstein.
Pathetic waste of a fuck.
Nick… Here’s another wiki link for you:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
As you can see, it’s a rather complex and controversial topic. I’m not offering an opinion on who is right and who is wrong here, but I think it’s pretty clear that the research can be interpreted in many different ways.
After seeing how wrong the dietary-science “consensus” turned out to be on demonizing fat (and now transitioning to all carbs), I would say that most scientific controversies with a consensus require a bit of skepticism.
“There’s an _overwhelming_ scientific consensus, and it’s laughable when I see dumbass layman like you try to point fingers at the scientists saying, “there all wrong! I’m so smart!”
Actually, PhD scientists in the thousands, some climatologists, disagree.
But, you’re content.
They’re not.
You’ve never really looked it up, or, you’re just a run of mill liar, yawn—almost everyone is, why I get so much heat.
So, you languish in argumentum ad populum, pretending to be scenic, but your main argument is that too many people believe it, so I must too.
You should immediately disenroll from engineering school. I wouldn’t trust you to take out my trash or fetch my mail.
Stay tuned for the blog post, fucktard.
“You’re not a climate scientist; neither am I.”
So, you have no standing to offer up observations. Whereas, I’m an engineering student in an unrelated field and I can tell you: sometimes: you just gotta believe.
Literally the funniest comment I’ve ever received and I will make an entire post out of it to ridicule Nick and his fellow fucktards.
Stay tuned, “Nick.”
Here you go, Nicky Boy:
freetheanimal.com/2014/09/worries-scientists-someone.html
Thanks for the blogging fodder, fucktard.
The same overwhelming consensus existed on dietary advice 20 years ago, genius. If we had adopted your attitude on the matter, we would all be well on our way to death, or at least a numb, artificial, meaningless, and prescription drug-addicted old age, due to overconsumption of industrially processed vegetable oils, highly refined grain and sugar products, and so on.
If you want to trust the establishment, Nick, you go right ahead. The rest of us will laugh at you for your stupidity, especially when these morons are forced to admit they are wrong a decade or so from now. I forgive you in advance for what I know you will do, which is to lay low for a little while afterward and then assert that you never believed in the phony non-theory.
That’s what the anthropogenic ice age dummies did once they were proven wrong beyond the shadow of a doubt, and they pretty much got away with it.
Even if you never look at the science at all, there’s a few ways to tell it’s a load of crap:
1) The people who tell us the loudest to lower our carbon footprint don’t curb their private/charter jet use nor stop building or giving up their multiple “green” mansions. They either know it’s BS themselves or have made the value judgement that it’s not a big deal compared to going to that film festival, speaking engagement or simply to plant their ass on a beach.
2) Never do they talk about any benefits from warming, it’s always doom and gloom.
3) They hide behind consensus, a popularity contest.
Rob, there is a fucking fantastic chapter in a good book called Hollywood Hypocrites about those very phenomena, focused on loud-mouthed Hollywood celebrities.
Essentially, “Everyone needs to reduce their carbon footprint…except me.”
The deeper layers bullshit is my favorite.
I promise you this global warming stuff is still happening…it is just happening so far below the surface, nobody can measure it.
Just watched this recently. It’s a few years old I think, but until I watched it I just assumed global warming was man made. At least now I’m quite skeptical if not completely ‘man made climate change’ denier.
Be careful, JP. “Climate Change” is absolute, so you never want to be on the wrong side of that.
You can point out that their insistence that there is global warming and man has caused it, but now they say “climate change” is rather telling, but always go with the science.
Also, I rarely take up the issue. Why? nobody is dropping like flies even if it’s true. This is all merely about wealth shifting, as is all politics. People ARE dropping like flies from crap food, however.
bret, just slightly off topic, but you talking about the Hollywood hypocrites reminded me of the anti gun hypocrites who refuse to advertise that their homes are proudly gun free!
youtube.com/watch?v=wt1Zy_ASNyA
Michael, that same book I mentioned has a chapter on gun hypocrisy/idiocy of celebrities as well. My favorite example is Rosie O’Donnell, who called for a complete ban on guns immediately after Columbine, while her children’s body guards were still packing heat.
This kind of hypocrisy doesn’t even account for the accompanying extreme ignorance of black markets or the fallacy of only allowing agents of the state to bear arms.
Same book also has a chapter on taxes, busting douches like Bon Jovi and Springsteen for taking dubious tax loopholes while publicly calling for higher taxes. Same with Bono and his “non-profit” (what a joke of a concept in a country where Bank of America pays no federal taxes). Much like the carbon footprint bullshit, “Rich people need to pay higher taxes…except me.”
It’s a great read. It was clearly funded by Republicans trying to deseat Obama in 2012, but when you skip over the occasional “Obama has singlehandedly destroyed America, so vote GOP to save it” butt plugs, it’s good stuff. *To clarify, Obama has played his part in the destruction of America. But despite being an overt commie fucktard, he is but one ant in a colony of politician fucktards, many of whom are what Richard has called Commie Light (Republicans). These folks effect virtually the same result as Hard Commie (Democrats), but in a much nastier, totally dishonest, and more sinister way.
A good read from the early 90s:
Parliament of Whores, PJ O’Roarke.
Richard, I find the global warming topic very confusing. What i really don’t understand is the accelerated loss of arctic ice that I read about in the news all the time, and how there is so much less than there used to be. Is there some explanation for this that makes sense?
Dan
Ha, I was just about to shoot him the same link, Gallier.
It’s confusing because it’s quite complex, mixed with a lot of “scientific” hubris. Just look at obesity and disease. As if human metabolism wasn’t complex enough, now we have the included metabolism of hundreds of species of gut bugs and everyone is a snowflake. I just read an article about how by transplanting microbes in mice, these transplanted mice can eat poison that would normally kill them otherwise…
web.archive.org/web/20180619215742/http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/inkfish/2014/09/15/poop-transpl…
Moreover, you have the added complexity of antarctica, with both land and sea ice. Normally, all the sea ice melts by the end of summer every year, this year no.
To be clear:
1. I’m neither a catch-all “climate change denier,” nor am I necessarily opposed to the idea that the earth may be warming.
2. If it is actually warming, it’s:
a. trend prediction I’m skeptical of, especially way out into the future (hockey stick).
b. the man-made factor (original sin) I’m skeptical of. There is zero doubt that the earth has been both very hot and very cold way back, and it wasn’t caused my human activity.
3. More than anything, I’m deeply skeptical of the CO2 positive feedback PREMISE hockey-stick predictions rely upon. Nature is totally dominated by negative feedbacks.
Some mainstream media outlets are catching on. It’s actually well known that Antarctic sea ice has been increasing over the past decade, but now we see Arctic sea ice increasing over the past two years:
Daily Mail: Myth of Arctic meltdown: Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres MORE than 2 years ago…despite Al Gore’s prediction it would be ICE-FREE by now
I don’t profess to be an expert in climate change, but it’s only the melting of land-based ice that should affect sea levels, as far as I know. If you have a glass full of water and ice cubes, and the ice cubes melt, the glass doesn’t overflow. Everyone should know this, but here’s a time-lapse video of it in action.
I’ve become somewhat skeptical of people pressuring others to instantly believe any mass “consensus” after the whole mass-hysteria fat/cholesterol-is-bad consensus of the past century. Usually when everyone agrees on something that’s so incredibly complex, you know there’s some kind of political/economical engineering behind the scenes swaying opinions.
The records of arctic sea ice started with satellites, i.e. 1979. Everything before that is at best WAGS (wild ass guesses).
This means that the value used as “normal” is the mean calculate from sea ice extent going only back to 1979, hardly a long enough period to detect long term trends.
This said, arctic sea ice made a stark recovery in the last 2 years, but you would hardly know as the mainstream media isn’t reporting much about arctic sea ice this year.
You can check the sea ice page of wattsupwiththat which links to all the primary data sites.
wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
Yes. Yes. Yes.
Not only do political and economic forces reinforce this illusion of conclusiveness and simplicity, but mental inertia and laziness among the masses do as well. Often lay folks who think they are familiar with this stuff in fact have no idea how complex the matters truly are.
I have had recent discussions with disenchanted VLC true believers soon after being confronted with the evidence that fibrous starch is key to their health. They complain that the situation is too complex and leads us down too many rabbit holes. I retort that we will never solve that problem for as long as humans exist. Every time it seems like we have it all figured out, that is the time to be the most skeptical, because it means our human arrogance has overtaken our intelligent respect of the complexity of these issues and of nature as a whole.
Complex issues rarely have simple solutions. But if the people choose to ignore the complexity of the issues or are not aware of it to begin with, and both politicos and industry tell the people what they want to hear to that effect, then progress moves at the pace of a snail, if that.
Sad. But that’s us humans. Probably a good illustration of widespread fucktardation.
Haha, this is so funny, making predictions and basing policies on a toy model that aims to recreate the highly non-linear complexity of the climate :D
Garbage in -> garbage out.
And all the more when you introduce lots of feedback loops.
What these scientists should understand is that there is no possibility to control this, you simply can’t. Either you adapt on the fly to a changing environment (and actually, one can speculate that a changing environment may change us as well), or you stay back and wait for the end “laf’ing”.
Just to suggest the complexity of all this, it is now sort of known that the rate of cosmic rays hitting the Earth influences the density of the low cloud cover. This has quite some influence on the global climate, probably more than what we attribute to man-made activities. Talking about those, it looks like CO2 levels is not the CAUSE of the observed global temperature increase, but an effect.
There was a nice (French) article summarizing these “abnormalities” to the current scientific … errr, let’s say dogma …
here it is for those who can read french:
agoravox.fr/tribune-libre/article/soleil-froid-156718
What’s funny, LaFrite, is that the cosmic-ray, cloud cover relationship was out and about in like 1997, by my recollection.
Of course, it was dismissed. Yea, like let’s dismiss STARS!
A cosmic joke indeed :D
An interesting book about human effects on Earth’s climate is Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum by William Ruddiman. According to the data, he postulates that we actually should be in an Ice Age by now. But a few thousand years ago, humans increased the amount of wetlands (and methane) with rice agriculture, cut down forests to burn for smelting, etc. Wouldn’t be ironic if we accidentally saved ourselves from freezing by releasing vast quantities of carbon in a mere 150 years?
I have yet to hear climate change deniers explain how the parts per million of greenhouse gasses can rise like the Washington monument without having a effect. It’s not about “warming” per se…it’s about adding energy to the overall system. Like a water-filled pot on a hot stove stove, it suddenly gets chaotic. The energy has to go somewhere, so the likelihood is more extreme weather events on average over time.
That being said, there are many confounding factors from orbital dynamics to soot to volcanoes to who knows what else. No one can predict the timing with precision. Personally, I’m not going to buy any beachfront property.
That is very interesting, Energy!
And yes, we haven’t even touched on the potential positives of slight warming on a global scale.
Another point: humans are part of earth’s evolution, too.
“I have yet to hear climate change deniers explain how the parts per million of greenhouse gases can rise like the Washington monument without having a effect.”
Well, CO2 levels have continued to rise unabated for the past 17 years, while mean global temperature stays flat. So what’s *your* explanation?
Also, in the end, the relevant question is not, “Is AGW occurring?” but rather, “How much AGW is occurring?” If the answer is, say, between 0 and 0.5 degrees per century, then who the hell cares? All of the predictions of catastrophe *assume* positive feedbacks. The model predictions based on these assumptions have been falsified at the 95% confidence level by observed temperature readings over the last several years.
At this point, the onus of proof is clearly on those who assert future disaster due to AGW. Observed, empirical data (as opposed to unproven models with tendentious assumptions) clearly favor the skeptics.