Re: More proof that global warming is a hoax ...

On Mar 20, 11:24 am, Maverick <S...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
AEF wrote:
On Mar 19, 6:03 pm, Maverick <S...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Bill Todd wrote:

Dr. Dweeb wrote:

...

I have a suspicion that several contributors to this thread, should
they be capable of reading and understanding this article, may enter
into one of two states - denial or cognitive dissonance.

Dweeb
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/akasofu_3_07/Earth_recovering...

Hmmm - since you offered up this paper apparently in defense of your own
position, perhaps you yourself weren't capable of reading and
understanding it.

But I'll give you a hand:

It gets off to a good start by observing that "there is a possibility
that only a fraction of the present warming trend may be attributed to
the greenhouse effect resulting from human activities" - thus clearly
agreeing that at least *some* of the observed warming *is* attributable
to "the greenhouse effect resulting from human activities." It quickly
follows with "it is well known that CO2 causes the greenhouse effect;
therefore, it is natural to hypothesize that CO2 is a cause of the
present warming trend" just in case you were in any doubt about its
acceptance of this thesis.

Perhaps you drew encouragement from its timid declaration that "there is
so far no definitive proof that "most" of the present warming is due to
the greenhouse effect, as is stated in the recently published IPCC
Report (2007)." As I've observed elsewhere, asking for 'definitive
proof' of this kind of projection is asking for stone tablets from God -
otherwise, all we'll get are the best projections that science can
offer. And if the IPCC report actually suggested that such 'definitive
proof' existed (a 'fact' not actually in evidence, of course), then that
part of it was hogwash.

Unlike the propaganda film that you enjoyed so much, this paper does not
attempt to use the modest temperature decline from 1940 - 1975 to debunk
the idea of CO2-related global warming, but merely (and rightly) to
observe that temperature variations depend on more complex variables
than CO2 alone.

The first questionable (and apparently unsupported) assertion in the
paper is that "it is unlikely that CO2 caused any major temperature
fluctuations before 1940" - despite the fact that we've been burning
coal since the Bronze age and very actively indeed since the industrial
revolution began in the 1700s. While the *rate* of fossil fuel CO2
emission has increased dramatically since around 1940, completely
ignoring the cumulative effects of a couple of centuries of earlier
significant use (though at noticeably lower rates) seems a bit cavalier
when attempting to determine a 'natural' baseline temperature curve from
which to infer how much additional effect our own CO2 emissions have had
- and his own graph indicates that indeed atmospheric concentration of
CO2 was increasing, albeit at a slower rate, well before 1940.

Unfortunately, the author's *entire thesis* rests on this assumption -
that the roughly linear temperature rise measured since 1800 has been
due not primarily to human CO2 emissions (though they were already going
great guns by then, and kept doing so until their even more dramatic
rise starting around 1940) but to other causes, with human contributions
a relatively minor addition.

He then returns to better science, however, by noting that the absence
of a clearly-identifiable jump in temperatures *after* 1940 is likely
due to the superposition of shorter-term fluctuations (again departing
materially from what the propaganda film would have one believe). He
also rightly observes that there's no particular reason to suspect that
the 'Little Ice Age' ended around 1900 (or even has ended now) - so
positing (as he does at the end) that we're simply rebounding from it as
the result of some natural process is a bit presumptuous (given that
there's no particular reason to think any such rebound has even started
yet). And he mentions that other interglacial periods were warmer than
this one but (again, quite rightly) does not attempt to draw any
conclusions about the effect of man-made CO2 emissions from this (though
that does raise the question of why he mentioned this at all).

Unfortunately, he is less perceptive in discussing sea-level changes: he
observes that no post-1940 effects are evident without recognizing that
the short-term temperature drop more than adequately accounts for this
supposed discrepancy; of course, the fact that sea level has been rising
consistently with temperature increases over the past century is still
worth noting (for those who cheerfully look forward to a balmier future
without adverse side-effects, as some in the propaganda film did).

His description of 'hind-casting' difficulties near the end is
interesting, but says more about the need to continue working on better
modeling than anything else.

In any event, the bottom line is that the author attempts to assign only
some unspecified percentage of *observable* global temperature rise to
man-made causes (such as *observable* increases in atmospheric CO2
concentration which in fact correlate quite well both with that
temperature rise and with the amount of CO2 that we know we are
releasing - once again, in marked contrast to the propaganda film's
suggestion that higher CO2 levels are the *result* of rising
temperatures and have nothing to do with our activity) while explaining
away the rest by hypothesizing the existence of some 'natural increase'
from unspecified (and thus unobservable) causes. It does make an
interesting (if somewhat fuzzily-thought-out) hypothesis, but that's
about it - though I won't disparage him too much, since he clearly does
subscribe to the theory that there's *some* contribution from man-made
CO2 emissions and merely questions what the absolute amount is.

Funny that they don't take into account the medieval warming period
around 1200 ad. And then the following mini-iceage. Global warming has
been taking place since 1680. We need a certain amount of CO2 for plant
growth and also population growth, else we will see major problems.

I can't comment on the warming and cooling periods you mention, but no
one is suggesting eliminating enough CO2 to cause problems with plant
and population growth!

What I do see is that with the current violent weather patterns is the
collision of cold air with very warm air. In the future and following
the trend we will see less violent weather patterns.

Based on what?

What isn't addressed by GW groups is that the other planets in this
solar system are also heating up. I do see that our scientists don't

That by itself doesn't prove anything. How much are they heating up
and why? That makes all the difference in the world.

know enough yet to make the current claims they have been making so far.

I don't see that you know enough to say that.

Heck, they can't even explain precisely why electrical currents occur in
a generator.

No one knows why the laws of physics are what they are. But electrical
currents are the result of the electromagnetic force. And this force
is the best known force in the universe.

Which they can't explain in precise detail.

What is known is the following: On a macroscopic scale (with rare
exceptions), electric fields, magnetic fields, and light are precisely
described by the Maxwell equations. These are a set of coupled partial
differential equations. "When combined with the Lorentz force law and
[F=ma], these equations provide a complete description of the
classical dynamics of intercting charged particles and electromagnetic
fields." [Ref. J.D. Jackson - Classical Electrodynamics, 2nd. ed.]
Some situations are too complicated to solve exactly but if you watch
the video, you find out more about that. When we get to interactions
on an atomic scale, we need QED. QED has been spectacularly verified
to unbelievablely high precision. See the video.


It is in part because of this
that we can make so many useful devices that work on electromagnetic
fields and such. The other three forces, gravity, the strong nuclear
force, and the weak nuclear force, are not nearly as well known.

But scientists do not understand all that there is obviously. I've
worked the field for three decades and haven't seen anybody in academia
explain some phenomena at all. I've seen some SWAGS but no real
explanation. Take for example this: take a bar magnet... why is it
that only certain metals will make a magnet? Why not aluminum as well?
Or another one: melt the magnet or raise its temperature and the
magnetism disappears. Now look at the hairbrained explanations for our

I believe these things are all explained, but I didn't specialize in
that part of physics, so I can't elaborate.

planets molten iron core. How can it be magnetic and be molten at the
same time? They really can't explain it and worse, the molten iron core
idea is only an assumption as no one has been there to prove it.

You can get a pretty good idea of the structure of the core by
measuring the 2 different types of seismic waves from earthquakes. See
"Asimov's New Guide to Science" for details.

But a better question does come up... why is volcanism increasing?

If you knew the precise location of every atom and which element every
atom was and had a powerful enough computer, you could find out.


If you know the laws of physics, it doesn't matter why.

It does matter why. And another point... they don't know all the laws

See the video for why it doesn't.

of physics. This idea that academia promulgates is just a form of

That's correct, but I seriously doubt any newly discovered laws will
have any effect on climate prediction.

arrogance that for some reason reeks in academia these days. The good

There may well be some arrogant scientists. Check out the Feynman
video.

scientist knows that they don't have all the answers and knows that
there are still undiscovered laws.

Fine, but they won't affect climate prediction unless the Sun does
something unusual.

It depends what you mean by "laws". I'm talking about fundamental laws
of physics, not empirical laws. Empirical laws are subject to some
error, depending on the details. The fundamental laws may not be
exactly right, and there will be some new laws, but I seriously doubt
they will affect climate modeling.


If you watch
the video mentioned below you'll see Dr. Feynman (a Nobel Prize
winner) quote Isaac Newton in responding to criticisms that his theory
doesn't explain why or how gravity works.

That begs the next question: where are the anti-gravity devices then?
There aren't any because no one knows what gravity is precisely.

Why would knowing gravity any better imply that we could make anti-
gravity devices? OK, here's something we know to go a little deeper:
Gravity is almost certainly the result of the exchange of virtual
gravitons. So what are virtual gravitons? You need to take some
physics courses, and you'd still have the same question. No matter how
deep you go, you can say "Well what's that?". It seems to me that
accodring to your view we know nothing and therefore you'll have
trouble explaining all existing technology and what we do know.


It was something like, "I
tell you the law and you can predict how the stars and planets will go
and that's enough." Please see the video for a better understanding of
it. I think you don't need the full 35-minute intro to get that far,
but I strongly recommend watching at least that much.

The part where he says 'that is enough' isn't enough. That thought is
born out of desperation and ignorance because he can not move forward
thru a difficult thought process.

Watch the video.

He may be a nobel prize winner, but I think that that process has been
severely watered down... considering that some politicians get the nobel
prize these days that really do not deserve it.

Dr. Feynman worked on the Manhattan project. He was smart enough to
help develop the atomic bomb. do you need a demonstration of an atomic
bomb at work? Trust me, he did far more than that and without a doubt
deserved the Nobel Prize. He, along with three other physicists,
figured out how to calculate QED and get reasonable results. And he
developed Feynman diagrams, still invaluable today. You need to learn
more before making such baseless accusations.




Please see the first 35 minutes of part 1 of the excellent QED video
atwww.feynman.comto learn what physics is and what it isn't. Feynman
is not only entertaining, but he is very honest. He comes right out
and says what physicists know and equally important, what they don't
know! Very refreshing. No BS.

I'll have a look see, but I have the right to reserve any judgements on it.

OK.

AEF

.