Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

[Swa]

You're a f**ing troll.
Get off the thread please.

pot+kettle

Too bad for you then because all the papers are mentioned in the videos.

Then mention them here.

 

[Sl8er]

Uh...those videos are almost 10 years old.... (Posted Feb 2010)...yeah, we've come a loooong way since then. Like a loooooooooooooooooooooooooong way.

Anyway...this thread has run its course....

 

[Geoff.D]

Uh...those videos are almost 10 years old.... (Posted Feb 2010)...yeah, we've come a loooong way since then. Like a loooooooooooooooooooooooooong way.

Anyway...this thread has run its course....

Yup. Lots has changed since those videos were made. And even reading 10 year old docs shows how the debate for and against AGW has changed.

 

[RaptorSA]

Uh...those videos are almost 10 years old.... (Posted Feb 2010)...yeah, we've come a loooong way since then. Like a loooooooooooooooooooooooooong way.

Anyway...this thread has run its course....

Not that the time factor has any relevance what so f***ing ever since that's not how science works...
Also, every "skeptic" argument I've seen here is covered by those videos, even the cloud cover topic related to the OP...

But yeah, you're right. The series covers the debate from 10 to 5 years ago... then regular updates from on the main upload channel section up until 4 weeks ago.

But you won't know what, would you, because you don't actually give a rats ass about the topic do you?

You don't need to care because you can like to be having your mind made up want jy's much cleverer than these poephol researchers.

 

[Geoff.D]

For those that still do know how to read, have a look at AR1 and compare that with AR5 for perspective.

 

[Sl8er]

Not that the time factor has any relevance what so f***ing ever since that's not how science works...
Also, every "skeptic" argument I've seen here is covered by those videos, even the cloud cover topic related to the OP...

But yeah, you're right. The series covers the debate from 10 to 5 years ago... then regular updates from on the main upload channel section up until 4 weeks ago.

But you won't know what, would you, because you don't actually give a rats ass about the topic do you?

You don't need to care because you can like to be having your mind made up want jy's much cleverer than these poephol researchers.

I posted plenty of evidence -peer reviewed papers from the scientists on the ground- including a presentation from Feb this year (with an additional presentation, for stupid people like me, linked to Dr. Brian Tinsley's).
(But you wouldn't know that because you basically just joined the butt end of the thread.)

Yeah...this thread has definitely run its course....

 

[Geoff.D]

Only because any attempt to debate the subject will always be derailed. Thanks BTW for the links some really interesting reading to be done..

 

[Geoff.D]

One of the issues I have is with the definition of Greenhouse gases (GHGs).

The one I know includes Water Vapour and in fact, states that water vapour is the dominant of all the GHGs.
Yet, everything (just about) you read in the IPCC documentation hardly ever refers to water vapour and its effect on global temperatures.

It would be useful if the reason why graphs never plot a "line" for water vapour could be explained.

 

[Gordon_R]

One of the issues I have is with the definition of Greenhouse gases (GHGs).

The one I know includes Water Vapour and in fact, states that water vapour is the dominant of all the GHGs.
Yets everything (just about) you read in the IPCC documentation hardly ever refers to water vapour and its effect on global temperatures.

It would be useful if the reason why graphs ever plot a "line" for water vapour could be explained.

I don't have a short answer for that, but the basic point is that water vapour is both a greenhouse gas, and is produced by rising sea surface temperatures. This is all part of a complex feedback process, and scientists try to separate independent data that they can measure and extrapolate (such as CO2), from those that they have to model and estimate (such as clouds, convection and winds).

By definition CO2 is a long-lasting part of the atmosphere (decades to centuries), while water vapour is short lived (7-10 day turnover). If you could magically double the water vapour in the atmosphere today, most of it would have rained out within a week. Because of such rapid turnover, and the feedback processes (both positive and negative), plotting such model parameters in isolation is not particularly meaningful.

A lot of these models are statistical, and dozens of ensemble runs are done (with varying assumptions and sensitivity) to get an idea of the likely range of outcomes. There are still significant uncertainties in the IPCC temperature range predictions over the next 50-100 years. That doesn't mean that the discussion should be derailed by crackpot papers such as the OP.

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle#Residence_times

Rivers 2 to 6 months
Atmosphere 9 days

Edit: Unlike CO2 which is fairly uniformly mixed, water vapour flux varies enormously from the tropics to the poles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle#/media/File:Hydrological_Cycle_E_vs_P.jpg

Edit: There are plenty of other useful sources on Wikipedia for anyone who wants to read more. The effects of long-lived greenhouse gases and aerosol particulates have been carefully studied and charted for decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Without going into detail, that's exactly the problem with the system of academic tenure. Once someone becomes a professor at a prestigious institution, they can continue to publish crackpot theories for their whole lifetime, and they will never get fired!

Linus Pauling published a popular book (non-peer reviewed), which was lapped up by the public on the basis of his reputation, though widely discredited by scientists in the field: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_C_and_the_Common_Cold_(book)

It's worth pointing out that he isn't posting the actual papers by Tinsley that supposedly show this. He's posting videos from a well-known climate denial YouTube channel which is making the claims, and seemingly using Tinsley's work to justify his claims.

I'd be curious to see if any of Tinsley's actual papers make these kinds of claims and what they rest on.

Instead of waiting for mainstream sources, ever thought about getting into touch with one of the **scientists actually doing the work, Dr. Brian Tinsley?


Here are his contact details:

View attachment 683147

I posted his publications earlier on in the thread -which conveniently got ignored or overlooked.
Here's the link to his publications / involvement, once more, in case you missed it:

https://profiles.utdallas.edu/brian.tinsley


** Not just one of the "jump-on-the-bandwagon-97-percenters"

I assume this is something that interests you quite a bit, so if you do contact him (and if he replies) please post how it went, here -or if you create a new thread, post the link here, please.
(I'd be hella curious to find out how it went )

Did you ever respond to Potholer54's debunking of the guy whose videos you religiously post? I recall giving you the link at some point.

ONE decent volcano going off injects more crap into the atmosphere than 20 000 years of us creepy crawlies can do.

Tax the Volcano.
Bejasys, any excuse by governments to ****usallinthearse.

Nope.

Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.

There is also a subtle characteristic of atmospheric carbon dioxide that can allows us to dismiss volcanoes as a significant source. Carbon in carbon dioxide comes in two isotopic forms. Carbon-12 is the most abundant; a smaller fraction, called Carbon-13, has an extra neutron. Carbon dioxide from volcanoes shows no special proportion of these two forms. Carbon dioxide from fossil fuels is depleted in Carbon-13. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, rising carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere has been associated with a slow decline in Carbon-13. This is consistent with fossil fuel origins. If volcanoes were the main source of rising carbon dioxide, we would not see this Carbon-13 trend.

Bombshell Claim : Scientists find Climate Change Debate driven by politics and money

True!

The ‘Historical Jigsaw of Climate Deception’: Private Notes Show How Big Oil Spread Climate Science Denial

A cache of meeting minutes, briefings, and emails uncovered by the Climate Investigations Center shows how industry group the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) used its financial clout and political connections to cast doubt on mainstream climate science until its disbandment in 2002. The GCC would for decades cast doubt on the veracity of climate science and strategically spread the message that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was a politicised body, to discourage regulatory reform that would hit coalition members’ profits.

The documents show that the group, which counted fossil fuel giants Exxon, Shell, and Peabody among its members, knowingly pushed misinformation on climate change even as the GCC internally acknowledged humans’ impact on the climate “cannot be denied”. Some of those same companies have been the recent targets of lawsuits seeking damages for climate change impacts.

Inside an investigation into Exxon Mobil’s climate change misinformation

Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry

A prominent academic and climate change denier’s work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from companies, lobby groups and oil billionaires over more than a decade, newly released documents show.

...

Unlike the vast majority of scientists, Soon does not accept that rising greenhouse gas emissions since the industrial age are causing climate changes. He contends climate change is driven by the sun.

That last bit sound familiar?

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming

Flawed Reasoning: The authors' argument claims a correlation between cloud cover/relative humidity and global temperature proves that the former caused the latter without investigating whether they have the relationship backwards.
Inadequate support: The source of their claimed global cloud dataset is not given, and no research on their proposed mechanism for climate change is cited.
Fails to provide correct physical explanation: The manuscript incorrectly claims that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide is caused by release from ocean waters. It also provides no explanation for the claim that an increase in relative humidity causes global cooling.

 

[Gordon_R]

Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming

Thanks, but I posted that link yesterday. Climatefeedback.org is indeed a good review site.

 

[rietrot]

Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming

Trying to claim that cloud cover doesn't affect the climate by blocking out sunlight is about as stupid as GordonR's claim that the sun doesn't have an affect on the earth.
This isn't something new or something controversial.

I don't have a short answer for that, but the basic point is that water vapour is both a greenhouse gas, and is produced by rising sea surface temperatures. This is all part of a complex feedback process, and scientists try to separate independent data that they can measure and extrapolate (such as CO2), from those that they have to model and estimate (such as clouds, convection and winds).

By definition CO2 is a long-lasting part of the atmosphere (decades to centuries), while water vapour is short lived (7-10 day turnover). If you could magically double the water vapour in the atmosphere today, most of it would have rained out within a week. Because of such rapid turnover, and the feedback processes (both positive and negative), plotting such model parameters in isolation is not particularly meaningful.

Lol ridiculous oversimplification/strawman. It is a continuous process. You don't have more water vapour today with a bit more rain next week and then everything is fine again.

 

[Gordon_R]

Trying to claim that cloud cover doesn't affect the climate by blocking out sunlight is about as stupid as GordonR's claim that the sun doesn't have an affect on the earth.
This isn't something new or something controversial.


Lol ridiculous oversimplification/strawman. It is a continuous process. You don't have more water vapour today with a bit more rain next week and then everything is fine again.

Your incoherent arguments would be amusing, if they didn't clutter up an already lengthy thread. It is impossible to respond logically to such nonsense.

 

[Ponderer]

There is also a subtle characteristic of atmospheric carbon dioxide that can allows us to dismiss volcanoes as a significant source. Carbon in carbon dioxide comes in two isotopic forms. Carbon-12 is the most abundant; a smaller fraction, called Carbon-13, has an extra neutron. Carbon dioxide from volcanoes shows no special proportion of these two forms. Carbon dioxide from fossil fuels is depleted in Carbon-13. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, rising carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere has been associated with a slow decline in Carbon-13. This is consistent with fossil fuel origins. If volcanoes were the main source of rising carbon dioxide, we would not see this Carbon-13 trend.

The part of your post where you refer to the slow decline of Carbon-13.
I am assuming that you know how C13 is formed.
Yes?
No?
Why would C13 levels have declined if the exact opposite is expected to be observed?

 

[rietrot]

logically

Lol. From you, I doubt it.

 

[Gordon_R]

The part of your post where you refer to the slow decline of Carbon-13.
I am assuming that you know how C13 is formed.
Yes?
No?
Why would C13 levels have declined if the exact opposite is expected to be observed?

Its very simple geochemistry, and explained in the Wikipedia article on the atmospheric carbon cycle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_carbon_cycle

Deeply buried carbon sources such as fossil fuels have different C13 ratios relative to the atmosphere. Changing isotope ratios over time are correlated with increased man-made contributions of CO2.

This is not news, and throwing around pseudo-scientific jargon does not advance the argument.

Correction: C13 is not radioactive (brain fart).

 

[Ponderer]

Its very simple geochemistry, and explained in the Wikipedia article on the atmospheric carbon cycle:

Carbon 13 is radioactive and decays with a half-life of millions of years. As a result deeply buried sources such as fossil fuels are depleted in C13 relative to the atmosphere. Changing isotope ratios over time are correlated with increased man-made contributions of CO2.

This is not news.

If the levels of atmospheric CO2 (ie. Carbon-12) is increasing, why is the levels of Carbon-13 then not increasing?

 

[RaptorSA]

Why would C13 levels have declined if the exact opposite is expected to be observed?

LOL! No.
Eish.
You have 100 grams of a mixture that's 50% cocaine and 50% babypowder.
You have a second 100 gram container that's 20% cocaine and 80% babypowder.

You mix them together.
What happens to the percentage of cocaine vs. babypowder as compared to what it was in the first container?
Spoiler: It goes down.

 

[Ponderer]

LOL! No.
Eish.
You have 100 grams of a mixture that's 50% cocaine and 50% babypowder.
You have a second 100 gram container that's 20% cocaine and 80% babypowder.

You mix them together.
What happens to the percentage of cocaine vs. babypowder as compared to what it was in the first container?
Spoiler: It goes down.

See post #359.