....Last time was Dr Hanson and his infamous hockey stick curve.
Link: https://electroverse.net/nasa-caught-adjusting-global-temperature-graph/
problem...this, from his opening chapter on "Motivations"...frankly, I'm equally as concerned with continuing to incinerate a finite resource that takes eons to produce...and has so many other uses that are desperately needed.
----------------------
"The burning of fossil fuels is the principal reason why CO2 concentrations have gone up. This is a fact, but, hang on: I hear a persistent buzzing noise coming from a bunch of climate-change inactivists. What are they saying? Here’s Dominic Lawson, a columnist from the “Independent”:
“The burning of fossil fuels sends about seven gigatons of CO2 per year into the atmosphere, which sounds like a lot. Yet the biosphere and the oceans send about 1900 gigatons and 36,000 gigatons of CO2 per year into the atmosphere - …one reason why some of us are skeptical about the emphasis put on the role of human fuel-burning in the greenhouse gas effect. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions is megalomania, exaggerating man’s significance. Politicians can’t change the weather.”
Now I have a lot of time for skepticism, and not everything that sceptics say is a crock of manure – but irresponsible journalism like Dominic Lawson’s deserves a good flushing.
The first problem with Lawson’s offering is that all three numbers that he mentions (seven, 1,900 and 36,000) are wrong! The correct numbers are 26, 440 and 330. Leaving these errors to one side, let’s address Lawson’s main point, the relative smallness of man-made emissions.
Yes, natural flows of CO2 are larger than the additional flow we switched on 200 years ago when we started burning fossil fuels in earnest. But it is terribly misleading to quantify only the large natural flows ‘into’ the atmosphere, failing to mention the almost exactly equal flows ‘out’ of the atmosphere back into the biosphere and the oceans. The point is that these natural flows in and out of the atmosphere have been almost exactly in balance for millennia. So it’s not relevant at all that these natural flows are larger than human emissions. The natural flows “cancelled themselves out.” So the natural flows, large though they were, left the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere and ocean constant, over the last few thousand years. Burning fossil fuels, in contrast, creates a new flow of carbon that, though small, is “Not” cancelled. Here’s a simple analogy, set in the passport-control arrivals area of an airport. One thousand passengers arrive per hour, and there are enough clockwork officials to process one thousand passengers per hour. There is a modest queue, but because of the match of arrival rate to service rate, the queue isn’t getting any longer. Now imagine that owing to fog an extra stream of flights is diverted here from a smaller airport. This stream adds an extra 50 passengers per hour to the arrivals lobby – a small addition compared to the original arrival rate of one thousand per hour. Initially at least, the authorities don’t increase the number of officials, and the officials carry on processing just one thousand passengers per hour. So what happens? Slowly but surely, the queue grows. Burning fossil fuels is undeniably increasing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and in the surface oceans. No climate scientist disputes this fact. When it comes to CO2 concentrations, mankind’ is significant.
-------------------
IMO, an excellent analogy for what we are experiencing...btw, for those who haven't heard of the book, you can get it free just by Googling "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air"...if you're skeptical of the author, check out his Wikipedia page.
Note: I check on Roy Spencer's Global Temperature Data (RSS/UAH) regularly...temp trend is up...not down.
(no message)
........not a very effective way to make an argument. But perhaps that is all the Left really has in resposne to this. Guys like Ty are religious zealots trying to spread their religion under any circumstances. Someone "interested in the science" would address the issue - either adjusting their viewpoint, or explaining why this does not change their views. But in either case, they would be condemning this scientific dishonesty from our own governmental agency. Instead, he sidesteps the central point of the thread and simply regurgitates more propaganda. A religious zealot.
Sadly, I happen to share a lot of common ground with the Climate Change pushers from a pollution standpoint, but they don't want to go that route because it falls short of providing them with their ultimate agenda.
There are two signs here that definitely should raise concerns with anyone interested in honest scientific debate. First, why do they feel the need to lie and fudge data? If the problem is legitimate, the evidence should be demonstrable in and of itself. And secondly, the use of politically manipulative jargon such as "Climate Inactivists" suggests a political motive rather than a scientific one. Actual scientists welcome debate. They also do not feel the need to belittle those who are unconvinced of a hypothesis like this rhetoric does. When weak arguments from zealots begin to fail in the arena of evidence, they change their focus to attacking their opponents themselves.
By the way, here is another time that NASA scientist lied to us in a huge and significant about this issue. Twice on the same topic.
Link: https://skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm
fudged...btw, follow the 'smoothed' average...not one month's data point.
Also, it appears that you (again) haven't read anything about David MacKay before posting...he was a veteran of the Cavendish Lab in the U.K....that means something to those with scientific training...his book "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air" was titled so as to divorce it from politics and 'religious fervor' and focus on pure scientifically supported numbers...read and learn.
On a side note...why are you projecting your religious fervor onto me?...are you trying out a new 'chew toy?'.
There used to be a mile of ice over Chicago. There used to be a 1000 mile wide connection between North America and Asia. The Oceans have risen 200ish meters in that time. Man had nothing to do with that. Man merely benefited from it.
to this post...man-made CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels takes awhile to be removed from the atmosphere...some can be 'scrubbed' in as little as 20 years, but the majority takes hundreds of years...again, reflect on the 'passport clearing' example...excess CO2 is continuously building up...daily...and it is an undeniable "greenhouse" gas...there's no debate here. You can also Google the data logs of CO2 taken at Mauna Loa volcano...steady, monotonic increase in the concentration...much beyond what has been found from climate cycles of long ago.
I've also looked at "Milankovich Cycles" and for the latest one, we are very near what should be the peak for temps and CO2...but, alas, both are still rising...these are facts. The data sources have nothing at all to do with political agencies...Roy Spencer (Univ. of Alabama at Huntsville) would actually be considered by many to be a global warming denier, but in fact he's just a pure scientist reporting the numbers he sees.
For me, there are now two reasons to get off fossil fuels...the first came after the OPEC Oil Embargo in '73, which caused me to join the nuclear power industry working on Fast Reactors...i.e. stop burning valuable resources like oil & gas and use better sources for electricity (Nuclear)....since then, the case for global warming has gotten stronger, and now is at our doorstep.
Do more objective research on this...it takes some time to "get it"...by no means would I expect you or many others to suddenly say "You've convinced me!"...start with David MacKay's book.
Link: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhouse-gases-remain-air
(no message)
the analogy that David MacKay wrote and then give your thoughts wrt the cause of above normal CO2 concentration and resultant global temperature...it would take you barely one minute to read...you certainly have shown the commitment to post a thinly veiled ad hominem...care to try again and respond to the substance of my post?
Greta won't like it one bit. BTW, u are such a bullshitter, why would anyone take what u say serious?
that he is (on all Left wing dogma), he turns around in copycat fashion and calls me out for “religious fervor”.
Ty is not worth addressing directly on this until he begins to engage in honest discussion. Because he relies on his Left wing sites for propaganda, and because they likely haven’t had a chance to spin a fake rebuttal, he blows smoke instead and tries to change the focus of the thread to something for which he has packaged spin.
Because its Sunday, I expect no answer from him about the faked data.....though I do expect follow up spin next week when the his propaganda sources get back into gear.
(no message)