Jump to content
Science Forums

Does The "renaming" Of Global Warming/climate Change Prove It's A Hoax?


HydrogenBond

Recommended Posts

That's an analogy that you're supposed to learn from, not a conclusive argument.

...

Simply saying "nothing is ever 'settled'" is completely meaningless, and is not a refutation of the level of confidence that can be associated with the current climate models, which definitely show that we've got a problem.

 

That said Buffy, a straw man argument has never been good science and is more of a political tool for manipulating public opinion. 

 

Also, from a scientific viewpoint stopping volcanoes from erupting is beyond our control but stopping ever increasing amounts of munitions from being exploded is something that is within our control, low hanging fruit if you like, but we don't go there due to narrow minded political dogma. 

 

In Australia we have been going through a 10 year period where the general public are getting so fed up with political bullshit that almost every government elected on all levels is a minority government with the balance of power being held by independents. That is a public plea to stop the one eyed political crap and run governments in a balanced way, just like how good science should operate, without lobbying or propaganda which just leads to more unscientific political dogma. 

 
And for everybody who reads this thread, I do believe that man made climate change is real, but I also believe that politicising science has never been the way to do good science and get workable solutions. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just think Buffy, if most of the world hadn't swallowed the old WMD propaganda hook line and sinker we would not have to wonder what impact the record amount of the munitions exploded in the past 15 years in the middle east/afghanistan (how may vietnams or ww2's worth[?]) had on global climate change.

The amount of ammunition used in a given war is an interesting, and not especially easy to research, question.

 

Here are some data I found quickly, and verified only slightly:

Between 1939 and 1945, the Allies dropped 3.4 million tons of bombs, which averaged to 27,700 tons per month ( http://facts.randomhistory.com/world-war-ii-facts.html )

 

The Allied forces dropped about 84,200 tonnes of bombs [in int middle East in 1992] ( https://books.google.com/books?id=y-dp1DKdkUMC&pg=PA174&lpg=PA174&dq=how+many+tons+of+explosives+were+destroyed+in+iraq&source=bl&ots=cBkXQvhjrw&sig=ytShH-x2jJJvLjFvfgdK8YK0G2M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KKMhVcOoEoyxsAWMx4DYBw&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=how%20many%20tons%20of%20explosives%20were%20destroyed%20in%20iraq&f=false)

 

By the end of the war, 7 million tons of bombs had been dropped on Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia - more than twice the amount of bombs dropped on Europe and Asia in World War II. ( https://libcom.org/history/1957-1975-the-vietnam-war )

 

tonnage of ordnance released by coalition aircraft in the no-fly zone

1999 379.5

2000 155

2001 107

( http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo020206/text/20206w16.htm )

 

Various sources I’ve read suggest that the rate of bombardment of Iraq did not increase to pre-2000 levels from 2002 through 2003, and was much reduced after the successful invasion of Iraq in 2003, after the WMD claims made by the US government leading up to it. Others suggest that the amount of Iraqi explosives destroyed 1991-2003 was about equal to these amounts.

 

So a rough answer to your question is that the entire 1999-2003 US-lead bombardment of Iraq used roughly 200,000 tons of ammunition. This is about 3% the amount used 1957-1975 in the Vietnam, about 6% of that used 1939 to 1945 in WWII.

 

The amount of explosives by mass in bombs and artillery shells varies. A short survey of common ammunition information suggest the explosive/total mass ratio is between 15% and 35%. To, as a TNT-ton equivalent, the Iraq war used about 50000 tons of explosives.

 

A TNT-ton is about 4.2 x 109 J. So the total energy of these explosives is about 2 x 1013 J. The energy density of oil is about 35 x 106 J/l. So the total energy of these explosives is equivalent to that of about 2 x 1013 of oil, which is about 0.2% of the oil consumed in the US daily.

 

Unless I’ve made a large error in my calculation (which is not unlikely – please, reproduce and check my work), then, the effect of explosives on greenhouse gases and global warming, then, is negligible.

 

Bombs and artillery shells do more, of course, than simply use explosives – they start fire, disrupt civil infrastructure, and other things that effect greenhouse gases and global warming. I suspect these effects are much larger than the direct emissions of the explosives. Still, I find it hard to imagine bombs having an environmental impact approaching that of the everyday use of civilian fuels such as coal and oil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting data set to look at comes from NOAA. This is connected to global fire maps and animations. This is a snap shot of the fire pixels due to natural fires. If you want to see the quick time movie, for 15 years of data, the link is below.

 

When I first saw this I was amazed by the amount of fire and natural CO2 that s give off due to natural fire alone.  I was also surprised that this data was not more in the public eye, so the whole truth was out there. 

 

 

MOD14A1_M_FIRE.mov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I first saw this I was amazed by the amount of fire and natural CO2 that s give off due to natural fire alone.  I was also surprised that this data was not more in the public eye, so the whole truth was out there.

So, here's the thing - the problem isn't CO2 in the atmosphere. The problem is excessive CO2. There are basically three places where CO2 is found - in the atmosphere, in animals/plants/other life, and in fossil fuels. The first two can be thought of as being part of a natural cycle - the CO2 flows back and forth between the two, so while the atmospheric amount fluctuates the total CO2 in the system remains the same. While it does change the ratio of where it's stored, the churn of CO2 from atmosphere to animals will keep things close to being in balance.

 

The CO2 that's locked in fossil fuels, on the other hand, is CO2 that's been out of the cycle for millions of years. So while wild fires change the ratio of where the CO2 is stored, burning fossil fuels adds to the total CO2 in the system.

 

What that means is that there's a horrible truth that most environmentalists try hard to ignore and try very hard to not point out to people: conservation won't fix the problem. We've added too much CO2 to the system. If we were to completely stop using *any* fossil fuels that CO2 would *still* be in the system. We don't just need to reduce the rate at which we're adding CO2 - we need to find a way to pull CO2 from the life/atmosphere cycle and store it in a way that it won't quickly be returned to the cycle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at fossil fuel, and if we assume deposits like oil, natural gas and coal came from life, then that means life has been extracting CO2 from the atmosphere for eons. Life has also been fixing it, so it is no longer part of the CO2 cycle. One large Coal deposit might represent more than all the CO2 currently in the atmosphere. 

 

That being said, at one time, all this modern fixed CO2, came from the CO2 cycle. If we reverse engineer this, there must have been more CO2 in the atmosphere, back then, than there now since it was not fixed back then. Therefore, one should be able to use that past, to show the impact of high CO2 levels, even higher than today. A view into the past should settle the immediate future. 

 

As we burn fossil fuel, all we are doing is going back to the past before the deposits were deposited. The computer models of today are only simulations, whereas the past data is settled data of what actually was. Do you think the manmade global warming economy would move resources to look into this? Or is that enterprise better served by not looking into this? 

 

Say we go at a past time, where life is on the earth, but there is no coal, no oil and no gas deposits. This ancient world of CO2 would be like burning the entire worlds supply of fossil fuel so it is part of the CO2 cycle. Did that earth blow up into chaos, or was life very lush, growing to excess, to make future deposits? 

 

I would think this data could be used as a smoking gun to support man made global warming since it would show what to expect. 

 

Say there is a critically high CO2, that triggers an organic solar energy cycle; deposits. Say this could solve the earth's energy needs, would human climate adaptation be worth it?  

Edited by HydrogenBond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why was global warming changed to climate change? Does anyone know? This is a legitimate question, with this question banished to alternate theory, which only goes to show the politics of the situation.

 

If Coke decided to change it's branding to the new and improve Coke Superior, and I dared to ask why the change, but was told this was not PC correct to ask, the thinking person would get the impression I hit a nerve that is being covered by the new facade. 

 

I will ask why the need for the new facade? 

Edited by HydrogenBond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why was global warming changed to climate change?

The increased temperatures shift a number of things relating to climate. Different amounts of rainfall, the melting of ice causing changes in currents, more severe storms, etc. Global warming is the effect of burning fossil fuels, climate change is the effect of global warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't climate change also result from global cooling?

 

My opinion is, the models were not making good predictions of the future. The new branding called  climate change became an excuse, instead of admit the consensus spoke too soon, of a done deal, based on their many bad predictions.

 

The consensus expected more hurricanes a few years back. Global warming and its extrapolations of doom, were a done deal to the consensus. These predictions were needed to scare their base for action. We are now supposed to ignore these bad predictions, since the same consensus is now telling us climate change is so hard to predict. 

 

Since the consensus was wrong about the hurricanes, that means they are fallible. The minority of scientists, who got this right, do not need that excuse. Why aren't they in charge? Why keep the gullible in charge. 

Edited by HydrogenBond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't climate change also result from global cooling?

Yup - if global temperatures were dropping as precipitously as they're rising, it'd also be a problem. For the record, there are a *ton* of ways to make the earth less human-friendly but that doesn't mean that we should ignore the ones that are actually happening.

 

My opinion is, the models were not making good predictions of the future.

Predictions are quantifiable. The models we have predicted higher temperatures, and we got them. They predicted increased ice melting and we got them. They predicted increased ocean levels and we got them. They predicted stronger storms, worse droughts, and more extreme weather all around and, so far, it looks as though those are likely true (though it might be a while before we have enough data for a good statistical understanding).

 

The new branding

That isn't new, as has repeatedly be pointed out to you but ignored because it hurts your argument.

called  climate change became an excuse

except, as pointed out, climate change and global warming are two aspects of the same thing, not a rebranding, not an excuse, just different ways of talking about the same problem.

 

 

The consensus expected more hurricanes a few years back. Global warming and its extrapolations of doom, were a done deal to the consensus. These predictions were needed to scare their base for action. We are now supposed to ignore these bad predictions, since the same consensus is now telling us climate change is so hard to predict.

I follow a lot of sports, namely hockey. There are statistics we use to predict hockey games, to determine which teams are more likely better and which are more likely worse. But just because a team is more likely better (holds the puck more, shoots more, has better save percentages, commits fewer penalties, etc.) doesn't mean that they'll win any particular game, or any particular seven game series. Global warming leads to climate changes including more and stronger storms. That only means that over time there will be more storms than had the temperatures not increased - it doesn't mean anything else. It doesn't mean that every year there will be an increasing number of storms or that every storm will be increasing in strength. It doesn't mean that there won't be years of few hurricanes, or years of weak hurricanes. It means that it is more likely than before that years will include more hurricanes and/or stronger hurricanes. A year of few or weak hurricanes no more indicates that temperatures aren't rising than the fact that the Ottawa Senators made the playoffs this year means that they're a strictly superior team to the ones that did not. Even a bad team can get lucky and win, and even a year with increased global temperatures can be lucky and have few storms.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't climate change also result from global cooling?

 

Why, yes! Yes it would! You get a cookie! :cheer:

 

My opinion is, the models were not making good predictions of the future. 

 

That's a fine opinion. Unfortunately cherry-picking meaningless factoids does not make your opinion convincing, let alone valid.

 

We'll come back to that.

 

 

The new branding called  climate change became an excuse, instead of admit the consensus spoke too soon, of a done deal, based on their many bad predictions.

 

I have explained the history of the terms of climate change and global warming in post 2 of this thread. You have been either unwilling or unable to address any of those points directly.

 

Are you every going to even try to address this or do you have no ability to do anything other than repeat propaganda you heard on Newsmax? (Note not even Fox News is publishing this talking point any more).

 

Are you capable of actually debating issues on scientific grounds?

 

I do wonder constantly:

 

The consensus expected more hurricanes a few years back. Global warming and its extrapolations of doom, were a done deal to the consensus. These predictions were needed to scare their base for action. We are now supposed to ignore these bad predictions, since the same consensus is now telling us climate change is so hard to predict. 

 

Saying "there were fewer hurricanes last season!" is tantamount to saying "record snowfall in Boston!" as "proof" that the predictions were "wrong!"

 

While at least you're not relying on "it's cold today!" as an argument here, I know you're a scientist, so quite frankly I find your misrepresentation of the time and geographical spans of these predictions is really embarrassing. It's true we've recently had 2 years where the number of Atlantic hurricanes is below normal, but you're explicitly ignoring all the AVERAGE of the last 20 years which is substantially higher than the average for the previous 150 or so years in a very visible fashion:

 

Source: Wikipedia, Atlantic Hurricane Season

 

 

 

Furthermore, it's not just the number, it's the size of these storms that's increasing:

 

Source: Science Magazine, Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment, Webster et. al. 9/16/05

 

And not only are they bigger, they're going much further north like "We-don't-think-there-are-hurricanes-north-of-north-carolina-so-superstorm" Sandy.

 

And we haven't even started talking about Western Pacific typhoons or Indian Ocean Cyclones which have been increasing in intensity too.

 

Now at the same time, you'll find if you dig that the scientists making these predictions will not even say that the data above is "conclusive" so yes, I'll call Straw Man on you here, in addition to Argument From Willful Ignorance.

 

You need to do some research and stop reading Newsmax for your "scientific data."

 

 

Since the consensus was wrong about the hurricanes, that means they are fallible. The minority of scientists, who got this right, do not need that excuse. Why aren't they in charge? Why keep the gullible in charge. 

 

Isn't wrong, there's data to show it and the "minority" is whack jobs with degrees not in climate science.

 

I do indeed think there's someone who is gullible here though, and fortunately he's not in charge.

 

 

Do not be so open-minded that your brains fall out, :phones:

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both China and India have created booming economies with large increases in CO2 generation compare to say 30 years ago. Does this show up in the data, via an extra temperature spike? 

 

According to manmade global warming, each rise in CO2 should increase temperature and cause even more climate change. \

Edited by HydrogenBond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both China and India have created booming economies with large increases in CO2 generation compare to say 30 years ago.

 

Of course they have, but if you rely exclusively on reactionary news sources you would not have seen this:

 

Source: China Coal Consumption and CO2 Emissions drop in 2014, Sandy Dechert, Clean Technica, 3/13/15

 

The facts are that China is far outspending the US on clean technologies and is making major reductions in their reliance on carbon fuels. Because of obstruction by the carbon industry and propaganda designed to stop or at least slow it down (e.g. making "Solyndra" a dog-whistle for "democrat corporate corruption!" and "solar is a waste of time!"), China may well be the primary source not only of solar power goods but the technology behind it as well as we move into the center of the 21st century.
 
Did you know that Climate Deniers hate America and are working toward Chinese dominance in alternative energy technology?

 

Does this show up in the data, via an extra temperature spike? 

 

According to manmade global warming, each rise in CO2 should increase temperature and cause even more climate change. \

 

Why yes, yes it does:

Source: Global Climate Change Indicators, NOAA

 

Notice how the output of CO2 clearly shifts upward in the 1960s as the USSR, India and then China ramp up their industrial production?

 

Now what we see in the data is clear evidence of correlation. Of course we're finally getting past the point where even the "modest skeptics" are abandoning their claim that there's still no evidence of causation, and that is probably why you've shifted to completely denying that the data is true.

 

That's sad because when you can't even acknowledge the facts, there's no room for any legitimate scientific debate. 

 

Just blathering about carbon-industry talking-points. 

 

 

Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do, :phones:

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a difference between global warming and manmade global warming. The data says the earth has warmed slightly over the past 100 years. I can accept this. The reason is not conclusive, based on precedent. There is historical data that shows the earth warms and cools on its own and has done so many times in the past. The manmade assumption has never happened before in the history of the earth. It is only a prototype theory that lacks precedence. The theory is a prototype, not a done deal. If you ever did R&D you know there is a difference between on paper and on the factory floor. 

 

If I said I build an auto engine that can get 100 mpg, no smart investor would just accept this claim, even if the consensus of his friends, says this is true. The smart investor, because this would have potential if true, but because it is without precedent, will want to see a demonstration to verify this for themselves. The prestige of consensus is not the same as a demonstration. 

 

The way I looked for a possible demonstration of the manmade prototype is to see what the computer models have predicted ten years ago, for today, and compare this to what is and has happened. If these are not occurring as predicted, the manmade assumption was weak or exaggerated. 

 

The original manmade global warming marketing brand was changed to the climate change brand. Again there is plenty of natural data that shows climate change without humans. There is precedent for this explanation. It may have been connected to global heating and cooling due to nature. We are again being sold a manmade prototype without precedent that gives the models more room to be wrong. If the hurricanes are fewer we can blame this on climate change and not the models or the assumption. 

Edited by Buffy
Off topic post moved to this thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here we have an example of that 

There is a difference between global warming and manmade global warming. The data says the earth has warmed slightly over the past 100 years. I can accept this. 

 

Looks like you've changed your mind HB. Most of your posts in the past insisted that there's no warming. Progress! :cheer:

 

 

...The reason is not conclusive, based on precedent. There is historical data that shows the earth warms and cools on its own and has done so many times in the past. The manmade assumption has never happened before in the history of the earth. It is only a prototype theory that lacks precedence. The theory is a prototype, not a done deal. If you ever did R&D you know there is a difference between on paper and on the factory floor. 

 

This is the old saw of "since man hasn't done it before, you can't prove he's responsible now because it's only a theory."

 

You're still ignoring all the data that says that the *rate of increase in temperatures* is something that is not seen in the "natural warming" episodes we can see in the historical record. Nor are you paying any attention to the data that actually computes the total amount of carbon dioxide produced by man-made sources compared to natural ones and shows that man's contribution to this far exceeds the "pollution from tree's" (see Ronald Reagan) or your recent musings about volcanic activity.

 

Your willful ignorance on the topic along with your insistence on pushing your useless prattle about evil conspiracies to sap and impurify the English language means that your posts are going to get redirected to the same Silly Claims threads we've already got devoted to you.

 

If you want to participate in some serious science, use real data and stay on topic or create your own threads rather than rudely hijacking those of others.

 

 

Remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful, :phones:

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

 

 

 

This is the old saw of "since man hasn't done it before, you can't prove he's responsible now because it's only a theory."

 

You're still ignoring all the data that says that the *rate of increase in temperatures* is something that is not seen in the "natural warming" episodes we can see in the historical record. Nor are you paying any attention to the data that actually computes the total amount of carbon dioxide produced by man-made sources compared to natural ones and shows that man's contribution to this far exceeds the "pollution from tree's" (see Ronald Reagan) or your recent musings about volcanic activity.

 

Your willful ignorance on the topic along with your insistence on pushing your useless prattle about evil conspiracies to sap and impurify the English language means that your posts are going to get redirected to the same Silly Claims threads we've already got devoted to you.

:phones:

 

 

 

 

One problem that you overlook, is the modern temperature data is done in real time, using accurate science instruments, like digital thermometers and satellites. The older data from the past, even 500 years ago, is done indirectly, through inference.

 

For example, we can use tree rings to get gist of weather between years, but this is not the same as actually measuring things day to day. Each tree ring tells us averages for a year, but not all the shifts in climate that year for that location. The tree ring data is limited. We can also find CO2 in ice, or other types of data for the past,  but that too is not real time data and needs assumptions.  

 

To get a level praying field, how about all new climate change and temperature data have to use the inference sources, used for the past, so we can compare apples to apples and not averages to real time. Real tome data  makes climate looks busier. The tree ring won't show that. This way if any of the inference data assumptions are biased, this will bias both the same way. 

Edited by HydrogenBond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One problem that you overlook, is the modern temperature data is done in real time, using accurate science instruments, like digital thermometers and satellites. The older data from the past, even 500 years ago, is done indirectly, through inference.

 

Differences in measuring approaches over time probably has consumed more time than anything else. You could not be more out of line on this issue.

 

To get a level praying field, how about all new climate change and temperature data have to use the inference sources, used for the past, so we can compare apples to apples and not averages to real time. Real tome data  makes climate looks busier. The tree ring won't show that. This way if any of the inference data assumptions are biased, this will bias both the same way. 

 

You're a scientist, you should know better. The way you do this is you replicate *current* data with *current* measurements using the old methods and figure out how to correct them to ensure you know what they were actually testing.

 

Your propaganda sources spew crap about "uncertainty because we can't know anything" that has nothing to do with science whatsoever. And you can't even repeat it intelligibly.

 

 

When you're in a hole, :phones:

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a product of my own ingenuity. I am more of writing than reader. If this is part of propaganda, those who took my idea should give me credit. 

 

Direct measurements are self standing. If these measurements occur in real time, we  can see continuous changes in parameters. The older inference data is not self standing. Thai data needs inference. It is also a range of time and does not allow one to see continuous changes. Tree rings would not allow the local weather news to make a big deal day after day about anything and everything. The one ring makes the entire year appear like an average. in tonights news, the latest tree ring says we had an average rainfall year. Now, for other news......

 

To interface these two different levels of detail and hype, you need assumptions. These assumptions need to make a movie (real time data ) look like snap shot (tree ring), and/or a snap shot (tree ring) look like a movie.

 

When you deal with a political issues that involves billions of dollars of funding, I don't trust the inference bridges that are put forth by a self serving consensus. This is why I said, why not make both sets of data play by the same rules, to factor out any room for majority rule cheating. What is there to lose with one standard? 

 

You can't go back into time and measure day to day and second to second. But we can apply the rules applied to the past onto the present. We should see all the same hype if the inferences are correct? 

 

Buffy, your solution is to discredit a level playing field. I am a scientist, which is why it has to be tried in various combinations to test the assumptions. Magic uses science to create illusions. The idea is to hide the wires so the audience doesn't see the source of the levitation trick. My suggestion helps prove there are no wires. While no magician will want the audience that close to the act. 

Edited by HydrogenBond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...