Fake News - Global Warming Consensus

rederob · 14 January 2019

cynic said:
Would you care to point out a few of the offending posts, so that the merits of the information presented, and/or sources thereof, may be discussed?

Yes, here's a classic which thinks a simple google search proves his point - and it's from a person who says he was a scientist and worked with climate scientists:

Sdajii said:
This is a highly complex and controversial topic, but it sure as heck is not CO2. If you look at CO2 and temperature, there is a correlation, but temperature leads CO2, not the other way around (don't believe me, just google some graphs of CO2 and climate throughout prehistory and you'll see the pattern). CO2 has a negligible impact on the greenhouse phenomenon.

First, this topic is not controversial in climate science, only in the blogosphere or wherever science deniers congregate. Glaciation and deglaciation occur at different rates and there are dozens of science papers explaining these natural processes. Determining the lags is the tricky part as there are so many factors in play.
Second, if there was logic to the claim, then what is now evident would be impossible.
Finally, there is zero science to the claim that "CO2 has a negligible impact on the greenhouse phenomenon". You either deny completely there is a greenhouse effect, or you accept that the yardstick for measuring a greenhouse effect is the CO2 molecule.

<edited to add "the" to a sentence for clarity>

Darc Knight · 14 January 2019

Careful @rederob , debating Cynic in this thread is more akin to debating a Scientologist.

rederob · 14 January 2019

Darc Knight said:
Careful @rederob , debating Cynic in this thread is more akin to debating a Scientologist.

I shall stick to the science, so will be intrigued to see what comes back.

Ann · 14 January 2019

Darc Knight said:
Careful @rederob , debating Cynic in this thread is more akin to debating a Scientologist.

Funny you say that DK, it always feels like the 'TrooBleevrs' sound and behave like a cult to me.

Darc Knight · 14 January 2019

Ann said:
Funny you say that DK, it always feels like the 'TrooBleevrs' sound and behave like a cult to me.

Well Scientists backed by countless peer reviewed scientific research does tend to make a good case.

Ann · 14 January 2019

Darc Knight said:
Well Scientists backed by countless peer reviewed scientific research does tend to make a good case.

I will get back to that comment a bit later on.....keep the number of 97 people firmly in your mind!

Darc Knight · 14 January 2019

Ann said:
I will get back to that comment a bit later on.....keep the number of 97 people firmly in your mind!

Hope it's better than your previous arguments. I am always prepared to listen to reasonable arguments. Problem is "the deniers" don't seem to be able to mount a reasonable one - probably why countless Governments are onboard as believers too.

Ann · 14 January 2019

Darc Knight said:
Hope it's better than your previous arguments. I am always prepared to listen to reasonable arguments. Problem is "the deniers" don't seem to be able to mount a reasonable one - probably why countless Governments are onboard as believers too.

It is the tax revenue Governments are on board with DK.

sptrawler · 14 January 2019

Well as some have said in the past, including myself, some of this climate change may be due the Earth moving on its axis. To have it move from the coast of Canada to the middle of the Arctic ocean, heading towards Russia, is a fair bit of a shift. IMO

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01...hift-forces-arctic-navigation-update/10712742

From the article:
Compass needles point towards the north magnetic pole, a point which has crept unpredictably from the coast of northern Canada a century ago to the middle of the Arctic Ocean, moving towards Russia.

"It's moving at about 50km a year. It didn't move much between 1900 and 1980 but it's really accelerated in the past 40 years," Ciaran Beggan, of the British Geological Survey (BGS) in Edinburgh, said.

rederob · 14 January 2019

cynic said:
Would you care to point out a few of the offending posts, so that the merits of the information presented, and/or sources thereof, may be discussed?

I went back to see what your contributions were.
I could not see you link to a scientific contribution, but you made some personal claims about Cook's consensus paper at the outset.
However, the issue of consensus is not science.
What would be relevant in the context of the thread would be to show that science got it wrong.
Can you oblige?

SirRumpole · 14 January 2019

sptrawler said:
Well as some have said in the past, including myself, some of this climate change may be due the Earth moving on its axis. To have it move from the coast of Canada to the middle of the Arctic ocean, heading towards Russia, is a fair bit of a shift. IMO

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01...hift-forces-arctic-navigation-update/10712742

From the article:
Compass needles point towards the north magnetic pole, a point which has crept unpredictably from the coast of northern Canada a century ago to the middle of the Arctic Ocean, moving towards Russia.

"It's moving at about 50km a year. It didn't move much between 1900 and 1980 but it's really accelerated in the past 40 years," Ciaran Beggan, of the British Geological Survey (BGS) in Edinburgh, said.

But the magnetic pole can move independently of the geographic pole can't it ?

The geographic pole is the axis of rotation, whereas the magnetic pole depends on the concentration of magnetic materials in the earth's center.

Ann · 14 January 2019

sptrawler said:
Well as some have said in the past, including myself, some of this climate change may be due the Earth moving on its axis. To have it move from the coast of Canada to the middle of the Arctic ocean, heading towards Russia, is a fair bit of a shift. IMO

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01...hift-forces-arctic-navigation-update/10712742

From the article:
Compass needles point towards the north magnetic pole, a point which has crept unpredictably from the coast of northern Canada a century ago to the middle of the Arctic Ocean, moving towards Russia.

"It's moving at about 50km a year. It didn't move much between 1900 and 1980 but it's really accelerated in the past 40 years," Ciaran Beggan, of the British Geological Survey (BGS) in Edinburgh, said.

Interesting sptrawler. I was looking at Google earth recently from as far away as I could get. I had a look at the North Pole and was amazed at the lack of ice and then looking at the South Pole it was enormous and almost creeping up to the bottom of South America. Possibly the build up of ice at the South Pole may be causing the shift, ice is a great sink, might be building up magnetic metals? Dunno, just musing.

sptrawler · 14 January 2019

Ann said:
Interesting sptrawler. I was looking at Google earth recently from as far away as I could get. I had a look at the North Pole and was amazed at the lack of ice and then looking at the South Pole it was enormous and almost creeping up to the bottom of South America. Possibly the build up of ice at the South Pole may be causing the shift, ice is a great sink, might be building up magnetic metals? Dunno, just musing.

The say it is caused by a shift of liquid iron in the earths core, which in turn moves the earths centre of gravity, thereby causing a shift of the rotational axis.

rederob · 14 January 2019

SirRumpole said:
But the magnetic pole can move independently of the geographic pole can't it ?

The geographic pole is the axis of rotation, whereas the magnetic pole depends on the concentration of magnetic materials in the earth's center.

Yes, it moves a fair bit each year and has nothing to do with climate change.

sptrawler · 14 January 2019

SirRumpole said:
But the magnetic pole can move independently of the geographic pole can't it ?

The geographic pole is the axis of rotation, whereas the magnetic pole depends on the concentration of magnetic materials in the earth's center.

I would have thought one is a function of the other, if it is caused by a shift of a rotating mass.
If the centre of gravity changes, I would expect the axis of rotation to move with it. But I haven't studied it at all, just going off applied mechanics.
One thing I do know, IMO we are having a terrific summer in Perth, very mild.

Logique · 14 January 2019

Damn you global warming!

BBC weather: Extreme Arctic snow sparks panic in Europe after '-33C temperature plunge'
Europe is suffering a blitz of snow chaos - with several countries declaring a state of emergency after blizzards and avalanches claimed dozens of lives.
By: Oli Smith, Sat, Jan 12, 2019: https://www.express.co.uk/news/weat...reme-snow-Europe-forecast-temperature-subzero
Snow chaos wreaking havoc throughout Europe is set to get worse this weekend amid panic across the continent. The devastating snowfall has caused a transport crisis, stranded entire towns and left at least 21 people dead. This comes as forecasters predict that the record-setting subzero Arctic blast will continue to get worse...

Ann · 14 January 2019

Logique said:
Damn you global warming!
View attachment 91328

Hence the reason they are re-branding it as 'Climate Change' Logique.

It's just a jump to the left
And then a step to the right
With your hands on your hips
You bring your knees in tight
But it's the pelvic thrust
That really drives you insane
Let's do the time-warp again
Let's do the time-warp again

rederob · 14 January 2019

sptrawler said:
I would have thought one is a function of the other, if it is caused by a shift of a rotating mass.
If the centre of gravity changes, I would expect the axis of rotation to move with it. But I haven't studied it at all, just going off applied mechanics.
One thing I do know, IMO we are having a terrific summer in Perth, very mild.

There is no change to the mass of the liquid core, so gravity is not affected.

rederob · 14 January 2019

Ann said:
Hence the reason they are re-branding it as 'Climate Change' Logique.

Climate change will be increasingly more responsible for severe weather events. That means more all time record cold events, as well as hottest events.
Unfortunately those denying climate science were using use any and all "cold" records and events to show that warming was not geographically consistent across the globe.

cynic · 14 January 2019

rederob said:
I went back to see what your contributions were.
I could not see you link to a scientific contribution, but you made some personal claims about Cook's consensus paper at the outset.

However, the issue of consensus is not science.

I quite agree, consensus is most definitely not science.
Regretfully, many climate choristers are seemingly oblivious to the importance of such distinctions!

What would be relevant in the context of the thread would be to show that science got it wrong.
Can you oblige?

So it's now, somehow, up to me, to disprove the existence of your chosen climate demon/s?!!

Tell you what! If you can disprove the existence of the fallen angel Lucifer, I will happily accept your challenge.

Care to oblige?

rederob said:
I shall stick to the science, so will be intrigued to see what comes back.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/299/5613/1728

Fake News - Global Warming Consensus

rederob

Darc Knight

Investor not Trader

rederob

Ann

Darc Knight

Investor not Trader

Ann

Darc Knight

Investor not Trader

Ann

sptrawler

rederob

SirRumpole

Ann

sptrawler

rederob

sptrawler

Logique

Investor

Ann

rederob

rederob

cynic

Similar threads

Fake News - Global Warming Consensus

Investor not Trader

Investor not Trader

Investor not Trader

Investor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency