Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility

Post Reply New Topic

FWIW, Mauna Loa observatory is the oldest carbon dioxide monitoring station, which began monitoring atmospheric CO2 levels in 1956. So, scientists cannot extrapolate ANYTHING accurate about global CO2 levels or emissions prior to that date. Food for thought.

Another tidbit:
http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/ea ... -recovered
The earliest temperature readings of weather using a thermometer was used in 1654 in Italy. However, these readings could not in any way be used as a reliable source for global temperatures given the limited areas the temperatures were logged in. The modern, more accurate, mercury thermometer was invented in 1714. So, 300 years' worth of temperature data is what human kind has to juggle with, and from this scientists actually believe they can predict the future?

More on global temperatures:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument ... ure_record
The longest-running quasi-global record starts in 1850.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record
Satellites have been measuring the temperature of the troposphere since December 1978. Balloon measurements begin to show an approximation of global coverage in the 1950s.

These modern methods span merely 60-100 years of temperature recording. Then take into account recording of CO2 levels starting in 1956. We have only 60-100 years of actual real-time recorded global temperature and CO2 data, the rest being pure theory/conjecture, and from this there are billions of dollars being spent on this catastrophizing. It is a joke of epic proportions.

Absolutely he does lack credibility. He's not a climate scientist. Being a scientist doesn't mean what you say about anything but your own narrow field of research has credibility. That is an argument from authority. And he's 90 years old, he's out of the loop. And loopy. He wanted to use nuclear bombs to send rockets into space, arguing that the radiation wouldn't have been a big deal. I wouldn't trust him to babysit my cat.

Uncertainty is not a flaw. It just means the models are uncertain. It's debatable how catastrophic the change will be to people. It's already been catastrophic to certain villages in Alaska, people have to design houses differently to deal with melting permafrost. While you might think more CO2 is better for plants, that is not necessarily the case. Warmer temps mean insect infestations and deforestation. Certainly the Earth will survive, but the cost to human society could very well be enormous.

I do not claim the ability to predict what effects to humans a dramatic temperature/climate change would cause. I do think that no matter what, humans are pretty irrelevant in the overall scheme of the planet, and it is human's extreme narcissism that is on display here in this belief that somehow we are significantly responsible for climate changes--and that we can curtail climate changes!--when there needs to take into account solar flares, volcanic activity, changes in the earth's orbit, plate tectonics, and on and on. Those dynamics which are much bigger than how much fuel my car burns.

Yes, I like to breathe clean air and yes I like to eat uncontaminated fish. Pollution has real consequences, however it is by far a gigantic leap to say that we are causing global warming. I am equally suspect over human's catastrophizing about the ozone layer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer
The ozone layer was only discovered in 1913. "Between 1928 and 1958 Dobson established a worldwide network of ozone monitoring stations, which continue to operate to this day." Less than 100 years of monitoring the ozone layer and humans believe that the ozone layer has never changed before throughout its geological history? Just because humans say it is so, it must be so? LOL

Actually, based on C14 studies, it has been demonstarted that ozone levels have remained relatively constant throughout the past 100,000 years (at least). It should also be mentioned that these studies are only valid up to the year 1945. After that, the fallout from nuclear weapons and weapons testing (although comparatively small in the big scheme of things) interferes with the ability to accurately measure C14 production in the atmosphere.
Whether or not humans are the sole culprit cannot be definitively proven, but it is the most likely cause that has been proposed to date.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur ... ia-qa.html

This just makes me chuckle:
"By the time Nimbus-7 was launched in October 1978, the ozone layer was getting to be a hot topic. Two scientists in California had discovered a new mechanism by which CFCs, the gas used in everything from spray cans to air conditioners, can destroy ozone.
<snip>
"That discovery happened right around time of launch of the Nimbus-7 satellite in October 1978. There was a lot of pressure on us from the science community and from Congress to show what was happening to the ozone.
<snip>
"So we were under lot of pressure to come up with a good measurements to verify what scientists were predicting based on their models.
<snip>
"Something happened in 1984 that was pretty remarkable. The ozone hole appeared out of nowhere. It just showed up in the data. It happened very quickly. In 1981 there were hints, and not until 1983 or so could you see it clearly.

This just smells... really really bad. LOL

What 1540 US adults think is about as useful as a hole in the head.

I only care what 1540 climate scientists think. That's the beginning and the end of it.

Not so sure about that. Given the geological insignificant amount of time our ozone hole has "existed" on record, I would bet on other larger geological/cosmological factors, not so much humans:

http://phys.org/news/2013-03-large-sola ... vent-.html
Tree ring records indicate that in 774-775 CE, atmospheric carbon-14 levels increased substantially. Researchers suggest that a solar proton event may have been the cause. In solar proton events, large numbers of high-energy protons are emitted from the Sun, along with other particles. If these particles reach Earth's atmosphere, they ionize the atmosphere and induce nuclear reactions that produce higher levels of carbon-14; the particles also cause chemical reactions that result in depletion of ozone in the ozone layer, allowing harmful ultraviolet radiation to reach the ground.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-03-large-sola ... -.html#jCp

For starters, you can't talk about how tree rings cannot be used for scientific evidence and then use tree rings as evidence.
The C14 levels in large scale studies take the C14 levels over the course of eons, so a 2 year hiccup is insignificant. They have identified several isolated incidents like these throughout geologic time (although that one is by far the largest deviation from the mean).
To be honest with you, I feel that the current ozone depletion could easily prove to be insignificant in the long run as you seem so certain of.

As for cosmic radiation being responsible for the current ozone depletion: I call shenanigans!
Cosmic radiation is very thoroughly monitored by a variety of methods and has been for quite a while. If increased cosmic radiation were the culprit, there would have to be an increase in cosmic radiation.
CFCs have been proven to break down ozone when in direct contact, although (in my opinion) there has been no evidence that they are the culprit, either. A correlation between use and ozone depletion has been established, but more recent studies are difficult as many countries do not outlaw, regulate, or monitor their production and use. It seems likely to me, but not definite.

I had figured you would point out the tree ring issue, which I was felt oddly tickled that you caught LOL
Anyway, I do have issues with tree ring dating, but I also find it funny that tree ring data used to "prove" man-made global warming can simultaneously throw holes (pun somewhat intended) in the man-made ozone depletion argument.
My point was not to prove tree ring theory correct or incorrect, but that--in my opinion--the debate is very far from closed.

mkassyna- we can measure past temperatures and CO2 levels using things like ice core records, tree rings, coral growth, and sediments in lakes and oceans. Ice cores are particularly useful, allowing us to examine 800,000 years of temperature and CO2 records- there's potential for these to go back even further.

It amazes me that lay people think they have realised something incredibly simple that climate scientists have overlooked. We have long temperature records. We know how greenhouse gases cause temperature changes in great detail. We have thought this through in great detail. It's just like with evolution- we know why there are still monkeys.

Eric76 always raises the same argument that increased temperatures would be good. Again, it's almost as if nobody has thought of looking at this... In reality, we know that animals are already struggling to adapt to changing temperatures. The climate is a complicated system so it is hard to make definitive predictions, but saying "warmer is better" is naive and simplistic. Yields will not increase because temperature is rarely the limiting factor in photosynthesis (agricultural science 101- usually light is limiting, otherwise CO2 concentration). In any case, enzymes operate at optimum temperatures, which are generally the temperature that the plant naturally lives at. Increasing temperature can lead to decreased yield. It will also lead to increased demand for water.

Increases in CO2 have been found to lag increases in temperature.

There is some legitimate thought that the increases in CO2 may largely be the result of increases in temperature rather than the cause of increases in temperature.

^ I agree with all of this.

Tree ring data is unreliable as it only proves whether conditions were favorable or unfavorable for growth and not what caused the favorable or unfavorable conditions. I feel that too many use tree rings as a way to fit their predictions after the fact.

I lean more toward humans being mostly responsible for current ozone depletion. And I lean very heavily toward humanity being the biggest (current) contributor to increased CO2 levels (although more indirectly than directly). I have some extremely serious doubts about the predictions of the future effects of climate change, as most predictions use models that were not developed for that use.
I honestly have no opinion on the future effects of climate change other than "we shall see."

Believe it or not, climate scientists have taken solar flares, volcanic activity, etc. into account. While these used to be the most significant drivers of climate, they have recently taken a backseat to CO2. It's not human narcissism to conclude that, it's based on data. It's been hundreds of thousands of years since we had so much CO2 in the atmosphere, a time before humans even existed and the climate was much hotter. It's not so much the heat that's the issue, it's the rate of change. I mean, is your opinion based on evidence or incredulity?

The ozone layer was also a huge problem, but we were able to address it with legislation.