AGW Theory - Discussion

So, the real mastermind is Matthew Lesko!

The FED pumping out quantitive easing.

Not conspiracy, only the results of mixing politics with science. This happens way more often then people want to admit, usually when it's "outed" it just silently goes away.

The theory got solid traction a few decades ago when global temperatures from the early 20th century aligned with an increase in the utilization fossil fuels. Since fossil fuels produce CO2 and CO2 is a known greenhouse gas, though considered only a trace gas, there was suspicion of a connection. Now physics puts a pretty strict limit on the amount of direct greenhouse effect CO2 can have, it's logarithmic and faces rapid diminishing returns with the vast majority of the effect happening in the first 150ppm. So the idea was tossed around that there might be a hidden mechanic at play where small increases of CO2 over 200ppm would cause an increase in other greenhouse gases. The theory got some big attention when all the numbers seemed to have lined up, then in the early 90's it hit a snag because it was only using a small subset of the numbers available and when the full range of known temperatures were input, all the theories collapsed. It's original proponents have even gone on record saying they were wrong.

Unfortunately by the this happened the more extreme political institutions had taken this on as a popular core platform and so publicly saying "whoops our bad" wasn't an option. It's like that whole "wage gap" platform, which President Obama used as a platform. That was disproved a few decades ago and has been continuously disproved. Yet even now there are some, including people on this site, who will swear up and down that women are deliberately paid less then men for the same work. There are magazines, speeches and grand political laws recommended to "address" this "urgent issue".

So no, there is no conspiracy. Just an incredibly popular, and useful political platform that can be used to justify agenda's to acquire more power and control for an entity. The only reason the conservatives aren't using "Global Warming" is because the liberals / progressives got there first. The various environmental organizations who would normally be used to spear head such a campaign have long since been politically aligned with the socialist / progressive / liberal parties.

And yet you didn't address how come in countries with no direct interest in oil there is no one disputing this.

Saevel, you should realize it by now.

If you don't agree with them, you are obviously have a conspiracy theory.

Also, you are a denier too. And a racist for going against Saint Obama.

I don't see you bothering with a proper reply. If snide commentary is all you got, well..

That's the really really scary part, and that you would even use it as a point just shows us your mind set.

If I had to guess I'd say it's because your media is controlled by your governments and is on a much tighter leash then in the USA. "For your own good" is the line used by every fascist in existence to acquire more power.

I know there is much debate in the UK but you'd never see it on TV due to the BBC washing over it constantly. The leaked emails showed that many high positioned people at the University of East Angeles where actively suppressing information that didn't show AGW in the best possible light, and all you hear is crickets.

I'm in frequently communication with Physicists, Mathematicians and Engineers who live in Europe and it's persona non grata to ever mention anything that could possibly show you might not be 100% in total agreement with the government on climate. Most are ambivalent as it's the price of doing business. One of those few moments in time when I think to myself "thank god I'm an American".

We have multiple media with different biases of varying degrees like about every other country in the world(minus dictaroships). There is literally no politician or scientist claiming global warming isn't a thing.

Isn't that like 90% of your posts?

No.

Your Italy right, just making sure cause your press sure as hell ain't free.

There is more then sufficient evidence to warrant further review and skepticism of AGW theory. Even if someone believes that humans are causing the Earth to heat up in a uncontrollable non-reversible chain reaction to hellish conditions, there is still enough information for them to admit a good sized possibility that AGW could be wrong.

That nobody questions this, or more likely nobody is allowed to openly question it, is a strong indicator that either your country lacks in critical thinking, freedom of speech or both. At the minimal there should be a sort of "tenth man" response where a group of individuals seriously play devils advocate just to ensure open dialog is maintained. You being proud to be lacking in such speaks volumes about yourself....

I spoke not about pride. Nor did I dismiss the models could be wrong, ever.

On the other side the certainty with which certain people are adamant that this is a worldwide scam is pure insanity.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Period.
Now, are the models correct? Are we reaching a critical point in 2030? 50? 70? I don't know, and I will give you that it's pure speculation that has to be constantly revisited considering the multitude of factors at play.

Meanwhile, regardless of all that the only thing I have a firm stance on is that we have to stop using oil(progressively, not in one day).

Here is a great article where the author explains the power of a entrenched government policy. He compares it to the incorrect but widely pushed theory of "dietary fat gives you heart disease so lets all go low fat" nonsense of the last 1/2 century that we're just beginning to move away from. Tie your research into the current policy and thrive, challenge it and be labeled with the scarlet "D".

Stacking CO2 is like stacking double attack. At some point adding an extra percent is virtually meaningless in terms of DOT.

No one has ever, seriously at least, questioned CO2's effect as a greenhouse gas. I stated earlier that the physics are very well known and easily demonstrable in a lab with a vacuum chamber and IR measuring equipment. We know exactly how much of a greenhouse effect CO2 has, and it's laughably small. CO2 only absorbs and remits (aka greenhouse effect) energy in three very specific energy bands, one of which is shared with H2O, a 90~100x stronger greenhouse gas. As you increase density of CO2 the probability of a photon in one of those bands making it out of the atmosphere without being absorbed and emitted gets smaller and smaller at logarithmic rate. Eventually you get to a point where the effect of additional CO2 becomes so small that it ceases to be a significantly contributing factor. That point is around 180~200PPM which has been experimentally demonstrated. Any CO2 added after that is increasing your effect by tenths of a percentage point, you need to double it in order to raise the effect 1C, to raise it further you need to double it again. So 180ppm to 360ppm is +1C, 360ppm to 720ppm is another +1C, doubling it again to 1440ppm is another +1C. So to raise it +4C you need to increase it 8x the base rate. Eventually you run out of additional energy though as there is limited amount of energy input into the system and you can never get more out then you put in. Also the Earth isn't a perfect black body radiator as most of our surface is covered in liquid H2O with a very reflective vapor H2O atmospheric covering. Again this has been experimentally demonstrated and is merely a result of physics.

The AGW theory says doubling it raises it from 2 to 4.5C. The problem should now be apparent. We went from 1C per doubling to 2~4.5, a 100~450% increase. The increase was originally calculated by saying "Temperature of the earth in 1920 was A, CO2 density was X, temperature of 1980 is now B and CO2 temperature is now Y, therefor the difference of two divided". That worked well for about fifteen years then it all fell apart as data from additional points, both historical (Medieval Warming Period / Little Ice Age / Ice Cores / ect..) and updated post 1980's was added. The numbers no longer lined up and the "super" greenhouse effect vanished entirely as a statistical correlation. In fact in historical records, CO2 raising actually happened after global temperature rises which throws the theory upside down. To answer it, the now politically pressured AGW community had to invent a hidden "CO2 feedback" that they swore must exist. They, quite literally, created a variable out of thin air and assumed it must exist. This is normally something reserved for theoretical physicists and astrophysicists. All the research after that was to validate, anyway possible, that variable and then quantify it such that the original 2~4x increase was still "politically true".

Which is *** backwards to how your supposed to do scientific research. You don't start with the conclusion then work your way back, that method introduces entirely too much potential for bias. As the years went by, the numbers kept getting more and more twisted and the explanations more and more convoluted, all while stating that the Climatologists knew exactly what was happening. The cognitive dissonance there is just baffling.

Like right now, for 18+ years the Earth hasn't warmed and for several of the more recent years it was a great problem in the AGW community. No matter how they ran the numbers they couldn't get their hidden super CO2 variable to remotely created real world conditions. Until someone just said "screw it, if we can't get the models to fit to the numbers lets just change to numbers to fit the models". And every news site is trumpeting at how the "hiatus / pause never happened" and that somehow, for almost two decades, those same scientists that said they knew exactly what they were doing, were simply reading the temperature wrong. That the world had truly warmed, exactly as AGW theory predicts by the specified amounts, and that this whole time they just had the chart turned upside down.

And yet people believed them. People nodded their heads up and down to the authority people speaking on TV. That's Soviet Science level stupid right there.

Old Soviet Joke


If even a quarter of what I've been stating on these forums is true, that is more then sufficient to immediately halt all policy discussions revolving around "AGW theory" and seek non-biased research. Those are giant *** red flags, like you can't possibly be more "junk science" unless you start reading people's palms and seeking guidance in animal entrails. Hell they nearly went to that level by having research, that counted the number of articles published by pro-AGW magazines as evidence that AGW theory was correct. That's a big logical fallacy (appeal to consensus), yet you people take it whole as truth.

It's more like stacking plutonium

I pray that's sarcasm.

And yet all we get is conspiracy theories and made-up crap about CO2 saturation.
The planet Venus says, "Hi.".

/waves frantically

HI VENUS!!!

I'm in that group, and involved with quite a lot of said members across those groupings, and can say that my experience is vastly different. So as far as that goes, anecdotal experience is anecdotal.

You also wouldn't typically go to a physicist, mathematician, or engineer to discuss climate science in a general or professional sense, as it really isn't their field of expertise. That isn't to say that they don't have the educational background to understand it or principles therein (although, like all fields of practice, you certainly have a distribution among the practitioners).

Right, Venus' climate is only hot because of the CO2 in it's atmosphere.

No wonder people don't take you seriously

The last being on Venus just forget to turn the thermostat down.

I guess mars should be pretty hot too huh? I mean they have virtually the same CO2 content.

Mars has a very thin atmosphere compared to Venus.

Venus' atmosphere is super dense, Mars is like a veil...

edit: beaten..point is if Mars had a decent atmosphere its temperature would start rising relatively fast

Oh so Venus' atmospheric pressure is why it's so hot and NOT because it's full of CO2?