This is topic Here comes the next ice age in forum General Comments at The Ornery American Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/11340.html

Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
The writing is on the glacier, here comes the next ice age.

First, there's this:
quote:
Southern Brazil for instance had four consecutive months of below average weather with numerous records broken. Much of Argentina saw winter temperatures averaging 5 to 10 degrees below the long term average with Buenos Aries having their first snow since 1918. Santiago, Chile had their coldest winter since 1885 where temperatures averaged between 10 and 12 degrees below seasonal averages.

Other parts of the southern hemisphere also saw record cold weather including South Africa and especially Australia where June ended up being the coldest on record over much of the country.

It was cold in the Southern Hemisphere, damn cold. And it lasted longer than usual: “What a hell is happening this year with a seven-month winter”, asked a famous TV journalist about the unusual climatic winter of 2007 that began with fury in May and still persist in November.

January 2008 has the largest areal Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the period 1966-2008. GISS and-Ocean Global temperature index data was released yesterday for the month of January, 2008 and reports January 2007 to January 2008 appears to be the largest single year to year January drop for the entire GISS data set; a -0.75 difference. NOAA says the average temperature in January 2008 was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average.

The global warming faithful will try to tell us that record cold in both hemispheres in back to back winters is just a coincidence. Nothing more than a blip in the overall trend and we're going to get back to the warming 'real soon now'. Just watch around August when the claims roll in just as they do every summer.

Unfortunately, they'd be wrong:
quote:
Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun. Solar activity comes in regular cycles, but the latest one is refusing to start. Sunspots have all but vanished, and activity is suspiciously quiet. The last time this happened was 400 years ago -- and it signaled a solar event known as a "Maunder Minimum," along with the start of what we now call the "Little Ice Age."

Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, says it may be happening again. Overseeing a giant radio telescope he calls a "stethoscope for the sun," Tapping says, if the pattern doesn't change quickly, the earth is in for some very chilly weather.

What would this quick change look like? Actually, it would look kind of like the last winters in each hemisphere with record cold and longer than usual winters. Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov first predicted in 2005 the sun would soon peak, triggering a rapid decline in world temperatures. Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences predicts the solar minimum to occur by the year 2040, with icy weather lasting till 2100 or beyond. Kind of like the Little Ice Age:
quote:
During the Little Ice Age, global temperatures dropped sharply. New York Harbor froze hard enough to allow people to walk from Manhattan to Staten Island, and in Britain, people reported sighting eskimos paddling canoes off the coast. Glaciers in Norway grew up to 100 meters a year, destroying farms and villages.
Global temperatures dropped sharply, what a coincidence the faithful will tell us. I wonder how they'll spin the next ice age so it can be man made?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Well, if it happened, at least we'd know how to turn the thermostat back up. Just feed beans and prune juice to a few million cattle.

[ February 12, 2008, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Kent (Member # 832) on :
 
One year! That is all you have. But we have the hockey stick model! Very appropriate, que no?
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kent:
One year! That is all you have. But we have the hockey stick model! Very appropriate, que no?

The "hockey stick" was discredited. You're working with faked science on that one. Very appropriate, que no?
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
G2, if you had checked the actual GISS web site, you would have found that GISS is reporting that 2007 was tied with 1998 as the second warmest year on record, globally. 2005 was the warmest.

This even in the presence of a strong La Niña, which is busy cooling western South America.

You would also have noted the following:
quote:
The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.
So, to summarize: last year was the second warmest on record even during a cool La Niña cycle, 8 of the past ten years have been the warmest on record, yet you somehow claim that a cherry-picked set of locally cool areas are a harbinger of a new ice age.

Congratulations, I think...
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Oh, and didn't we already explain to you (last time you made the snow-extent claim) that snow cover is transitory and almost meaningless in year over year comparisons - and that your sources seemed to be purposefully conflating it with ice cover, which is now at an historical low?
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
"The "hockey stick" was discredited. You're working with faked science on that one. Very appropriate, que no?"

The "hockey stick" has been discredited by people who don't understand science, not actual scientists, who still use it, and actually know what it means.


The fake science? Any time global warming comes up on ornery, I can be certain that it is G2 posting fake science, which he will claim is the "real science," even though, if a real scientist looked at it, would laugh.
 
Posted by hobsen (Member # 2923) on :
 
This part is legitimate:
quote:
Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun. Solar activity comes in regular cycles, but the latest one is refusing to start. Sunspots have all but vanished, and activity is suspiciously quiet. The last time this happened was 400 years ago -- and it signaled a solar event known as a "Maunder Minimum," along with the start of what we now call the "Little Ice Age."
Probably this just means sunspot cycles are quite irregular, some have been six and some fifteen years if I remember, but the Little Ice Age shows the sun can indeed cool significantly for four hundred years. If that happened, it would be counter to the greenhouse effect. Of course, once it was over, temperatures would rebound even faster because of the increased greenhouse gases.

Nobody has ever said that global warming is certain or will be regular, just that it seems to be happening now. Global temperature is influenced by many factors, not just one. But greenhouse gas emissions are a strong push toward warmth.

[ February 12, 2008, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: hobsen ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hobsen:
This part is legitimate:
quote:
Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun. Solar activity comes in regular cycles, but the latest one is refusing to start. Sunspots have all but vanished, and activity is suspiciously quiet. The last time this happened was 400 years ago -- and it signaled a solar event known as a "Maunder Minimum," along with the start of what we now call the "Little Ice Age."
Probably this just means sunspot cycles are quite irregular, some have been six and some fifteen years if I remember, but the Little Ice Age shows the sun can indeed cool significantly for four hundred years. If that happened, it would be counter to the greenhouse effect. Of course, once it was over, temperatures would rebound even faster because of the increased greenhouse gases.

Nobody has ever said that global warming is certain or will be regular, just that it seems to be happening now. Global temperature is influenced by many factors, not just one. But greenhouse gas emissions are a strong push toward warmth.

Interesting. Is there any way geological to know if 400 years is about standard, or whether a mini-ice age might just last a couple decades?
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Depending on who's anlysis you believe, solar activity will either continue at the current low level or rebound.

What is not in dispute is that the 'normal' solar activity cycle has an (approximately) 11-year duration, of which we are currently experiencing a minimum, similar to what we experienced in 1985-86 and in 1996-97. Will activity rebound upwards as is 'normal' or will we stagnate at this low level for awhile? Enquiring minds want to know...

The NASA/Marshall Solar Physics lab seems to think that solar activity will start ramping up in 2008. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is similarly predicting the start of a new solar activity cycle.
quote:
A new 11-year cycle of heightened solar activity, bringing with it increased risks for power grids, critical military, civilian and airline communications, GPS signals and even cell phones and ATM transactions, showed signs it was on its way late yesterday when the cycle’s first sunspot appeared in the sun’s Northern Hemisphere, NOAA scientists said.

“This sunspot is like the first robin of spring,” said solar physicist Douglas Biesecker of NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center. “In this case, it’s an early omen of solar storms that will gradually increase over the next few years.”


 
Posted by hobsen (Member # 2923) on :
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

Wikipedia has a nice article on the solar cycle, with a couple of charts first showing actual numbers back to about 1900 and then reconstructed totals back to 1600 or so. Tree ring studies take the record back for about ten thousand years, and they show summers have been hotter or cooler, for reasons nobody really understands for the most part. But some are results of known causes, such as known volcanic eruptions, and the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is known and could be a cause.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
Did I say heliocentric?

I meant juliocentric [Wink]
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
methinks you're on the wrong thread, ken [Wink] (just like G2 [Smile] )
 
Posted by Kent (Member # 832) on :
 
Look, humans can't control the sun but we should at least try to control the general populace of the earth just in case the sun doesn't fluctuate. I am the man for the job in case you're looking.
 
Posted by LetterRip (Member # 310) on :
 
G2,

quote:
Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun.
please check your sources,

according to Dr. Kenneth Tapping,

quote:
. The stuff on the web came from a casual chat with someone who managed to misunderstand what I said and then put the result on the web, which is probably a big caution for me regarding the future.

It is true that the beginning of the next solar cycle is late, but not so late that we are getting worried, merely curious.

It is the opinion of scientists, including me, that global warming is a major issue, and that it might be too late to do anything about it already. If there is a cooling due to the solar activity cycle laying off for a bit, then the a period of solar cooling could be a much-needed respite giving us more time to attack the problem of greenhouse gases, with the caveat that if we do not, things will be far worse when things turn on again after a few decades. However, once again it is early days and we cannot at the moment conclude there is another minimum started.

http://www.desmogblog.com/scientist-bust-biz-sheet-for-misrepresenting-his-work

LetterRip
 
Posted by hobsen (Member # 2923) on :
 
Splendid, LetterRip. Dr. Tapping announces his belief in global warming, and says the late start for the next sunspot cycle is at the moment no more than curious. Combined with an actual sunspot appearing, the next cycle is almost certainly starting.

Sorry, Pete, I did not notice your question. The past has had everything from cold periods lasting a few years to Ice Ages lasting thousands of years. But major changes are like a big earthquake which will stike sometime, but will probably not strike right now. As you can see from the Wiki chart, sunspot cycles mostly move along with fair regularity, like a slightly defective clock. They are like waves breaking on a beach, and a major change is like a tsunami. It could always happen, but you would probably sit around your whole life if you waited for it.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:

The "hockey stick" has been discredited by people who don't understand science, not actual scientists, who still use it, and actually know what it means.

Oh yeah, always the mantra - we're all just too stupid. I'm sure that makes you feel better. Why is it you can put totally random data into the algorithms that created your holy symbol and it creates the exact same chart? Doesn't matter what you analyze, you follow Mann's methodology you get the same results. Must be too complex for us normal folks, thank god we got smart people like you to keep it straight for us.

quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Oh, and didn't we already explain to you (last time you made the snow-extent claim) that snow cover is transitory and almost meaningless in year over year comparisons - and that your sources seemed to be purposefully conflating it with ice cover, which is now at an historical low?

Sorry, you seem to be out of date on the data. Here is the current status: "... there is currently around 1 million squared kilometers more of ice on the worlds surface than normal."
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
G2,

quote:
Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun.
please check your sources,

according to Dr. Kenneth Tapping,

quote:
. The stuff on the web came from a casual chat with someone who managed to misunderstand what I said and then put the result on the web, which is probably a big caution for me regarding the future.

It is true that the beginning of the next solar cycle is late, but not so late that we are getting worried, merely curious.

It is the opinion of scientists, including me, that global warming is a major issue, and that it might be too late to do anything about it already. If there is a cooling due to the solar activity cycle laying off for a bit, then the a period of solar cooling could be a much-needed respite giving us more time to attack the problem of greenhouse gases, with the caveat that if we do not, things will be far worse when things turn on again after a few decades. However, once again it is early days and we cannot at the moment conclude there is another minimum started.

http://www.desmogblog.com/scientist-bust-biz-sheet-for-misrepresenting-his-work

Of course Tapping is going to hedge things a bit. He wants to keep his funding and not be labeled a "denier". With threats of funding loss and calls for being charged with crimes against humanity, anyone falling into the spotlight is going to try to appease. If you would please check my sources, you'd see that Tapping is not the only scientist involved and that his use of "we" is inappropriate as there are a number of other scientists mentioned in the article.

quote:
Originally posted by hobsen:
Probably this just means sunspot cycles are quite irregular, some have been six and some fifteen years if I remember, but the Little Ice Age shows the sun can indeed cool significantly for four hundred years. If that happened, it would be counter to the greenhouse effect. Of course, once it was over, temperatures would rebound even faster because of the increased greenhouse gases.

The solar cycle is actually quite regular - mild variations but it is predictable. Sunspots are also a regualr part of the solar cycle.
quote:
Originally posted by hobsen:

Nobody has ever said that global warming is certain or will be regular, just that it seems to be happening now.

You must be kidding - didn't you see "An Inconvenient Truth"?. Check with the AGW cheerleaders like everard and LetterRip - they're certain and I'm sure can manufacture all the links where certainty abounds.

quote:
Originally posted by hobsen:
Global temperature is influenced by many factors, not just one. But greenhouse gas emissions are a strong push toward warmth.

Compared to the sun, they're a drop in the ocean. If greenhouse gases had as much influence as you think, the late Ordovician period where CO2 levels were 12 times today's levels should not have been an ice age.

[ February 13, 2008, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by KonerAtHome (Member # 2168) on :
 
I was in the Mueseum of Natural History at the Smithsonian the weekend before last with my family as a "family day" before I leave on deployment. I found an interesting thing in there somewhere that explained that we are technically still in an "ice age", just in an interglacial period. My wife and I joked about it because of all of the talk about global warming.
 
Posted by LetterRip (Member # 310) on :
 
G2,

a hedge is quite a bit different from a refuation which is what Tappping did.

quote:
You must be kidding - didn't you see "An Inconvenient Truth"?. Check with the AGW cheerleaders like everard and LetterRip - they're certain and I'm sure can manufacture all the links where certainty abounds.
Just because I refute all of the really poor quality articles that you post doesn't mean I'm a 'AGW cheerleader'. Anti bad science reporting doesn't mean I'm pro some particular other position.

I'm unaware of anyone arguing a monotonistic increase in temperature - instead the expectation is that the average will increase over time.

LetterRip
 
Posted by LetterRip (Member # 310) on :
 
G2,

quote:
Compared to the sun, they're a drop in the ocean. If greenhouse gases had as much influence as you think, the late Ordovician period where CO2 levels were 12 times today's levels should not have been an ice age.
This is a common misunderstanding, different climate drivers dominate over different time spans - variations in solar output are important; continental configuration; distance from the sun is important; aerosol content of the atmosphere is important; reflectivity of the earth is important. Distance from the sun is the biggest driver but its variations are generally either seasonal - which average out; or on the multi millennial scale which is irrelevant to concerns over the next 100 years. Variations in solar output are important but again the variations expected over the next 100 years average out (events like Maunder minimum I believe are expected to contribute a .2 C variance in global mean temperature).

In the case of the late Ordovician it had drastically different continental configuration; is believed to have had a 'cool summer' orbit. So for the same heat retaining capacity you need far more CO2. As to why the glaciation occurred

Continental drift (changing ocean heat transport); reduced atmospheric CO2 levels; reduced sea levels; etc. See this paper,
http://www.essc.psu.edu/~bjhaupt/papers/3paleo.hhpss/Herrmann_et_al_3Paleo_2004b.pdf

LetterRip

[ February 13, 2008, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
People are starting to really notice this. Depending on whose numbers you rely on we should see sunspots every 2-5 days. How many have wee seen so far in 2008? One. We nearly had one in December but it didn't form so we had exactly one in the last 2.5 months or more. That puts us on pace for a Maunder Minimum type event which translates into a Little Ice Age. The Russian astronomers are looking more and more like they have it figured out.

I would love for them to be wrong, turning the Earth into a tropical paradise is a whole lot better than the ice ball we're heading towards.

quote:
Originally posted by KonerAtHome:
I found an interesting thing in there somewhere that explained that we are technically still in an "ice age", just in an interglacial period. My wife and I joked about it because of all of the talk about global warming.

I don't think you're supposed to talk about that. It's very inconvenient to the AGW crowd and it will get you labeled a denier and potentially tried for crimes against humanity. You better be careful or at least aware of the risk in making these kinds of potentially blasphemous observations. [Wink]
 
Posted by vulture (Member # 84) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
I don't think you're supposed to talk about that. It's very inconvenient to the AGW crowd and it will get you labeled a denier and potentially tried for crimes against humanity. You better be careful or at least aware of the risk in making these kinds of potentially blasphemous observations. [Wink]

Interesting use of language - "I don't think you're supposed to talk about that" = something that is an established fact and widely known (certainly to all the actual researchers).

And for that matter, why do you accept the scientific evidence on that, and not on any other point?
 
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 1217) on :
 
Even if, hypothetically, the sun's decreased output cools down the Earth in spite of the Co2 and other greenhouse gases we're pouring into our atmosphere, how does that affect the fact that we've put them into the air at an unnatural rate, that they do have an effect on our climate, and that when said mini ice age ends it'll be worse than ever, should we continue?

All a mini ice age gives us, if something like that occurs, is a respite. It gives us a few more years, and an opportunity to, say... decrease CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions, switch to the ever more feasible alternate fuel sources (I've read the Scientific American proposal to use solar energy, and it sounds quite reasonable, and effective. That's not even counting the ever improving wind generation) switch cars to fuel cells powered by said energy sources, undo dependency on foreign oil, suggest quite firmly that other nations follow suit, by becoming something people wish to emulate if nothing else, stop much of the production of acid rain, since we wouldn't need to use nearly as much coal, and all in all have much nicer air to breathe?

Just because outside forces conspire to protect us from the worst effects of our actions (the amount of CO2 in out atmosphere has increased from ~250 ppm a hundred years ago to over 350 ppm today. Quite significant, even if it does seem "small".) does not mean it becomes an opportunity to continue doing what we're doing.

The best use of such a respite is to make things better. I know Will Durant once said that global warming just might be the solution to the next ice age, but even so, I highly doubt we want to continue the trend we've seen.

Even if you care nothing for global warming, the things that would help fix the problem would, in fact, have a ton of other benefits as well.

Regardless: I'm curious, why is Venus hotter than Mercury again? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by hobsen (Member # 2923) on :
 
Mercury has no significant atmosphere, so its "air temperature" is meaningless. Rocks in the sun can get hot enough to melt some metals; rocks on the night side go way below any temperatures found on Earth. Venus does have an atmosphere, and air temperatures ranging from about that of boiling water at the poles to a lot hotter near its equator.

[ February 14, 2008, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: hobsen ]
 
Posted by Rallan (Member # 1936) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
G2, if you had checked the actual GISS web site, you would have found that GISS is reporting that 2007 was tied with 1998 as the second warmest year on record, globally. 2005 was the warmest.

This even in the presence of a strong La Niña, which is busy cooling western South America.

You would also have noted the following:
quote:
The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.
So, to summarize: last year was the second warmest on record even during a cool La Niña cycle, 8 of the past ten years have been the warmest on record, yet you somehow claim that a cherry-picked set of locally cool areas are a harbinger of a new ice age.

Congratulations, I think...

And of course what the "ha ha, there goes global warming crowd!" fail to mention is that while La Niña's been doing its thing in South America, its angry older brother El Niño has been royally screwing Australia for pretty much the entire last decade, giving us warm dry summers and mild dry winters and wrecking our agricultural sector with the worst droughts since records began down here.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by vulture:
Interesting use of language - "I don't think you're supposed to talk about that" = something that is an established fact and widely known (certainly to all the actual researchers).

Not quite, "I don't think you're supposed to talk about that" = facts contradicting AGW orthodoxy get you in big trouble. You can lose your job, your freedom and even your life if you get convicted of crimes against humanity.

quote:
Originally posted by 0Megabyte:
...the amount of CO2 in out atmosphere has increased from ~250 ppm a hundred years ago to over 350 ppm today. Quite significant, even if it does seem "small".)

The focus is always on the last 100 years for a very specific reason - it skews the picture of what's going on in favor of AGW. Let's talk about real history a bit. What are the historic levels of CO2? At 350 ppm today, we are at record lows. It has been as high as 7000 ppm and averages around 2500 ppm. The average CO2 level is 7 times today's and peaks as high as 18 times today's. There is only one other period in the last 600 million years we've seen CO2 levels this low (the Carboniferous Period, about 300 million years ago). 350 ppm is nothing compared to historical levels; a rise of 100 ppm is insignificant.

How about global temperatures, what should they be? As was pointed out earlier, the planet is currently within an interglacial period of an ice age (that means it's still very cold,just no glaciers). It could be the end of the ice age or just a break, either way the temperature goes up simply because we're a t record lows - it pretty much has nowhere else to go. We're around 54° F today but we've been as high as 68° F. That 54° F (today) is about as cold as it's ever been in the last 600 million years. The historical average for Earth is around 62° F.

If we truly look at history, instead of the artificial cut off of the end of the Little Ice Age the AGW cheerleaders rely on, we see that rising CO2 levels and increasing temperatures should be happening. Using historical performance as indicators of future levels (and what better data can we use), we should clearly expect to see what we're seeing regardless of anything people are doing.

Meanwhile, if we look at the solar minimums: Maunder Minimum (1645-1715,), Spörer Minimum (1420-1570) and the Dalton Minimum (1790-1830), what do they all have in common? They all coincided with a period of lower than average global temperatures. Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, and three times is a pattern.
quote:
Originally posted by 0Megabyte:
Even if, hypothetically, the sun's decreased output cools down the Earth in spite of the Co2 and other greenhouse gases we're pouring into our atmosphere, how does that affect the fact that we've put them into the air at an unnatural rate, that they do have an effect on our climate, and that when said mini ice age ends it'll be worse than ever, should we continue?

I'm not sure how you can say decreased output from the sun would only hypothetically cool the Earth. It's obvious that it would.

What makes you think we've done anything at an unnatural rate? CO2 levels have risen drastically in the past before there were humans so we know that it can happen naturally and it can happen in large volumes - volumes that dwarf today's human output.

[ February 15, 2008, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by kelcimer (Member # 1221) on :
 
It's the Sun, stupid!

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html

quote:
Earth is heating up lately, but so are Mars, Pluto and other worlds in our solar system, leading some scientists to speculate that a change in the sun’s activity is the common thread linking all these baking events.
Look, if other planets in our solar system have been heating up at the same time we have been there's only one common denominator: the sun. Yes, we polute. Yes, we should see about doing something about it. But are we causing global warming? No. No, we are not. It is hubris to think that we are.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
How many planets and moons are there in the solar system?

Are they all warming, or just the 4-5 bodies mentioned in the article?

And have they all been warming consistently with Earth's warming trend (with a pause following WWII and sudden dramatic warming over the past 25 years?)
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
"Look, if other planets in our solar system have been heating up at the same time we have been there's only one common denominator: the sun. Yes, we polute. Yes, we should see about doing something about it. But are we causing global warming? No. No, we are not. It is hubris to think that we are."

Well, kelcimer, if you run through the math, and a number of people have, it turns out that the warming trends on other bodies in the solar system accounts for, at most, 20% of the warming we have experienced.
 
Posted by LetterRip (Member # 310) on :
 
That has to be something that perplexes me most about those who post anti-AGW threads (or about science threads in general). The read an article, and conclude that scientists are wrong and morons who never contemplated the possibility that this could be the cause; or point to a 'inconvenient fact' and conclude the scientists have never looked into the topic.

Kelcimer and G2 - you both seem frequent culprits in this - what evidence do you have that scientists are generally incompetent that would lead you to believe they are specifically incompetent as relates to the sciences related to climate or evolution?

Does the fact that every objection you raise has been quickly identified to be an error in your understanding (or an error on the behalf of the article writer you point to) give you any sort of incentive to stop and consider that perhaps you are being irrational in your beliefs and actions on the subject?

I don't understand how one can be wrong so often, and yet continue to post such simplistic and easily countered arguments and maintain belief in ones rationality.

LetterRip
 
Posted by Kent (Member # 832) on :
 
LetterRip, if only it were as you say it is. You can find plenty of scientists who disagree about this topic and the role humans play in it. You pick your experts and I'll pick mine.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
"LetterRip, if only it were as you say it is. You can find plenty of scientists who disagree about this topic and the role humans play in it. You pick your experts and I'll pick mine."

And over 95% of the experts in climatology that we find will back the position LR and i stake out, and only a very tiny percentage will back the position that G2 and kelcimer stake out. And if we look at peer reviwed articles, the difference is even greater.

Wht there IS is a media push to make it appear as if both sides are equally credible.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
That has to be something that perplexes me most about those who post anti-AGW threads (or about science threads in general). The read an article, and conclude that scientists are wrong and morons who never contemplated the possibility that this could be the cause; or point to a 'inconvenient fact' and conclude the scientists have never looked into the topic.

Actually, I have posted numerous articles from a variety of scientists and scientific disciplines. This has to be something that perplexes me most about the AGW cheerleaders. They read an article, and conclude that's the only one ever written that contradicts their views.

quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Kelcimer and G2 - you both seem frequent culprits in this - what evidence do you have that scientists are generally incompetent that would lead you to believe they are specifically incompetent as relates to the sciences related to climate or evolution?

I have the exact same evidence that lead you to believe the opposite of any scientist not supporting your views. The only difference is I don't call for their loss of accreditation or threaten their funding. One had to wonder why the AGW crowd feels the need to resort to threats if the science is so "settled".
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Does the fact that every objection you raise has been quickly identified to be an error in your understanding (or an error on the behalf of the article writer you point to) give you any sort of incentive to stop and consider that perhaps you are being irrational in your beliefs and actions on the subject?

Let me rephrase that, you menat, "Does the fact that every objection you raise I have quickly identified to be an error in your understanding (or an error on the behalf of the article writer you point to) give you any sort of incentive to stop and consider that perhaps you are being irrational in your beliefs and actions on the subject?" See, it's only your opinion - nothing more. Notice how you're getting to the approved treatment of deniers - we're irrational in our beliefs? You once again are heading into the "everyone is just too stupid" while you simultaneously ignore any evidence contradicting your position as if it never actually occurred.
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
I don't understand how one can be wrong so often, and yet continue to post such simplistic and easily countered arguments and maintain belief in ones rationality.

This actually more accurately describes you than anyone else on this forum. [Wink]
 
Posted by Kent (Member # 832) on :
 
Great assertion Ev, care to back it up?
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
And over 95% of the experts in climatology that we find will back the position LR and i stake out, and only a very tiny percentage will back the position that G2 and kelcimer stake out. And if we look at peer reviwed articles, the difference is even greater.

Part of that inequity is the result of threats and intimidation by the AGW crowd. You seem to think those things don't happen but it's well documented that it does. You actually have no idea what percentage agree with you and what percentage are merely saying what they have to so they avoid character assassination, loss of funding and the threat of "Nuremberg style" trials.

One thing that is obvious is that the tide is turning on this and scientists are starting to speak out. You need to get on the ice age side so you can claim you were always on it.
 
Posted by kelcimer (Member # 1221) on :
 
quote:
And over 95% of the experts in climatology that we find will back the position LR and i stake out, and only a very tiny percentage will back the position that G2 and kelcimer stake out. And if we look at peer reviwed articles, the difference is even greater. [/QB]
Pointing to consensus to determine a scientific truth is a fallacy. There are reasons that "man made global warming" has become a supported notion, both in terms of money and politics. But more and more scientists are coming out decrying the global warming hoax in the past few years. In the years to come you'll only see more.

And "peer reviewed" doesn't mean the same thing now as it did a few decades ago.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
G2,

quote:
Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun.
please check your sources,

according to Dr. Kenneth Tapping,

quote:
. The stuff on the web came from a casual chat with someone who managed to misunderstand what I said and then put the result on the web, which is probably a big caution for me regarding the future.

It is true that the beginning of the next solar cycle is late, but not so late that we are getting worried, merely curious.

It is the opinion of scientists, including me, that global warming is a major issue, and that it might be too late to do anything about it already. If there is a cooling due to the solar activity cycle laying off for a bit, then the a period of solar cooling could be a much-needed respite giving us more time to attack the problem of greenhouse gases, with the caveat that if we do not, things will be far worse when things turn on again after a few decades. However, once again it is early days and we cannot at the moment conclude there is another minimum started.

http://www.desmogblog.com/scientist-bust-biz-sheet-for-misrepresenting-his-work

LetterRip

His equivocation is interesting but if we're going to check sources then really get it straight and let's go straight to Tapping himself:
quote:
The chance of another Maunder Minimum happening now is low. However, when activity starts building again, we can all relax.
If he's not worried about the sun, why would he be looking forward to a period when "we can all relax"? What state is he in now that he needs to relax from?

What is Tapping's opinion on solar variance? Goes like this:
quote:
The Maunder Minimum fell in a period known as the "Little Ice Age", where summers were cool, wet and miserable, and the winters were colder and longer than usual, and we believe decades of reduced solar energy output were responsible.
He believes the reduction in solar output were responsible for the "Little Ice Age". Quite a bit different from the equivocating "casual conversation" deflection Tapping told a blog that is dedicated to AGW (that was LetterRip's source).

What are we to make of that? When Tapping can speak freely, it's the sun and there is some cause for alarm. When he has the screws put to him by an AGW blog, it was all just a misunderstanding. Yeah, sure it is.

In another link Tapping is talking about the sun's Flux Density Values:
quote:
Typically as you go through the ten or eleven year solar activity cycle you see the numbers go up or down. The lowest number is 64 or 68. The numbers 71 or 72 are very low, but they usually start to go up. We are at the end of a cycle, but the numbers still haven’t gone up. We have been joking around coffee that we may be seeing the Sun about to shut down.
On that day we stood here:
Observed Flux Density : 0073.6

Flux Density Adjusted for 1 A.U. : 0071.4

Where are we today, about 2 weeks later? Right about here:
Observed Flux Density : 0070.1

Flux Density Adjusted for 1 A.U. : 0068.3

I wonder how much more relaxed Tapping is today vs. his article last fall or even 2 weeks ago?
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
G2

In all the time I have been here, only once have I ever thought LR posted something that was pretty irrational- with the exception of joke threads. I'd submit that many times, LR has been the person who has provided links that often expose simplicity and error in other people's arguments.

Frankly, for every bit of evidence provided by either side on this issue, there is just as credible counter evidence. It reflects the juvenile stage of climatology in general. It isn't a scientific tradition with hundreds of years of methodology and evaluation to draw upon. Rather, it is a science that is not even fifty years old. But that doesn't mean that scientists on either side of this issue are sloppy by default.

I don't personally think humans are having either a massive impact nor a minimal impact. And science is tending to support both potentialities. Some evidence seems to indicate humans and their activities are 99% responsible, while others seem to indicate we are having no measurable effect at all.

Both extreme positions are likely in error. Common sense and localized example seems to indicate that any species living in an environment will have both positive and negative effects upon the environment that contains them. Humans must be having an impact on the environment. For those old enough to remember what the USA environmental state was in the 1970's, they remember air too polluted to breath most of the time. They remember soil too toxic to support anything. They remember water impossible to drink. And they remember our rivers and oceans being so toxic you could neither swim in them or even go fishing.

Clearly we had an impact. And clearly we did something about it. We have improved upon every single one of those statistics to the point that our environment in many cases is better than it was in 1900. Then again when we first past laws to deal with this problem, we also thought almost all wildlife would become extinct, our agricultural system would collapse, humanity itself would lose at least 1 billion people, and the world would be in the grips of a new Ice Age no later than 2000 A.D.

My point is that most of our assumptions were wrong. More animals roam wild now than before. Our agriculture didn't collapse. We didn't see a billion people die of climate and pollution based catastrophes. And now of course, we are on the perpetual verge of a Global Warming. What could have happened if we hadn't past the Soil, Air, and Water Conservation Acts? Would the science of forty years ago turned out the way many scientists predicted? We don't know because we effectively changed the input side of the equation. We took steps to mitigate our impact on the environment, and by most objective standards we enjoy an improved environment as a result- even though we can't be sure what we did was an actual cause for the improvement.

Having gone to school when Global Cooling was the then current and most factual issue in climatology, I tend to take the Global Warming advocates with a grain of salt. Not because they are not right, but because there is so much we don't know about climatology on even a local scale that it seems highly improbable that they can make a whole system prediction as to a global condition. Whatever happens is going to be something that takes centuries to manifest, won't likely be as bad or as good as people suggest, and is likely far beyond our technological power to solve or predict.

The best we can do is look at individual data and recognize those we can do something about and those we can't. It makes almost no sense for us to keep using incandescent bulbs instead of better alternatives. If we know parking asphalt parking lots account for 50% of the heat sink generation in a city, maybe we should paint them white, use grasscrete, or maybe mandate more trees to cover the area under a foliage canopy. If we know commercial building roofs are great places for solar arrays, then why not turn them into solar arrays?

There are hundreds of realistic things that can be done to mitigate those items we recognize as being caused by humans. In then end it probably won't cause or prevent any climatic change on a global scale, but it should improve the way we use our environment.

Frankly scientists go where the funding is. Right now you will get a grant to research why using driftwood causes global warming. You won't get a grant to research why driftwood does not cause global warming. If you could go back 25 years ago, scientists would have been all over grants to research why driftwood causes global cooling.

It is the nature of the scientific industry. You just have to hope they follow the scientific method well enough to eventually arrive at a more exact theory. Right now AGW seems to be supported more than not. Doesn't mean it is fact. Just means it is the current theory.

Expect it to be replaced.

But in the meantime would it kill us to do as Boy Scouts do, and try to leave nothing but footprints? No one alive right now is going to know whether AGW is even true. But if we can do something that lessens our impact on the environment without biting our own noses off, why not do it?

But I don't think most people who are currently arguing for AGW causality and climate change are doing it simply because they think they are right. There is so much evidence out there that indicates that at the very least, the theory doesn't account for much of the data. But if some evidence shows we are indeed the cause of specific effects due to specific actions by us, could we solve that cause and effect without accusing each other of being parts of conspiracies?
 
Posted by kelcimer (Member # 1221) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
But in the meantime would it kill us to do as Boy Scouts do, and try to leave nothing but footprints? No one alive right now is going to know whether AGW is even true. But if we can do something that lessens our impact on the environment without biting our own noses off, why not do it?

Sounds fine, but that is not what the AGW crowd advocates. They want things like Kyoto which would destroy the American economy.

[ February 15, 2008, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: kelcimer ]
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
But in the meantime would it kill us to do as Boy Scouts do, and try to leave nothing but footprints?

If it was just as innocent as that statement implies, then I'd be on board. Unfortunately, the impact goes far beyond mere boy scout naivety. The ultimate solutions range from shackling the US economy with massive taxes and restrictions on industry (while exempting the biggest single polluting nation) to radical ideas like population caps and atmospheric seeding with sulfur particles - and after that it gets really crazy.

If the AGW movement was about only protecting the environment, I'd believe they're simply misled but it's not about that and you know it - or you should. This is a massive attempt to extend a sphere of influence over all of us through fear, and when that doesn't work, then through threats and intimidation. I don't believe the boy scouts take that approach.

quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
In all the time I have been here, only once have I ever thought LR posted something that was pretty irrational- with the exception of joke threads. I'd submit that many times, LR has been the person who has provided links that often expose simplicity and error in other people's arguments.

Perhaps that is his usual demeanor but with AGW he has played the part he usually exposes. I routinely provide a large body of links to many fields of science that contradict AGW. His rebuttal is to find a link to an AGW blog where the scientist in intimidated into softening his stance or to merely dismiss everyone disagreeing with him as irrational or stupid (often not is so many words but clearly enough as in his above post).

When the science is "settled" and only fools and irrational people do not submit to the belief system and it's attendant cures such that there are threats of loss of livelihood and criminal prosecution, don't you have some concern that they're not the boy scouts trying to save the planet?

[ February 15, 2008, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
Which is why we point out Kyoto is seriously flawed. It was a political statement, instead of a scientific statement.

If you declare Global Warming to be the single greatest threat to humanity and then propose that the United States must cut its emission levels to a certain level that offsets not only the USA's impact but also China's impact- yet China does not have to cut its existing emission levels, then one must assume that the USA is being told to counteract the inability of a country of 1 billion people to take responsibility for its global impact.

Time for a new Kyoto. One that says everyone must meet a certain threshold, equally. And while countries like India, China, and Indonesia refuse to control their own emissions, we go on to looking at our own impacts and constructively mitigate those impacts.

We know old coal fire plants cause problems. We replace them with new coal fire plants, nuclear plants, or solar arrays. E know hydrgen fuel cell cars would be best, so that is what we build.

We don't wait for China/India/Indonesia to get on board. We do something proactive. When they realize we are solving the problem of our own pollution, maybe they will realize they have to also solve their pollution problem if they want to stay in the economic pool. If the USA passed a law that said any electricity used to manufacture a product must come from 50% non-polluting power generation facility, then how long would China go before it replaced its coal fired plants?

Kyoto was a dreadful political statement. Summarized, it says the world faces global warming, and while the rest of the world continues developing its economies as it sees fit to do, the United States will dramatically cut its economic development, spend billions to mitigate world-wide climate change, & provide cash to all other nations so they can first become as advanced as the USa before they begin mitigating their own pollution problems.

Some of these nations will need centuries to catch up with the USA economy and infrastructure. By then even if the USA has reverted to hunter/gatherers- the pollution from the rest of the world will have driven humanity into extinction.

It doesn't kill us to change a light-bulb. But Kyoto essentially told the USA that it had to not only change the lightbulb, but ration electricity & give money to other countries so that they could install arc lights on every street corner that run 24/7.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
Which is why we point out Kyoto is seriously flawed. It was a political statement, instead of a scientific statement.

Nearly every "solution" is similarly political or flawed. As you stated earlier, the science is in it's infancy yet we're told we need to rush headlong into the solutions. Specious solutions to half baked science is risky at best and potentially disastrous.

quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
We don't wait for China/India/Indonesia to get on board. We do something proactive. When they realize we are solving the problem of our own pollution, maybe they will realize they have to also solve their pollution problem if they want to stay in the economic pool.

This is naive. When we do "something proactive" it will cause economic costs that other nations will not have to bear and we lose competitive advantages. When they realize they have a chance at becoming economically superior to us, they will push that advantage. Crippling our economy is far from an incentive for others to do the same.


quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
Summarized, it says the world faces global warming, and while the rest of the world continues developing its economies as it sees fit to do, the United States will dramatically cut its economic development, spend billions to mitigate world-wide climate change, & provide cash to all other nations so they can first become as advanced as the USa before they begin mitigating their own pollution problems.

Some of these nations will need centuries to catch up with the USA economy and infrastructure. By then even if the USA has reverted to hunter/gatherers- the pollution from the rest of the world will have driven humanity into extinction.

It doesn't kill us to change a light-bulb. But Kyoto essentially told the USA that it had to not only change the lightbulb, but ration electricity & give money to other countries so that they could install arc lights on every street corner that run 24/7.

And there you have it, that's what it's all about. Bringing down the USA.
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
G2

The point is, for every link you provide- there is another link equally as compelling that contradicts your link. It doesn't matter if you start the thread or LR starts the thread. Whatever either of you come up with, the other can counter.

Meaning no matter what either side says, the state of the science is immature. 30 years ago the theory was we were all going to be freezing by 2000. Right now the theory is 30 years from now the globe will be so hot that Antarctica Hotel resorts will all be clothing optional.

I honestly think people in their teens & twenties who took highschool classes that preach Global Warming are as absolutely sure of the theory as I was 20 years ago when I was taking Global Cooling courses. It doesn't mean that AGW scientists are evil. It doesn't mean their opponents are as pure as new fallen snow.

But in terms of Ornery, recognize that the person sitting across the table from you may only be looking at information that supports only one point of view. A lot of people here probably are completely ignorant of what climatologists were saying 30 years ago. I remember one PBS special where some climatologist was saying that the 1980's were the beginning of the end since each year was colder than the last and by 2000 many of our interstates in the northern tier of states would be running under snow tunnels most of the year. That ranks right up there with Al Gore saying that Manhattan and Florida will be gone in thirty years.

Just don't assume that the people on Ornery are intentionally deluded. And for that matter, recognize that even though the overall debate may be heated, none of us are climatologists. We don't know the exceptions to data sets or what an anomaly means in certain context. What seems to be an obvious support for one side of the argument may indeed be a refutation of the argument on only a specific point.

I do think it is a boy scout issue. Put your money where your mouth is. Buy insulation. Buy extremely energy efficient devices. Think about packaging and shipping costs. Think about sustainability. If most of us did- the debate over AGW would essentially vanish because the more energy efficient we are the better that our environment and our economy does.

If someone has to declare that AGW is fact-let them. Science says it probably isn't. Show your side of the argument with your own counterfacts. But don't assume that PC thought has completely turned science on its ear. Most scientists wouldn't fudge data even if it meant cash in their own pocket. Because people disagree with your point of view doesn't mean that the scientists they cite are dirtied by a George Soros conspiracy.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
Maybe I underestimated the threat posed by AGW, Nessie's dead:
quote:
Despite having hundreds of sonar contacts over the years, the trail has since gone cold and Rines believes that Nessie may be dead, a victim of global warming.
It can only be a matter of time before even Bigfoot and the Chupacabra is also threatened with extinction. Reskullvw has convinced me that if I had bought better insulation Nessie may be alive today so I think we should all get out there and spend those tax rebate checks on "green" products and R-49 insulation (or r-50, whatever it takes) before we lose Sasquatch and even the aliens quit visiting in their UFO's.

We're running out of time. On Jan 26, 2006 Al Gore told us we had only 10 years so we're down to just 8. After that, global warming induced rape waves will destroy society. Zombie attacks will increase by just over 32%, perhaps beyond even our ability to repel them. Lizards will undergo sudden sex changes potentially ushering in the age of the Sleestack.

It's basically the end of everything. Damn, if only I'd thought more about packaging and shipping costs this would have all been averted.
 
Posted by mdgann (Member # 2572) on :
 
LetterRip said,"Distance from the sun is the biggest driver"

Did anyone ever call LR on this one?
I don't have time right now to read this entire topic.
Actually, angle of the earth to the suns rays has a much "bigger driver". In the summer we are farther from the sun and closer in the winter. In summer the suns rays hit us much more directly and contribute more of their energy to warming the earth than in the winter when we are closer but receive a glancing blow.
 
Posted by LetterRip (Member # 310) on :
 
Red,

quote:

The point is, for every link you provide- there is another link equally as compelling that contradicts your link. It doesn't matter if you start the thread or LR starts the thread. Whatever either of you come up with, the other can counter.

That is most definitely not the case - once he posts something generally I find that it is wrong, post the link showing it fairly conclusively, he ignores the post, and then he jumps to another unrelated topic.

quote:

Meaning no matter what either side says, the state of the science is immature.

Depends on what you mean by 'immature' - if not fully developed then I fully agree. Also there are many areas that people speak well beyond what the science is capable of informing us on with any accuracy.

quote:
30 years ago the theory was we were all going to be freezing by 2000.
That is a common myth but is wrong. For instance see wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

and this realclimate post

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

LetterRip
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Red,

quote:

The point is, for every link you provide- there is another link equally as compelling that contradicts your link. It doesn't matter if you start the thread or LR starts the thread. Whatever either of you come up with, the other can counter.

That is most definitely not the case - once he posts something generally I find that it is wrong, post the link showing it fairly conclusively, he ignores the post, and then he jumps to another unrelated topic.
You completely ignore everything and occasionally point to partisan blogs that support only your viewpoint and think you made a point? Jeez, I thought the sleestack thing was funny...

I notice you never address the tough questions but routinely cherry pick things you think you can score on - like the Tapping equivocation although I did link back to his own words showing the reality but I notice you have skipped to unrelated topics. It's ok, just forget ... you'll feel better soon.

quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:

quote:
30 years ago the theory was we were all going to be freezing by 2000.
That is a common myth but is wrong. For instance see wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

and this realclimate post

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

That's a bit of historical revision. How old were you then - aren't you 20 something? I recall seeing this on the nightly news quite a bit but since you can't link to a 70 era news broadcast it must have never happened. It was all the rage. But it's all been done before:
quote:
LOBAL COOLING: 1890s-1930s

The Times, February 24, 1895
"Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again"
Fears of a "second glacial period" brought on by increases in northern glaciers and the severity of Scandinavia's climate.

New York Times, October 7, 1912
"Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age"

Los Angeles Times, June 28, 1923
"The possibility of another Ice Age already having started ... is admitted by men of first rank in the scientific world, men specially qualified to speak."

Chicago Tribune, August 9, 1923
"Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada."

Time Magazine, September 10, 1923
"The discoveries of changes in the sun's heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age."

New York Times, September 18, 1924
"MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age"

GLOBAL WARMING: 1930s-1960s

New York Times, March 27, 1933
"America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise"

Time Magazine, January 2, 1939
"Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right.... weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer."

Time Magazine, 1951
Noted that permafrost in Russia was receding northward at 100 yards per year.

New York Times, 1952
Reported global warming studies citing the "trump card" as melting glaciers. All the great ice sheets stated to be in retreat.

U.S. News and World Report, January 18, 1954
"[W]inters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing."

GLOBAL COOLING: 1970s

Time Magazine, June 24, 1974
"Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

Christian Science Monitor, August 27, 1974
"Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster than Even Experts Expect"
Reported that "glaciers have begun to advance"; "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter"; and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool".

Science News, March 1, 1975
"The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed, and we are unlikely to quickly regain the 'very extraordinary period of warmth' that preceded it."

Newsweek, April 28, 1975
"The Cooling World"
"There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now."

International Wildlife, July-August, 1975
"But the sense of the discoveries is that there is no reason why the ice age should not start in earnest in our lifetime."

New York Times, May 21, 1975
"Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable"

GLOBAL WARMING: 1990s-?

Earth in the Balance, Al Gore, 1992
"About 10 million residents of Bangladesh will lose their homes and means of sustenance because of the rising sea level due to global warming, in the next few decades."

Time Magazine, April 19, 2001
"[S]cientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible."

New York Times, December 27, 2005
"Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming"

The Daily Telegraph, February 2, 2006
"Billions will die, says Lovelock, who tells us that he is not usually a gloomy type. Human civilization will be reduced to a 'broken rabble ruled by brutal warlords,' and the plague-ridden remainder of the species will flee the cracked and broken earth to the Arctic, the last temperate spot where a few breeding couples will survive."

Only this time, it real! REAL I tell you! We got some fancy computer models and a hockey stick graph (don't look to closely at them though), did they have those back then? We got us a consensus™ just like the ones that proved the earth under our feet was permanently fixed (1914), the same consensus among paleontologists that the dinosaurs’ demise was a long, drawn out affair, lasting millions of years (1979), the same consensus among physicians that human disease was spontaneously occurring, due to imbalanced humours (1834), the same as the consensus among astronomers that the heavens were static, the boundaries of the universe constant (1928). Scientific concensus is always right. Always!!

Just ignore the sun and any history before the end of the Little Ice Age and we can protect the consenus™
 
Posted by LetterRip (Member # 310) on :
 
G2,

you seem to have confused popular press with scientists (also why are your dates from mostly pre 1970? Reds statement was regarding 1970). There was an observed cooling trend based on some limited data, and some scientists thought there might be a global cooling coming (not an unreasonable hypothesis based on the limited data and long term climate process knowledge at that time), but there were no scientific publications reaching such conclusion, and scientific bodies and reports suggested that there wasn't enough data to make such a conclusion with many of the bodies suspecting that warming in the long term was more likely.

There wasn't a theory, there wasn't much more then a couple of untested hypothesis, and an observed trend based on limited data.

If you are arguing that the media is sensationalistic and irresponsible in its reporting on science, then I whole heartedly agree with you.

If you are arguing that some scientists will make unfounded claims to the media, absolutely agree.

If you are arguing that there are many 'pro-AGW' who are uninformed windbags - again, complete agreement.

However my argument is about the state of the actual scientific knowledge, and how it is often being misrepresented (albeit unknowingly) by yourself, amongst others, here.

LetterRip

[ February 15, 2008, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
LR

As I pointed out to G2, for every web link you provide, he provides one that counters your claim. In some cases you both use peer-reviewed journals. In other cases the two of you use blogs that you each happen to like.

Point is- the science is immature. No one- nowhere can say anything that even remotely approaches a reliable conclusion as to global climate prediction.

I don't care if you are pro/anti AGW. None of you have provided a full working model, or even anything close to a full model of climate. The last time this came up both sides argued over who had the better computer resources and the most accurate model.

As to Global Cooling, I don't think you are 40 something. If you missed out on Carl Sagan talking about Global Cooling, then either you weren't born or you didn't watch much PBS back then.

Of course his argument at the time was that while we were undoubtably headed towards a global cooling event as the new century approached, we were more likely to suffer an atomic weapons induced nuclear winter.

Thing is we have watched this for 7 years. For every link you think delcares the issue resolved, someone else posts something that seems to contradict what you posted. Each side thinks their data and summary findings are the best.

They aren't.

G2

The issue is that is it wiser to innovate and do something proactive- or wait until things ar bad enough to where we can't dismiss a Kyoto like agreement?

Thing is the climate is warming- even though it is ever so slight as to not affect anyone living or liekly to live in the next two centuries. But wouldn't you get pissed if two cetries before, someone had had the option of making minor changes to how they lead their lives so that a couple hundred years in the future, people wouldn't be facing a massive problem? So what if AGW science says Al Goore is right? Big deal. But unlike Gore living in his energy hog mansion and inefficient family farm- you yourself can choose to make changes that most AGW advocates don't do.

Its like arguing over CFC's in Styrofoam. Many people couldn't imagine a world where styrofoam cups didn't exist that weren't made in processes that released CFC's. People SWITCHED to paper and non-CFC styrofoam cups.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
G2

The issue is that is it wiser to innovate and do something proactive- or wait until things are bad enough to where we can't dismiss a Kyoto like agreement?

How do you know which direction to push? Should we go with the current AGW theories even though they're likely incorrect? Will doing something proactive have any effect whatsoever other than disrupting national economies?

Right now the AGW crowd is worked up over about 100 ppm rise of CO2 in the last century. They want you to ignore everything before the Little Ice Age as if global climate did not occur before that. If you look at the whole picture, you see quite a different story. The earth averages considerably higher temperatures and CO2 levels and has done that without any human input.

Whatever we've done up to this point is indistinguishable from background noise. Anything proactive could be, and likely is, simply cutting off our noses to spite our faces. There is no proof anywhere that anything we do will affect the current trends either positively or negatively. A lot of theories but no proof.

Meanwhile, we got solar variance. Three documented minimums, three *significant* global coolings and the AGW cheerleaders try to ignore that and dismiss anyone mentioning as irrational or too stupid to understand the science despite the clear pattern and the growing body of science establishing a clear link.

quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:

However my argument is about the state of the actual scientific knowledge, and how it is often being misrepresented (albeit unknowingly) by yourself, amongst others, here.


Everything I linked to in this thread is pretty clear and has not been shown to misrepresent anything. Maybe the zombies ...

Solar output has fallen dramatically and there is a very clear link between that and global temperatures. The extent of that link is still debated but it's looking more and more as the primary driver that dwarfs all other inputs.

The CO2 levels have been higher and it's clear that the natural state of the planet is for those levels to be much higher than they are today. The same for temperatures. There is no misrepresentation of any kind there - it's all very well documented. The AGW guys just have to be convinced that global climate began before the Little Ice Age.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 3319) on :
 
A lot of scientists are starting to worry that the warming could actually trigger another Little Ice Age. It's theorized by many that the warming before hte LIA caused too much glacial melt, which shut down the global conveyor belt and plunged Europe into cold. Luckily we're warming at a faster rate, so we might make up for it through sheer carelessness.

As someone who frequently supports the solutions and fixes for global warming for reasons that have nothing to do with global warming, I continue to ask: Who cares?

For health, national security, and economic reasons, we should be doing everything we can to reduce waste and consumption of fossil fuels. Global warming is a side issue.
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
"For health, national security, and economic reasons, we should be doing everything we can to reduce waste and consumption of fossil fuels. Global warming is a side issue."

My point exactly.

Consider this. On Monday irrefutable proof comes out that Global Warming is happening, will be catastrophic, and will cause widespread changes that effect humans. Knowing this, shouldn't we be working to maximize our reduction of waste and efficiencies of energy resource uses? At the very least it would likely improve our health, national security, and economic capacities.

Or Consider this. On Monday irrefutable proof comes out that Global Warming is not happening, will have no discernible effect on climate, and won't cause any meaningful change to humans. Knowing this, shouldn't we be working to maximize our reduction of waste and efficiencies of energy resource uses? At the very least it would likely improve our health, national security, and economic capacities.


No matter if either side of the Global Warming issue is right- or even if both sides are wrong- isn't it silly not to be trying to become as technologically proficient as possible to enable less waste, energy independence, and a healthy economy?
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
No matter if either side of the Global Warming issue is right- or even if both sides are wrong- isn't it silly not to be trying to become as technologically proficient as possible to enable less waste, energy independence, and a healthy economy?

These things aren't already being done? A market economy always drives efficiencies (except when governments interfere) and has already created the most technologically proficient society ever seen. We don't need the threats and fear mongering of global warming to do what we're already doing.

What part of the global warming agenda will introduce a more efficient, healthier and higher performing economy? Not carbon taxes. Not regulations that apply only to US industry. The vast majority of solution put forth by the AGW crowd is designed to decrease the US economy by introducing stumbling blocks.

The AGW agenda is not about promoting economic growth or efficiency - at least not for the USA.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
Here's something new from Patrick Michaels. The article originally appeared on December 27, 2007 - nearly 2 months ago. As Michaels states, you can be pretty sure that if a scientific paper appeared in a major journal saying that the planet has warmed twice as much as previously thought, that would be front-page news in every major paper around the planet. I am certain it would have been all over the news - you know it would have.

Michaels and the coauthor of his report, Ross McKitrick, used the hypothesis of adjusting temperature data for socioeconomic variables since those factors affect the quality of the data (read the article for the specifics). Doing this, the data collected now matches up with satellite data (a long time problem for global warming theory).

You'd think the resolution of this apparent inconsistency would garner headlines on every environmentalist website all over the world and it would have been a lead story on the news. You know why it's not? Because they found that the socioeconomic biases "likely add up to a net warming bias at the global level that may explain as much as half the observed land-based warming trend."

As much as half the warming trend is due to poor data. That'll never make the news. No wonder so many people believe AGW, they never hear the whole truth.

[ February 18, 2008, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
Give it a month or two, and your opposition will provide an alternative paper.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Patrick Michaels

Critique of the paper

Summary? The paper has serious methodological flaws. The conclusion is no good because the data was analzyed really badly.
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
or an hour and nine minutes.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Its not an alternative paper, red. Its a critique explaining why Michael's paper is worthless.

There's a difference.
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
Yes and the person who did the critique on the blog you cited, seems to have little more than his word that he is anything other than a scientists who studies cyclonic systems and happened to contribute to a aper that declared global warming would cause greater and greater hurricanes.

And it seems that someone who may or may not be Patrick Michaels did a rather good job of defending the paper in the blog comments.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
"Yes and the person who did the critique on the blog you cited, seems to have little more than his word that he is anything other than a scientists who studies cyclonic systems and happened to contribute to a aper that declared global warming would cause greater and greater hurricanes."

Really?

Before I call you for shody research, why don't you do some?
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
Well first off Paul, your rebuttal to G2's paper is from a blog.

A Blog.

And your citation on his bona-fides is from Wikipedia.

So on both counts, your shoddy research is relying on essentially nothing.

And as to the person who authored your blog critique, so far all I have found is that, aside from not even attempting to identify himself or even present a summary of his area of knowledge, his claim to fame is a commentary from 2004 and a discourse on various Norwegian weather/climate issues going back to the early 1990's.

So how shoddy is my research now?
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
http://home.broadpark.no/~rbene/ras-publ.html

Would be his own personal representation of his publishings.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
quote:
his claim to fame is a commentary from 2004 and a discourse on various Norwegian weather/climate issues going back to the early 1990's
This would seem to be rebutted by the very link you provided, Red, since the bibliography of just his articles in reviewed journals include (in addition to his Northern European 'specialty') topics such as

 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
"And as to the person who authored your blog critique, so far all I have found is that, aside from not even attempting to identify himself or even present a summary of his area of knowledge, his claim to fame is a commentary from 2004 and a discourse on various Norwegian weather/climate issues going back to the early 1990's."

Please note... I said "so far"- and then I found his claimed body of works.

43% of his peer reviewed research concerns either Norway or Northern Europe.
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
And on further research, apparently he holds no position of authority at the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, and about all I can find out about him so far on their site is that they list his publications along with other junior researchers. Of course my Norsk is rather rusty, so I could be overlooking something.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
"So how shoddy is my research now?"

Because you said this.

"Yes and the person who did the critique on the blog you cited, seems to have little more than his word that he is anything other than a scientists who studies cyclonic systems and happened to contribute to a aper that declared global warming would cause greater and greater hurricanes."

Where a five second search would demonstrate we don't need to take his word about who he is for anything, since we can, on google, find him, on the second link down, as a senior scientist at the oslo climate group.

If we, instead of google, look at the link of who he is listed on the realclimate site I link to, so it would take even less time, he lists that group, and the norweigan meteorological institute, as affiliations, with convienent links, as well as being a past member of the european meteorological society. He also provides two other affiliations without links, to the Institute of Physics, and American Geophysical Union.

If we follow the link he provides to a list of publications, we find a bibliography of his work, and if we follow that trail, we find that he did indeed publish the works he claimed, and we find that he is lead other on a number of the papers listed.

In fact, there is SUBSTANTIALLY more then his word for it as to who he is, and what he has accomplished.

And finding this out could have been done in about 3 minutes from the link I provided, indicating you made a claim about this person that has the effect of reducing his stature in the eyes of people reading your post, that was not only not true, but indicated you hadn't tried to find out if it was true or not.

As far as my references, yup, the link about Michael's was to wikipedia, and the link to the rebuttal of Michael's paper was to a blog. Of course, online critiques of papers ARE generally going to be to blogs. At least this one was to a blog put out by people working actively in the field, and by someone who has numerous peer reviewed articles published by a variety of publications, several with him as lead author.

I didn't make false claims, though, redskull, like you did.
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
First off

He gave no identifications as to who he was other than refer to himself as an author of another paper.

A google search for "R. E. Benestad" which is how he attributed his name on the research paper returns 12,000 hits.

Sorry if you are wiser than I.

My Fifth link returned is lists him simply as a contributing author.

I think we both decided to investigate whom this person was. I of course went so far as to determine not only what he published, where he worked, his speciality- which happens to be precipitation prediction, and his status at his place of employment-which is a junior member.

There is little in his representation, or what can be readily verified about him in terms of research that even begins to place him on the same level of competency as the person G2 sourced.

Its SUBSTANTIALLY a case of your champion being SUBSTANTIALLY less impressive than G2's is.

And that was determined not by a 3 minute quick search, but instead spending just over two hours looking into who this guy you ponied up off of a blog page is.

As to his peer review status, it isn't much, and most of what he has submitted involves subjects outside climatology and instead revolves around metrology and precipitation predictions.

So for the record, the guy on your source who made the blog post, provided almost zero identification either to his identity or his competency. On the blog, he provided zero basis for his expertise, other than his argument. Aside from claiming to be involved with cyclonic theory and hurricane predictions in a GW environment- we otherwise knew nothing about his expertise. So from a email address and a link to an external paper, his post was otherwise devoid of any identification.

You didn't provide any further information on the guy. You just presented a blog, written by an essentially unknown person, that happened to agree with your opinion. Don't be offended because I pointed out the inherent weakness in your shoddy research.

And you need to fully retract the accusation. Absolutely nothing I posted was false.

After you offer the retraction, then consider the fact that the guy who wrote you blog would have the equivalent academic/professional credentials of an AMA certified Meteorologist in the United States. Thats right G2's guy is a climatologist. Everard's guy is a weatherman.
 
Posted by LetterRip (Member # 310) on :
 
G2,

quote:
You completely ignore everything
Please provide an instance (preferably all instances). Do you mean I don't address sub points after refuting a premise or don't respond to your every point or something else?

If you say the moon is made of cheese, therefore we should be concerned about a mouse invasion - and I show the moon isn't made of cheese, there is no need to bother with a discussion of a mouse invasion.

quote:
and occasionally point to partisan blogs that support only your viewpoint and think you made a point?
Do you mean in this instance? The blog may be partisan but it irrelevant since the blog wasn't being used except in that it quoted the author. The quote was from the author, and it wasn't sought by the site I linked to instead it was a response to an email from an individual unaffiliated with the blog. The email was forwarded to the site that quoted it.

I happened to link to the blog since it was convenient source for the quote.

Also,

quote:
What are we to make of that? When Tapping can speak freely, it's the sun and there is some cause for alarm. When he has the screws put to him by an AGW blog, it was all just a misunderstanding. Yeah, sure it is.
This is why I consider you to have close to zero credibility on this issue - you feel free to make stuff up. The facts directly contradict your bizarre speculation.

quote:
If he's not worried about the sun, why would he be looking forward to a period when "we can all relax"? What state is he in now that he needs to relax from?
First what your article claimed, was

quote:
Tapping says, if the pattern doesn't change quickly, the earth is in for some very chilly weather.
He stated in the article you quote is,

quote:
The Maunder Minimum fell in a period known as the "Little Ice Age", where summers were cool, wet and miserable, and the winters were colder and longer than usual, and we believe decades of reduced solar energy output were responsible. We don't fully understand what makes the Sun follow these activity cycles, or why they turn on and off, but many other stars do it too. The chance of another Maunder Minimum happening now is low. However, when activity starts building again, we can all relax.
There is nothing to imply that a lack of a change 'quickly' is something to be concerned about.

Also 'we can all relax' in a casual article for lay persons doesn't mean there is any sense of worry on the behalf of a scientist.

quote:
Only this time, it real! REAL I tell you!
Ah, arguement by strawman. Well at least you follow the typical pattern - you fail to read the science, or quote those who fail to do so. When it is pointed out to you, jump to the straw man attack.

quote:
We got some fancy computer models and a hockey stick graph (don't look to closely at them though), did they have those back then?
If you understand computer models they aren't particularly fancy, but they produce useful results for things like predicting weather, and climate. They reproduce historical climate with reasonable accuracy, and spontaneously reproduce many interesting climatic features.

The 'hockey stick graph' the original reconstruction from Mann et al, certainly had errors, of course his critics also had errors. Alternative reconstructions still give similar results. So while Mann should be embarrassed about his errors (as should his critics about theres), ultimately it has little impact.

quote:
We got us a consensus™
I'm adequately versed in the assorted sciences that I've no need of a consensus to judge whether the predictions are reasonable, since I can base it on my own readings in the original research.

Some of us can actually read real science papers instead of depending on others to interpret them for us. Some of us are capable of pointing out flaws in others interpretations of science papers.

Argument by strawman is often the resort of those who are incapable of discussing an issue on its merits.

Also regarding not responding to arguments, you stated.

quote:
Compared to the sun, they're a drop in the ocean. If greenhouse gases had as much influence as you think, the late Ordovician period where CO2 levels were 12 times today's levels should not have been an ice age.
Then I explained the substantial misunderstanding on your behalf. You blithely ignored it and skipped to another topic.

quote:
I notice you never address the tough questions but routinely cherry pick things you think you can score on
Which 'tough questions' in particular.

quote:
- like the Tapping equivocation although I did link back to his own words showing the reality but I notice you have skipped to unrelated topics.
It wasn't 'equivocation' - you were reading things into it that aren't there - he views the likelihood of a Maunder Minimum.

LetterRip

[ February 19, 2008, 02:22 AM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]
 
Posted by Rallan (Member # 1936) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kelcimer:
It's the Sun, stupid!

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html

quote:
Earth is heating up lately, but so are Mars, Pluto and other worlds in our solar system, leading some scientists to speculate that a change in the sun’s activity is the common thread linking all these baking events.
Look, if other planets in our solar system have been heating up at the same time we have been there's only one common denominator: the sun. Yes, we polute. Yes, we should see about doing something about it. But are we causing global warming? No. No, we are not. It is hubris to think that we are.
I call shenanigans! That whole "a bunch of other places are warming up so clearly global warming's not our fault" thing is junk science, and a bad meme to boot.

Fortunately it's also an old bad meme, so folks who are far smarter than me have had time to explain what's bad about it. Like the folks at Bad Astronomy, who I think we can safely say are only a biased source in the sense that they're biased against crap science.
 
Posted by Rallan (Member # 1936) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:

Just ignore the sun and any history before the end of the Little Ice Age and we can protect the consenus™

Yeah I know what you mean. These alarmist reports made by people in the 1800s are something that need to be taken seriously when considering modern science. If only we'd undergone some sort of exponentially humungous explosion of science over the last century so we'd be able to objectively say that yes, we have a massively more comprehensive understanding of how things work now . Then we'd at least be able to have a bit of faith in the notion that maybe our predictions are massively more likely to be accurate [Smile]

I mean come on dude, that was halfassed. "Oh Noes! We can't trust science because people used to believe in the four humours, and there was a time before radio astronomy when they didn't even know about the big bang!" That was so half-assed I'm almost expecting you to follow up by declaring that Young Earth Creationism must be true and proving it by picking holes in the work of 18th century geologists.
 
Posted by LetterRip (Member # 310) on :
 
Red,

quote:
As I pointed out to G2, for every web link you provide, he provides one that counters your claim.
You clearly haven't been reading the same threads I have. Feel free to demonstrate this by a link to an actual thread where this is the case.

quote:
In other cases the two of you use blogs that you each happen to like.
Incorrect - I used a direct quote from the scientist to refute his statement. His 'article' was an misinterpretation of a conversation.

quote:
Point is- the science is immature. No one- nowhere can say anything that even remotely approaches a reliable conclusion as to global climate prediction.
Actually very reasonable things can be concluded with some degree of confidence. We can't conclude the exact amount of warming, but we can project an expected temperature range.

quote:
I don't care if you are pro/anti AGW. None of you have provided a full working model, or even anything close to a full model of climate. The last time this came up both sides argued over who had the better computer resources and the most accurate model.
Only one 'side' is doing modeling. We could certainly use more accurate models, but the expectation is that it won't narrow the range much (most of the range is due to the limitations in economic forecasting), it will however provide better ideas of what we can expect on a regional basis.

quote:
As to Global Cooling, I don't think you are 40 something. If you missed out on Carl Sagan talking about Global Cooling, then either you weren't born or you didn't watch much PBS back then.
What should anyone care about what a science fiction writer talked about on PBS?

The quality of the science and the peer reviewed literature is what is of interest not the hysterics of media. You and G2 appear to want to equivocate the two.

quote:
Thing is we have watched this for 7 years. For every link you think delcares the issue resolved, someone else posts something that seems to contradict what you posted.
What 'issue' are you refering to? An anthropogenic impact on climate? Predictions of future climate?

quote:
Each side thinks their data and summary findings are the best.
I'm perfectly willing to reevaluate when new data and science comes to light. There have been a number of interesting alternative hypothesis raised, the cosmic ray flux was one of the most promising, but never panned out. Another interesting idea was the adaptive iris proposal of Lindzen (so far it doesn't appear to be supported).

You seem to assume 'data' and 'findings' that contradict an anthropogenic component induced warming. Feel free to point to reputable sources that show this.

I'm open to the possibility that modern warming is not anthropogenically caused, and that CO2 will have less warming impact then projected.

However I tend to be skeptical of many AGW skeptics since they seem to almost universally start with a conclusion and then try and find theories that can lead to such a conclusion.

As to the political side of things - I disagree with Kyoto and think it was a bad proposal. I think that most AGW supporters don't have adequate understanding of science to be able to conclude what the most accurate scientific view is (as is also the case with AGW opponents).

I think it is reasonable for individuals who don't have adequate background in a scientific area to rely on 'consensus' although even better would be to have a large panel of scientists unassociated with the research to perform an outside evaluation.

G2,

quote:
Solar output has fallen dramatically and there is a very clear link between that and global temperatures.
Great please show your source for that. That isn't the case as far as I'm aware.

quote:
The same for temperatures. There is no misrepresentation of any kind there - it's all very well documented. The AGW guys just have to be convinced that global climate began before the Little Ice Age.
Feel free to cite sources, I don't think you can read any papers on science well enough to know if they support you, refute you, or are just flawed, nor do I think you can judge a critique of a paper.

quote:
A market economy always drives efficiencies (except when governments interfere)
This is a basic misunderstanding of economics - confusing 'ideal markets' with 'real markets' - ideal markets have perfect competition, perfect knowledge by consumers, etc. Lack of perfect competition and perfect knowledge both result in serious inefficiencies. Also expensive and/or long term efficiencies aren't persued since their cost could result in loss of competitiveness or at least are unknown as to how great a return they will provide.

G2,

quote:

Michaels and the coauthor of his report, Ross McKitrick, used the hypothesis of adjusting temperature data for socioeconomic variables since those factors affect the quality of the data (read the article for the specifics). Doing this, the data collected now matches up with satellite data (a long time problem for global warming theory).

Haven't read the paper - it is an interesting hypothesis - a similar proposal was made 5 or 6 (maybe more?) years ago. (The paper claimed that the Russians/USSR would be less dilegent about calibrating and checking temperatures - since most of the warming happens the further north you go, the warming was a spurious result of incompentence/laziness on the part of the Russians - the problem of course was that there is no reason for error to be in one direction and instead the errors should average out due to the large number of samples.) I'll have to read it to see if their paper has the same flaws as the earlier paper or not. - Just searched, can't find the original article online yet - but from descriptions it appears to do the same thing.

Ah found the paper -

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/jgr07/M&M.JGRDec07.pdf

It does look like the same issue - latitude apparently correlates well with their other variable (notice that the vast majority of their dots are clustered near the 50, and -50 lattitude).

If you eliminate the much larger temperature changes near the more extreme lattitudes you can filter out a big chunk of the warming.

quote:
You'd think the resolution of this apparent inconsistency would garner headlines on every environmentalist website all over the world and it would have been a lead story on the news.
Michaels and McKintrick have been involved in a large number of poorly researched and flawed papers on related topics. So taking a wait and see approach is probably reasonable.

It appears that it will be the case yet again where they are in error.

LetterRip
 
Posted by LetterRip (Member # 310) on :
 
At RC in the comments it is claimed by Michaels that they account for latitude - glancing through it again, it appears they do so. It is way late now - and my time budget for ornery is up for the week. Will try and have a look again at the paper this weekend.

Other worthwhile critiques at RC - the data set they use for the temperatures is one generally viewed as being of poor quality (in the comments M&M acknowledges this but doesn't expect it to have much impact on the results); they didn't check against ocean temperatures; they throw out hotter data points in the higher latitudes as outliers.

LetterRip

[ February 19, 2008, 05:52 AM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
"He gave no identifications as to who he was other than refer to himself as an author of another paper."

Look, Greg, this is just so wrong that I'm not sure why I should give you the benefit of the doubt.

Here, let me show you.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=50

There are PLENTY of identifications about who he is within his statement of who he is, a statement made on realclimate, which you can get to by following a link for his name under the heading "contributors."

We find he is a member of the Norweigan Meteorological Institute, Oslo Climate Group, Institute of Physics, and American Geophysical Union. He's also a past member of the European Meteorological Society. All of this information can be verified at the appropriate places.

Now that we've demonstrated that your first claim about this person is totally false, lets move on.

"My Fifth link returned is lists him simply as a contributing author."

Good. But, you could have looked at an entire list of publications that he's put out. Let me show you.

http://home.broadpark.no/~rbene/ras-publ.html

How did I find this? I clicked the link that he tells us takes us to his publications, within the realclimate profile of himself.

We find that in 2007, he published four papers, one as sole author, two as lead author, and one as contributing author. In 2006, he published two papers, one as sole author, and one as lead author. So, my question, Greg, is how did you NOT find that he published 6 papers in the last two years, 2 as sole author, 3 as lead author, and only one as contributing author?

Anyrate, we'll move on, since this statement of yours wasn't outright false. It just indicates you don't follow a trail very well. And, again, all of this information can be verified with the journals in question.

"I think we both decided to investigate whom this person was. I of course went so far as to determine not only what he published, where he worked, his speciality- which happens to be precipitation prediction, and his status at his place of employment-which is a junior member."

Except you didn't find this, Greg. You only found one paper he published, when the fact is that he put out 6 over the last two years, a fairly good output.

Where he worked, you found that he's a member of the oslo climate group, but you did not find that he's a member of the norweigan meteorological institute, and that he puts this attachment on his recent work... and where he is not a junior member, but is senior scientist. If you'd read his work, you would have noticed this.

Also, I'm not sure how you decided his specialty is precipitation prediction. He certainly doesn't claim that, nor do any of the institutes he is affiliated with. Did someone else claim it for him? The oslo climate group claims his specialties as "Empirical downscaling; Climate model evaluation; Solar activity and Earth's climate." Thats not precipitation prediction. Thats exactly what we're talking about. Yes, his papers focus on precipitation over the last two years. That doesn't tell us what his specialty is, though.


As far as who is writing his pay check, most of his funding seems to come through the norweigan meteorological institute, since most of his papers have that listed as his affiliation.

"and his status at his place of employment-which is a junior member."

Since you seem to be referring to oslo climate group here, its worth noting that the oslo climate group does not appear to assign junior and senior statuses to its members, as one can tell by looking at the profile's of all their members. And, of course, it appears that Rasmus Benestad is primarily employed by the Norweigian Meteorological instittude, where he is senior scientist, so this would be another false claim of yours.

"There is little in his representation, or what can be readily verified about him in terms of research that even begins to place him on the same level of competency as the person G2 sourced."

This conclusion appears to be based on false information. Look again, Greg.

"Its SUBSTANTIALLY a case of your champion being SUBSTANTIALLY less impressive than G2's is."

Again, you didn't actually do the necessary legwork to determine this. Michaels is OLDER, which means he has a larger body of work, but Benestad's body of work is impressive for someone his age, and covers all the issues we're discussing.

"And that was determined not by a 3 minute quick search, but instead spending just over two hours looking into who this guy you ponied up off of a blog page is."

And yet... you didn't actually FIND anything Greg, and the stuff that can be found is EASY to find. I'm questioning your research skills, because this is a piss poor demonstration of said skills.

"As to his peer review status, it isn't much, and most of what he has submitted involves subjects outside climatology and instead revolves around metrology and precipitation predictions."

I'm not sure what standard of "much," you are using here, but 6 papers, 3 as sole author and 2 as lead author, over the last two years?

"outside climatology and instead revolves around metrology and precipitation predictions.""

You realize that these are both part of climatology?

Why don't you try reading the abstracts of these papers? Its free...

Also, if you look closely, you'll realize that much of his work deals with statistical analysis... exactly the points he brings up in relation to Michaels paper, so his body of peer reviwed work is preparing him to critique the paper he is critiquing in this instance.

"So for the record, the guy on your source who made the blog post, provided almost zero identification either to his identity or his competency."

For the record, you failed to follow a well-marked trail that would lead you to realize this is simply a false statement.

"On the blog, he provided zero basis for his expertise, other than his argument."

Within the blog post? No, he didn't. But his argument stands on its own two feet, and if we want to know about his expertise, all we need to do is click on the link on the side of the page.

"So from a email address and a link to an external paper, his post was otherwise devoid of any identification."

Of course it was. His POST was. But the website was not. He posts there frequently. Instead of retyping the same **** everytime, he has an "about me" section that is easily accessible to people who want to find out who rasmus benestad is.

"And you need to fully retract the accusation. Absolutely nothing I posted was false."

No, Greg, it was the other direction. After more research, it becomes more apparent that everything you wrote was false.

"After you offer the retraction, then consider the fact that the guy who wrote you blog would have the equivalent academic/professional credentials of an AMA certified Meteorologist in the United States. Thats right G2's guy is a climatologist. Everard's guy is a weatherman."

More stuff greg is only able to say because he didn't do his research.

Sorry, Greg. Consider yourself, as you like to put it, totally destroyed.

The only question left is, whether or not you'll notice?

[ February 19, 2008, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: Everard ]
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
I'm adequately versed in the assorted sciences that I've no need of a consensus to judge whether the predictions are reasonable, since I can base it on my own readings in the original research.

quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
I don't think you can read any papers on science well enough to know if they support you, refute you, or are just flawed, nor do I think you can judge a critique of a paper.

There it is, in your own words. You're just soooooo smart and everyone else is stupid. Only you and those that support your views are intelligent enough to understand the "science" behind AGW. I guess all the scientists I've linked to, like Patrick Michaels, are also just too stupid to understand such a complex topic as global warming like the brilliant and erudite LetterRip. If only everyone else appreciated your scintillating intellect like you do!

I dunno LR, when the foundation of your argument is that everyone else is just too stupid to understand it sounds like you've run out of anything intelligent to say. But maybe I'm jist two stoopid to unerstend yor brilance. Yor so smart ...
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
Hey paul

Did you disprove a single fact I posted.

Wait for it....

NO.

Ergo, you should retract your statement.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
And the answer to my question is, apparently, "no."

And the answer to your question is
"yes."

But at this point, thats up to everyone else to decide.

[ February 19, 2008, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: Everard ]
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
Paul

Did he give any indication as to who he was on the page you originally sourced? No.

Did I see a link that said anything about the author that could be found on that websight? No.

Did I find that he is a member of the Norweigan Meteorological Institute, Oslo Climate Group, Institute of Physics, and American Geophysical Union. He's also a past member of the European Meteorological Society? Yes.

Did I find his own representation of what he has published despite not having found the link off of your original website? Yes.

Did I find, and look at the summaries of all the papers he claims to have published, that were also linked by him? Yes.

Did I explicitly state the fact that he worked at the Norwegian Meteorological Institute? Yes.

Did I explicitly state that on the Norwegian Meteorological site that they list his contributions to peer reviewed journals? Yes.

Did I note that they represented him as a junior member? Yes.

Is his speciality, "Empirical downscaling; Climate model evaluation; Solar activity and Earth's climate." adequately represented by the fact that 43% of his published peer reviewed work is based upon Norwegian/Northern Europe precipitation patterns and predictions? Yes.

Did I point out that he is an employee of the Norwegian Meteorological Institute and that they do not list him as head of any department or list him as a senior member? Yes.

Was the identification trail for him well marked? That is a judgement call. You say it was easy to follow. Then again you seem to be aware of him because of his frequent posts on the website you provided. I do not visit the site except for very very infrequently. Therefore, I was unaware of his fame on that site nor the fact that there is an index list. Whatever the case may be as to finding out about who he is, I think my less than conventional approach, by your opinion, revealed the same facts that you found out about him. In fact the only difference in the facts we each found out about him seems to be the methodology. You used an index link, I took a more circuitous path because I was unaware of the index link. Had I known about it, I would have not taken a couple of hours of effort trying to track down his bona-fides.

So what exactly did I write that was false?

Nothing.

So what is this guy's bona-fides? He is a meteorologist in Norway, who attempts to investigate precipitation patterns that relate primarily to Northern Europe. He has published some 29 peer reviewed papers in the last 10 years. And that since December 2004 he has made 32 blog posts on Real Climate. 14 of his 29 peer reviewed publishings deal with precipitation.

Now compare that to G2's source, which G2 also provided a second link as to the man's bona-fides. G2's guy has the following...


Michaels is a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and visiting scientist with the Marshall Institute in Washington, D.C. He is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society. Michaels is a contributing author and reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. His writing has been published in the major scientific journals, including Climate Research, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Nature, and Science, as well as in popular serials such as the Washington Post, Washington Times, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Houston Chronicle, and Journal of Commerce. He was an author of the climate "paper of the year" awarded by the Association of American Geographers in 2004. He has appeared on ABC, NPR's "All Things Considered," PBS, Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, BBC and Voice of America. According to Nature magazine, Pat Michaels may be the most popular lecturer in the nation on the subject of global warming. Michaels holds A.B. and S.M. degrees in biological sciences and plant ecology from the University of Chicago, and he received a Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1979.

So? Your guy is a weatherman and G2's guy is a climatologist with some pretty high senior memberships in multiple scientific associations including being "...a contributing author and reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"

Exactly why is your blogging weatherman qualified to offer anything other than opinion?

So yeah you seem to only disagree with the fact I independently discovered who your source is. You didn't disprove a single fact I posted. And at the very least you failed to notice your champion blogger isn't even remotely equivalent to the climatologist g2 brought up.

I guess we will have to see if anyone notices that for research all you did was click on an index link that would only be obvious to someone who frequents the Real Climate website. While I independently did due diligence to establish who he was and what his actual bona-fides were.

So yeah your source, at least insofar as being a viable and credible rebuttal to G2's source is essentially destroyed. I guess you were so worked up in proving I was an idiot researcher blinded you to the fact that I did establish who he was.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 0Megabyte:
... the amount of CO2 in out atmosphere has increased from ~250 ppm a hundred years ago to over 350 ppm today ...

I've been looking around but can't seem to find it - what is the correct amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? I figure the brilliant minds on this thread would know that answer. Are we supposed to stay at 250 ppm? Is 300 ppm OK?

Another thing I was looking for but cannot seem to locate, what is the correct temperature for the planet? We're around 54° F today which LR, everard, et al assure us is too high and going any higher would result in catastrophe. Should we halt the temperature at 54°? Should it be less? More?

I know there must be answers to these but I Googled around and didn't find it. If present atmospheric CO2 levels are too high and temperatures too hot, then there must be some level and temperature that is the appropriate amount - or at least the acceptable amount.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
With apologies to Redskullvw, I'm going to chop up his post a bit but I think the point remains as he intended.
quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
As to his peer review status, it isn't much, and most of what he has submitted involves subjects outside climatology and instead revolves around metrology and precipitation predictions.

<snip>
... consider the fact that the guy who wrote you blog would have the equivalent academic/professional credentials of an AMA certified Meteorologist in the United States. Thats right G2's guy is a climatologist. Everard's guy is a weatherman.

The response to that is:
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
"outside climatology and instead revolves around metrology and precipitation predictions."

You realize that these are both part of climatology?

A certified meteorologist is basically a weatherman and since there's no objection to referring to everard's source as a weatherman I assume that's an accurate description of him. But that confuses me ... it's not what I've been told by so many. I've always been told this:
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
weather/=climate.

In fact, the AGW proponents in this forum are quite derogatory of the opinions of simple meteorologists (a.k.a. weathermen) :
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
And a local weatherman deciding that global climate change is a hoax is hardly an indication that the overall scientific consensus among the leaders in the field has, or is, changing.

So what should we do? Upgrade this guy to a fully qualified climatologist on par with Michaels? Granting him a level of expertise he hasn't earned seems to be the only way out of this little conundrum ... [LOL]
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
"Did he give any indication as to who he was on the page you originally sourced? No."

yes. There is a link on the page I originally sourced that gives lots of indications as to who he is.

"Did I see a link that said anything about the author that could be found on that websight? No."

Why not? Its pretty obvious.

"Did I find that he is a member of the Norweigan Meteorological Institute, Oslo Climate Group, Institute of Physics, and American Geophysical Union. He's also a past member of the European Meteorological Society? Yes."

Can't tell that from your posts.

"Did I find, and look at the summaries of all the papers he claims to have published, that were also linked by him? Yes."

REally? All of them? He's published a LOT.

"Did I note that they represented him as a junior member? Yes."

He's not a junior member either of the oslo climate group or the norweigan meteorological institute, and they don't claim he is at either place. The norweigan meteorological group, as best I can tell, does not list titles except for their heads of division and members of the board.

In other words, this statement is flat out false.

"Did I point out that he is an employee of the Norwegian Meteorological Institute and that they do not list him as head of any department or list him as a senior member? Yes."

No. You pointed out that he was a junior researcher. Not the case. Its also not the case that they list any senior members.

"Was the identification trail for him well marked? That is a judgement call. You say it was easy to follow."

the blog post was under the name "rasmus." On the right hand side of that page was a heading "contributors." Under the "contributors" heading was the name "Rasmus Benestad." its the only "rasmus" in that relatively short list. Clicking that name brings us to the page that has information about Rasmus Benestad.

I had never seen the contributors section before, but I know enough about reading blogs such as realclimate to know that finding out who the people are who post is easy if one looks for a minute.


"I think my less than conventional approach, by your opinion, revealed the same facts that you found out about him. "

No. It didn't. Much of what you have stated is not true, and much of what you claim to have stated is not apparent from your posts prior to this most recent one.

"So what exactly did I write that was false?"

Quite a bit actually. Lets start with that he's a junior member at the norweigan meteorological institute. Or that he's a weatherman. Or that his area of speciality is precipitation prediction. Or that he hasn't had much peer reviwed. Or that he gave no identification of who he is.

First, he's a senior scientist at NMI, and second, he's a research scientist with numerous published papers and several published books, dealing with a host of topics from scandinavian rainfall to statistical methods to world climate.
his specialties are exactly in the areas of Michaels' paper that he critiques. And he sufficiently identified himself.

Many of your other statements are statements of opinion that would have been refuted by the facts had you adequately discovered them, but they are not outright "False" statements."

"So what is this guy's bona-fides? He is a meteorologist in Norway, who attempts to investigate precipitation patterns that relate primarily to Northern Europe. He has published some 29 peer reviewed papers in the last 10 years. And that since December 2004 he has made 32 blog posts on Real Climate. 14 of his 29 peer reviewed publishings deal with precipitation."

Aside form being a meteorlogist, and most climate researchers are to one degree or another, he's employed by the NMI in the climate division as a snior scientist. In other words, he is employed as a climatologist. His PhD is in atmospheric, oceanic, and planetary physics.

So, no, my guy is not a "weatherman," greg, despite your continuing attempts to show that he is not qualified to comment on a scientific paper. he is extremely qualified to comment on a scientific paper, and especially on the statistical methods( as much of his research is closely related to statistical methods for climate prediction), used within that paper, which is what he did.

"Exactly why is your blogging weatherman qualified to offer anything other than opinion?"

Because he's a scientist practicing and doing research in the field that the paper is in. Not a weatherman.

"So yeah you seem to only disagree with the fact I independently discovered who your source is. You didn't disprove a single fact I posted. And at the very least you failed to notice your champion blogger isn't even remotely equivalent to the climatologist g2 brought up."

Greg, I don't NEED to rely on "who is more important." I can look at these papers and critiques and understand why a paper comes under fire and judge on my own whether or not the critique is valid. And, who is more impressive doesn't tell us who is right.

Michaels has had an impressive career. I don't deny that. He's ALSO had numerous highly pointed methodological critiques of his climate work scattered through his career. His work has been sneered at as not being of distinction by other american climatologists, and has been accused of lying about climate models by climate scientists. He's also been on the wrong end of several debates on planetary systems, especially in recent years.

His area of interest has also been, since this seems to be a hot topic for you, the affects of climate on agriculture.

Michael's is widely known because he's one of the few climate scientists who doesn't think global warming will be a problem.
The paper that Michael's won paper of the year for was showing how urban heat may increase life expectency.

But the thing is, the important thing is, that the paper this discussion is about, had serious methodological flaws in it. And those flaws are completely independent of who wrote the paper, and who pointed out the flaws.

But you've been engaged, since I posted the link, in slandering and misrepresenting the person who critiqued the paper...

You haven't demonstrated that the critique is wrong, and neither did Michaels or McKitrick. (And I'm sure I just butchered that name).

Lets be clear here:

The critique lays out a few basic problems.

1) Their data analysis does not properly take into account dependency between data points. Benestad shows that the temperature trends show high spatial correlation. M and M do not take into account that spatial correlation.

2) They used very old (1974) data rather then using updated data for certain of their calculations.

3) They've over fit their regression analysis, which leads them to show that the places which need the highest temperature corrections due to economic activity are in the artic and antarctic. It should be highly suspect when places with low economic activity end up, according to your analysis, with teh highest corrections due to economic activity

4) They don't compare their results to the oceans, which are also warming, and where there is no economic activity. Thus, the oceans would have made a good control.

5) They did not use multiple warming trend data, instead apparently cherry picking the data that shows the lowest trend, and which data has been criticized elsewhere. A better technique would have been to apply their analysis to several data sets.
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
"But you've been engaged, since I posted the link, in slandering and misrepresenting the person who critiqued the paper... "

Actually no.

G2 provided a link to a peer reviewed paper & a link to the man's bona-fides.

In rebuttal, you posted a blog page and a wiki on G2's author.

As a reader, if I am to weigh the validity of your source, I need to know something about him. It wasn't readily apparent from the page. Why?

I posted:

"So from a email address and a link to an external paper, his post was otherwise devoid of any identification."

To which, you replied:

"He posts there frequently. Instead of retyping the same **** everytime, he has an "about me" section that is easily accessible to people who want to find out who rasmus benestad is."

So where on the page you posted is the "about me" link? (There isn't one) Where is it on the blog page that he identifies himself as Rasmus Benestad? (He doesn't) Unless of course you happen to scroll the page down and notice as you read the body of his article's text, that off to the right is a list of "Contributors" with his name attributed as "Rasmus Benestad". Why would I assume that this would be his name?

Now exactly why should I know or even notice this fact when he only offers someone the indirect attribution in the paper "(Benestad 2004)"? Following that link he identifies himself as "R. E. Benestad -The Norwegian Meteorological Institute, PO Box 43, 0313 Oslo, Norway


Where at this point would I have discovered further information about him on Real Climate if I still did not know his first name? Or for that matter why would I have assumed that he was one and the same person on the contributer sidebar link? Especially since at that point I had already followed the Benestad 2004 citation to a PDF document that offered no further clue as to his identity?

At that point I plugged him into Google and Ask and began trying to identify who he was by crosslinking the name I had "R. E. Benestad" with the other citations that either used the same name, were involved with the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, or offered both pieces of evidence to ultimately provide his full name.

Point is Paul, I investigated, found his bonafieds and found out that-contrary to your aggressive assumptions as to him being eminately qualified- he is a meteorologist employed at the Norwegian equivalent of NOAA who has published 29 peer reviewed papers that mostly deal with precipitation.

Exactly how does that qualify him as a counter to G2's source? And for that matter, if the methodology is so flawed, why did Lettrip notice that one of the issues your source took with G2's paper, is apparently an error on your sources part?

Not really sure why you are trying to represent my attempt to identify your blogger as being anything other than what it was. You provided an essentially unidentified blog author- and simply expected everyone reading your source to accept that person's opinion without any determination as to even who he was.

I don't even care about either argument. All I cared about was who was making it. G2 did the nice favor of providing background. You didn't.

The fact that others who are actually interested in the content of his rebuttal have already found flaws in the rebuttal tends to support my point of view that the experts cited by you and G2 are not of the same calibre. Yours happens in this case to be the lesser calibre.
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
Seriously, why would you care who was the "higher calibre" scientist?

That's the dumbest argument from authority I've heard recently.

If someone has good research methodology and makes plausible, support claims based on their data analysis, he is doing good science. If someone points out possible methodological flaws in the research of someone else, he is also doing good science.
What either of these guys has done before is of no relevance whatsoever, except inasmuch as we would want to know that they both had degrees showing an understanding of the underlying concepts, and neither had a history of grossly falsifying data.

Honestly. It's like the "truth" or "falsity" of what is going on with anthropogenic climate change rests on whether Michaels or Rasmus has a larger academic cock.
Give it up.
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
Why?

Because as you people engage in the pissing contest over who has the better theory, the one constant has been who has the better scientist. And this just happens to be the one time, that in Paul's particular case, he isn't shooting with a very large calibre gun.

So in this case where we have a peer reviewed climatologist vs a meteorologist blogger, I think its kinda important to point out that the AGW rebuttal offered up so far, happens to come from someone who isn't a heavyweight in the subject.

He may be right in his rebuttal. But then again he probably isn't because LR has already found a problem with the rebuttal.

Its called honest debate. One has presented a paper reviewed and accepted by his peers as authoritative- that just happens to disagree with the current AGW theories. The other has posted a blog and dismissed it because there are errors in it.

I think I'll go with the peer review process instead of what some blogger says.

Then again I remeber Paul arguing rather pointedly before that a peer reviewed paper and scientist should always be more important than a non-peer reviewed scientist, blogger, or journalist.

Apparently when it isn't convenient to the AGW theory, presenting a peer reviewed paper counts as less worthy of belief than a blogger.

Think on that a bit. The AGW crowd wants to have its peer reviewed scientists totally agreed as being worthy and honest- and dismiss those scientists who although peer reviewed otherwise can't be trusted because they present anything in a journal that disagrees with AGW.

Just keeping you AGW advocates as honest as the standards you have implied upon those who have argued against you.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
Think on that a bit. The AGW crowd wants to have its peer reviewed scientists totally agreed as being worthy and honest- and dismiss those scientists who although peer reviewed otherwise can't be trusted because they present anything in a journal that disagrees with AGW.

It goes quite a bit further than simple dismissal. Simple dismissal is like how everard labels any scientist not agreeing with him as not being a "real scientist". If only this was as far as it went but it goes much further:
quote:
... Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five death threats since he started questioning whether man was affecting climate change. Richard Lindzen, professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, said, "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges." Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said, "Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system."

 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
G2

I am well aware of that fact. Your side always brings that fact up when one of these threads goes in this direction. My only point was in terms of how the AGW supporters who post on Ornery have previously framed the ground rules for debate and rebuttal on this topic. You lived up to those rules that they have imposed by presenting a peer reviewed paper, that was published in a journal, by an accredited and credentialed scientist who happens to be degreed in climatology. Your adversary posted a blog article, identified only by email, on a partisan website, by a person who ultimately did not meet the standards that have been insisted upon by the members of Ornery who support AGW theory.

I don't really care what the content of either of your weblinks. Or the actual arguments contained therein for or against AGW. But, it seemed rather unfair as far as debate goes, to see yet again, standards that are applied to you by the people you are debating with, somehow are not applied in an equal and reciprocal manner. If you are required to use only journaled peer reviewed content for the pro, then they should likewise be constrained when advocating the con.
 
Posted by LetterRip (Member # 310) on :
 
mdgann,

quote:


Did anyone ever call LR on this one?
I don't have time right now to read this entire topic.
Actually, angle of the earth to the suns rays has a much "bigger driver". In the summer we are farther from the sun and closer in the winter. In summer the suns rays hit us much more directly and contribute more of their energy to warming the earth than in the winter when we are closer but receive a glancing blow.

We are talking global mean temperature. I could be mistaken but I believe that will only impact the seasonal variations expected by each hemisphere but shouldn't have a significant impact on global mean temperature.

However, I still misspoke since I should have said either 'average distance from the sun'; 'time weighted average distance from the sun'; or best eccentricity of the earths orbit.

LetterRip
 
Posted by LetterRip (Member # 310) on :
 
G2,

quote:
There it is, in your own words. You're just soooooo smart and everyone else is stupid.
You've confused 'smart' with 'knowledgable'.

I am smart [Smile] But on this topic I also happen to be quite knowledge due to significant time invested in studying the topic. I have a heavy background in mathematics (and reasonable background in statistics, and modeling), chemistry, physics, and a great deal of climate and environment specific knowledge.

You aren't dumb, but as I recall you lack sufficient background in any of the relevant areas to be able to read the papers and understand what is being said (just like hand me a book in Russian and even if it is a grade school primer I'll not be able to do anything useful with it).

quote:
Only you and those that support your views are intelligent enough to understand the "science" behind AGW.
Actually there are a number of individuals who oppose AGW who are 'knowledgable' in the topic (or a related specialty that is relevant enough to make a critique) - McKintrick (and to lesser extent Michaels), and Lindzen for instance occasionally make interesting critiques.

quote:
I dunno LR, when the foundation of your argument is that everyone else is just too stupid to understand it sounds like you've run out of anything intelligent to say. But maybe I'm jist two stoopid to unerstend yor brilance. Yor so smart ...
Are you a wheat farmer? I've never seen someone construct so many strawmen in such a short period of time [Smile]

Feel free to address my actual arguments instead of the fantasy arguments you've constructed.

LetterRip
 
Posted by LetterRip (Member # 310) on :
 
G2,

quote:
We're around 54° F today which LR, everard, et al assure us is too high and going any higher would result in catastrophe.
I'm getting rather annoyed at you falsely attributing claims, statements, and view to me. I've never stated or implied any of the above.

I admit I'm tempted to imply lack of integrity or grasp of reality on your part, but I think it more likely you've constructed a stereotypical 'AGW believer' in your mind, and so anyone who you feel 'believes' in AGW you attribute a whole slew of beliefs to even if that individual directly contradicts those beliefs.

LetterRip

[ February 19, 2008, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]
 
Posted by LetterRip (Member # 310) on :
 
Red,

quote:
One has presented a paper reviewed and accepted by his peers as authoritative- that just happens to disagree with the current AGW theories.
This is a common misconception about peer review - it is 'a first step' not the final step. The paper is almost certainly not viewed as authoritative to any scientist at this point. It just means that the reviewers didn't notice any gross errors (sometimes there aren't any, sometimes they are subtle, and sometimes the reviewer didn't give adequate thought or it wasn't sent to a reviewer well enough versed in the field) and that the paper seemed interesting enough that it should see wider debate.

In about 6 months or so (maybe sooner) hopefully we will see some critiques and M&Ms responses. (The internet allows us to see some of this go on already of course, but the beyond 'back of the napkin' critiques probably won't appear in the journals for awhile).

G2,

quote:
Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five death threats since he started questioning whether man was affecting climate change.
Unfortunately there are plenty of people out there who are nuts and send death threats - if you are a 'celebrity' on any topic of controversy it is common. Scientists supporting AGW get them also. Even tech writers (who write about far less controversial topics) do.

LetterRip
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
The paper in question doesn't even disagree with the AGW theories. It says that socioeconomic location biases the temperature data gathered.

Unfortunately, the authors didn't run their analysis against the oceans, which would have been a very nice control group, since there's no socioeconomic activity in the oceans.

Based off of what McKitrick has said, its unclear whether they accounted enough for the feedback in their own data. They were looking for feedback biases in the temperature data, but may not have accounted for the dependency that their own data has on itself.

They also used old data, and seem to have cherry picked the data that would best support their hypothesis.

The paper has methodological flaws. What remains after the methodology has been corrected is not yet known, but considering what their adjusted data looked like, I will be surprised if whats left is much. When you find that socioeconomic factors adjust temperatures most strongly in the arctic circle, thats an obvious indicator that you need to look more closely at what you've just done.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
G2,

quote:
We're around 54° F today which LR, everard, et al assure us is too high and going any higher would result in catastrophe.
I'm getting rather annoyed at you falsely attributing claims, statements, and view to me. I've never stated or implied any of the above.
Then just simply answer my question. This manufactured outrage you trot out every time you get pushed on a topic is tiresome.

What should the global temperature be?

What should global CO2 levels be?

Since you have "significant time invested in studying the topic" and a "heavy background in mathematics (and reasonable background in statistics, and modeling), chemistry, physics, and a great deal of climate and environment specific knowledge" this should be an easy one for you so quit dodging it and impress us all with your command of the topic.

[ February 19, 2008, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Unfortunately there are plenty of people out there who are nuts and send death threats - if you are a 'celebrity' on any topic of controversy it is common. Scientists supporting AGW get them also.

I'm sure you have links supporting this assertion. Please list one or two as I have done. I'd be interested in seeing them.
 
Posted by LetterRip (Member # 310) on :
 
Here are critiques that I don't believe have been raised elsewhere,

1) Most antarctic stations are dropped before any analysis begins - ie

quote:
Because of the need for a trend across 23 [years?] we required each cell to have data for
at least 90% of the years, where a year is considered intact if at least 8 months are available. This left 451 usable locations. 11 cells are in Antarctica, where there is no
economy to speak of, several countries share jurisdiction over different research sites, and there is an anomalously high rate of missing values, probably due to the extreme conditions in which data are collected, so these were also removed.

2) They seem to use GDP and PPP in inappropriate places (ie in their term that determines how well a country can afford monitoring - they use GDP/area, but since the dominant cost of monitoring is labor - so in the US we might pay 12$/hour, China might pay 1$/hr which both might be 12PPP$/hr equivalent (note all numbers are illustrative purposes only). Ie both countries are paying 'reasonable wage' but the GDP cost for China is much smaller than the GDP cost to the US for the same amount of monitoring).

3) They use proxys that should auto correlate but seem to be treating them as if they were independent variables (GDP and coal consumption growth heavily auto correlate for instance).

4) Their inflation adjust GDP will end up using inconsistent definitions of inflation (ie the US has changed its definition of inflation drastically over the time period to minimize apparent inflation) note this issue is present in almost all studies that use adjusted GDP and PPP date.

5) They exclusion of the huge number of -50, and +50 latitude sites as 'outliers' + the Antarctica exclusions from above seems to me that it eliminates most of the data that shows the most significant warming.

That they don't seem to examine the impact of removing both the 'outliers' and the Antarctica data together, also their claim of 'no obvious pattern' to the outlier data seems rather odd - most of it clusters around the two 50 and -50 lattitudes it appears to me. (I would think standard practice would be to take absolute value of location relative to the equator, sum it and divide by number of points - then if they get roughly 25 latitude there would be no bias, the more above or below it, the greater the bias).

LetterRip

[ February 19, 2008, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]
 
Posted by LetterRip (Member # 310) on :
 
G2,

quote:
This manufactured outrage you trot out every time you get pushed on a topic is tiresome.
You aren't 'pushing on a topic' you are making false statements about me.

And it isn't 'manufactured outrage' - I never claimed outrage - but I do object to individuals bearing false witness in general, and about myself in particular.

quote:
What should the global temperature be?

What should global CO2 levels be?

There are a wide range of values that are probably reasonable. What is 'too much' is unknown (current suggestions I've see recommend stabalizing between 450-550ppm - for comparison a doubling of CO2 equivalent is 580ppm; current is 360 ppm (the doubling is a doubling based on when the scenarios were considered not a doubling of current CO2) and how strong the impact of particular temperature or CO2 levels will be is unknown. There appears to be a real risk of 'catastrophic' changes (Ie Thermo haline circulation 'shutting down' resulting in drastically reduced food production for europe and likely Asia), and of course economic losses due to submerged coastline from ocean volume expansion, and to a lesser extent glacial melting.

Also things like species and habitat loss, increased acidity of the water reducing productivity of the oceans, and unknown quantities such as variations in extreme weather events.

There are also pressing concerns which global warming may exacerbate - particularly the drawing down of water tables world wide.

Ultimately some risks are very poorly defined at current.

See this article about economic impact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_global_warming

Also economic impact (if that is how you judge things) is highly subjective in that choice of discount rate drastically impacts the conclusion even if all other assumptions can be agreed on.

Doing what we can to reduce unneeded CO2 production now (primarily through increased efficiency where possible, but also things like externality taxes where the real cost of the energy consumption is reflected in the price of the energy being consumed) can give us more time to determine the exact risks and potentially find technological solutions to substitute for CO2 intensive resource consumption (either through technological improvements in sequestration, or other innovations) if it is deemed ultimately necessary.

LetterRip

[ February 21, 2008, 02:58 AM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
G2, warming in one place usually results in cooling in another. That's why it's climate change and not just warming. Global dimming is considered by many scientists as a far graver and pressing issue than warming. And there is, from what I gather (disclaimer: I am not a scientist, don't play one on TV and can't hold an intelligent conversation on the specifics), far less dispute that dimming is caused by human activity.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Solar variability is out
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
I'm going to post this here as well (double the pleasure!) since it fits more accurately in this thread.

Temperatures are dropping hard and fast. Per UAH satellite measurements, the global ∆T from April to May 2008 was -.195°C.

For the last 12 months, May 2007 to May 2008, the 12 month ∆T is -.379°C.

Over the last 16 months there is a ∆T of -0.774°C which is equal in magnitude to the generally agreed upon “global warming signal” of the last 100 years.

For those wondering, CO2 emissions only increased during the last 16 months. The CO2 content of our atmosphere increased the entire time yet temperatures declined significantly. This is a direct contradiction of AGW theories.

Global temperatures have been in decline since 2002 with CO2 levels continuing to rise the entire time. How much and how long does temperature have to drop while CO2 levels increase before AGW supporters begin to realize there's a massive problem with their theory?
 
Posted by flydye45 (Member # 2004) on :
 
Well if it continues, that's great. Let's see a slightly longer trend line.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by flydye45:
Well if it continues, that's great.

I disagree, I think it's extraordinarily bad news. We're much better off warming than we are freezing.

quote:
Originally posted by flydye45:
Let's see a slightly longer trend line.

Two things about that ...

1. How long should the trend be? There has been no warming for the last 10 years and cooling for the last 6.

2. Why does the trend matter at all? The Argos buoy system has confirmed ocean cooling and the UAH satellite system confirms atmospheric cooling. The fact that we are cooling despite continued increases in CO2 levels invalidates the AGW theory that man made greenhouse gases are responsible for the majority of the heating.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
The fact that we are cooling despite continued increases in CO2 levels invalidates the AGW theory that man made greenhouse gases are responsible for the majority of the heating.
So you've been able to account for all non-anthropogenic sources for the cooling? Good. Because otherwise, it could be that CO2 is keeping things warmer than they would otherwise be.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Temperatures are rising hard and fast. Per NCDC measurements, the global ∆T from February to March 2008 was +.32°C.

For the 12 month period (March 2007 to March 2008) the ∆T is + 0.1°C.

For the 18 month period from October 2006 to March 2008 the ∆T is + 0.13°C.

For the last 10 years from March 1999 to March 2008 the ∆T is + 0.16°C.

Cherry picking is fun!

(disclaimer for the irony-impaired: I don't believe that temperatures are rising hard and fast, and I don't believe that a monthly average anomaly is significant in any meaningful way).
 
Posted by flydye45 (Member # 2004) on :
 
Donald, I get what you are saying, but at least G2 used the latest numbers...or were you referring to the agency?
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
So you've been able to account for all non-anthropogenic sources for the cooling? Good. Because otherwise, it could be that CO2 is keeping things warmer than they would otherwise be.

This particular cop-out was inevitable. Imagine how bad it would be without the CO2 warming things! However, the theory is that CO2 levels are the primary drivers to such a point that all other drivers are irrelevant. How do oceans and the atmosphere cool when the primary driver continues it's increase? That's a direct contradiction to the theory. How do you account for that?

quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Temperatures are rising hard and fast. Per NCDC measurements, the global ∆T from February to March 2008 was +.32°C.

For the 12 month period (March 2007 to March 2008) the ∆T is + 0.1°C.

For the 18 month period from October 2006 to March 2008 the ∆T is + 0.13°C.

For the last 10 years from March 1999 to March 2008 the ∆T is + 0.16°C.

Cherry picking is fun!

(disclaimer for the irony-impaired: I don't believe that temperatures are rising hard and fast, and I don't believe that a monthly average anomaly is significant in any meaningful way).

All I can do is work with the most recent data series from the most reliable sources. Satellite measurements from UAH go back to 1979 and the last 10 years show a distinct downward trend that is more pronounced since 2002. The Argos Buoy system shows a decline as well. I assume you're generating data from surface stations since those are the only ones left that can demonstrate warming. It's well documented why these are doing that and how deeply flawed these stations have become - putting Stevenson screens on parking lots and next to AC exhaust fans tend to bias the data heavily upward.

Hadley and UAH both show a decreasing trend of about 0.2 degrees over the last 6 years. You can download the data from UAH and check this yourself (anyone can, just google it up and drop it in a spreadsheet). The temperatures over the last 16 months have indeed wiped out the alleged human produced warming of the last 100 years.
You may argue that it does not mean an impending ice age through the "cherry picking" defense but the issue is that AGW theory tells us that there is no way we can have any such a significant and extended cooling period as we've had over the last 6 years. There may be monthly or seasonal fluctuations but the trend should always be higher and higher temperatures according to AGW theory.

Why isn't temperature going up as AGW theory predicts?
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Sorry to rain on your parade, but NCDC uses satellite, surface marine and land based observations.
quote:
the issue is that AGW theory tells us that there is no way we can have any such a significant and extended cooling period as we've had over the last 6 years. There may be monthly or seasonal fluctuations but the trend should always be higher and higher temperatures according to AGW theory.

Not that there has been any significant cooling in the past 6 years (check out the NCDC data yourself, it's there for your perusal) but why do you think that (aside from intra-year fluctuations) global climate models would predict continuous temperature increases?

You are once again conveniently ignoring all climate drivers aside CO2. The first and most obvious driver you are excluding is the ENSO, whcih alternately drives temperatures higher then lower in multi-year cycles.

fly: the question would be, why didn't G2 author any of his cherry-picked posts since February? Why did he wait until June? Was it because May was the first month in that time frame that supported his position? Like I said earlier, the signal to noise ratio is so low when looking at global average temperatures that monthly variation comparisons are plain stupid.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Sorry to rain on your parade, but NCDC uses satellite, surface marine and land based observations.

So I was right, land based is thrown in there which is heavily biased upward. What's your theory for only land based data showing warming while all others show significant cooling?
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Not that there has been any significant cooling in the past 6 years (check out the NCDC data yourself, it's there for your perusal) but why do you think that (aside from intra-year fluctuations) global climate models would predict continuous temperature increases?

The theory is CO2 rises, so does temperatures. Over a 10 year period the CO2 levels have risen and temperatures have not - the last 6 have seen dramatic drops. Is a decade just a "intra-year fluctuation"? How about 15 years? 20? When does the downward trend become more than just a fluctuation?
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
You are once again conveniently ignoring all climate drivers aside CO2. The first and most obvious driver you are excluding is the ENSO, whcih alternately drives temperatures higher then lower in multi-year cycles.

I'm not ignoring other climate drivers. To the contrary, I'm counting on them. The AGW theory is that the level of CO2 produced by humans is responsible for the vast majority of heating (didn't everard claim at least 60% or something like that?). So much so that all others drivers drop to insignificance. My position is that CO2 levels are the insignificant factor and the other drivers (primarily the sun) are responsible. Given a decade of flat to decreasing temperatures while CO2 levels continue to increase, CO2 obviously cannot be boogey man it's been made out to be.
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
fly: the question would be, why didn't G2 author any of his cherry-picked posts since February? Why did he wait until June? Was it because May was the first month in that time frame that supported his position? Like I said earlier, the signal to noise ratio is so low when looking at global average temperatures that monthly variation comparisons are plain stupid.

First, it's not monthly variation - it's a decade.

Second, I waited until June because that's when the May 2008 data was published. I could hardly use May 2008 data before it was published. Instead of relying on projections, I prefer to rely on reality and that means waiting for the data to publish from various sources. As soon as the June data is published, I'll be on that too but I really think we should wait until the end of June to begin using that data, don't you?

Third, I'm working with the most recent data sets. You should too. You can cherry pick artificial begin and end points within the data set to demonstrate you know the definition of cherry picking but that doesn't mean I'm guilty of it. The only thing you've proven is that you know definition of cherry picking. However, if you would like to look at temperatures over the long term, I'm game. Where do today's current temperatures rank on a more reasonable time scale of millions of years? C'mon, I bet you know the answer ...

I'm looking at the trend from the last 10 years to present. You can try to prove cherry picking at the start point (with something more than defining cherry picking) but the end point being current up to 5 days ago is hardly cherry picking.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Cherry picking is as cherry picking does. What you cherry picked was the time period in which you decided to post this analysis.

If instead of waiting two months, you had used the same 'current up to 5 days ago' end date in March or April - instead of waiting for May and a decrease, as you did - you would have 'proven' that the globe was warming.

quote:
First, it's not monthly variation - it's a decade.
This shows a basic misunderstanding of the data. What you are using as your end-point temperature variance is a monthly average as compared to some base point (a multi-decade average in fact.) The fact that you are comparing the monthly average to a multi-decade average doesn't make that monthly average variance anything more than a monthly average variance.
quote:
The AGW theory is that the level of CO2 produced by humans is responsible for the vast majority of heating (didn't everard claim at least 60% or something like that?).
Again, this shows a pretty basic misunderstanding. That human activity may or may not have been responsible for 60% of the excess warming in the recent past says little about the proportion of the human effect in the future and specifically human activiity does not magically limit the effects of other climate drivers.

Or do you think that if the sun went nova, climate science predicts that human activity would still be responsible for 60%? Or if a large asteroid slammed into the Earth? A super-volcano? A little more on-topic, ENSO has observable, predictable effects on global temps. Does this mean that human activity is cyclically-dependent on ENSO? Or that ENSO is dependent on the waxing and waning of human activity?
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Cherry picking is as cherry picking does. What you cherry picked was the time period in which you decided to post this analysis.

If instead of waiting two months, you had used the same 'current up to 5 days ago' end date in March or April - instead of waiting for May and a decrease, as you did - you would have 'proven' that the globe was warming.

I think we all understand that you know what cherry picking is, now you need to actually prove it's what was done.

I did not wait for May to decrease just as I'm not waiting for June or July or whatever future date to decrease so I can use them. You're reaching terribly to make out like I have some knowledge of future data and the direction it will go so I can "cherry pick" it. I'm good but I'm not that good.

You can use the March or April data if you like - they show decreasing trends as well. The entire last 6 years shows decreasing trends. That's simply the current trend. You cannot stay stuck on previous trends to prove your point. If CO2 is the primary driver as AGW claims, it should remain the primary driver pretty consistently don't you think?

quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
quote:
First, it's not monthly variation - it's a decade.
This shows a basic misunderstanding of the data. What you are using as your end-point temperature variance is a monthly average as compared to some base point (a multi-decade average in fact.) The fact that you are comparing the monthly average to a multi-decade average doesn't make that monthly average variance anything more than a monthly average variance.
This shows a basic misunderstanding of the data. I'm not comparing, I'm graphing the monthly averages and watching the trends. Pretty standard stuff in this arena. The trend should be upward, it's not.

quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
quote:
The AGW theory is that the level of CO2 produced by humans is responsible for the vast majority of heating (didn't everard claim at least 60% or something like that?).
Again, this shows a pretty basic misunderstanding. That human activity may or may not have been responsible for 60% of the excess warming in the recent past says little about the proportion of the human effect in the future and specifically human activiity does not magically limit the effects of other climate drivers.

Or do you think that if the sun went nova, climate science predicts that human activity would still be responsible for 60%? Or if a large asteroid slammed into the Earth? A super-volcano? A little more on-topic, ENSO has observable, predictable effects on global temps. Does this mean that human activity is cyclically-dependent on ENSO? Or that ENSO is dependent on the waxing and waning of human activity?

But that is not the AGW theory. You're trying obfuscate things and move the goal posts a bit but you still avoid the basic premise of AGW theory - specifically that it's CO2 that's the primary driver and all other drivers are irrelevant.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
You're trying obfuscate things and move the goal posts a bit but you still avoid the basic premise of AGW theory - specifically that it's CO2 that's the primary driver and all other drivers are irrelevant.
Primary driver of what???

As previously stated, human-emitted CO2 accounts for only 1 to 4 percent of total global warming. That is the theory. However, it accounts for 60 percent or so of the increase in global warming. That also is the theory. (IIRC)

So the theory says that 40 percent of the increased warming is from the other 96 to 99 percent of the driving forces. That is the theory. So why does it contradict the theory that this 96 to 99 percent of the driving forces could overwhelm the 1 to 4 percent??

Now, if the current cooling is shown not to be a result of the other driving forces, then AGW and the role of CO2 must be revised. But cooling itself does not disprove AGW, according to the theory. Especially when there is a great deal of natural variance (noise) to contend with. Is the current drop in temperature much different than that which occurred around 1998?

The goal posts aren't being moved. Your understanding of AGW is being corrected.
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
I should know better than to look at this thread but I can't seem to stop myself!

There are few funnier things on Ornery, I tell you.

Here's an idea: take a statistics class before you make any more arguments based on statistics. You will look SO much less ridiculous, I promise.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
quote:
But that is not the AGW theory. You're trying obfuscate things and move the goal posts a bit but you still avoid the basic premise of AGW theory - specifically that it's CO2 that's the primary driver and all other drivers are irrelevant
Of course, this AGW you talk about only exists in your imagination. If that's what you are arguing against then you will be hard pressed to find anyone here to disagree with.

Climate models are continuously being reworked to take into consideration all known drivers, and this includes ENSO. That you don't realize this is frankly bizarre.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Just going through old threads and noticed this one. This sentence stuck out like a sore thumb
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
As soon as the June data is published, I'll be on that too but I really think we should wait until the end of June to begin using that data, don't you?

Interestingly, G2 didn't seem to get on the June data as promised. That the temperature anomaly increased in June of 2008 had nothing to do with that, I'm sure (interestingly, the monthly global temperature anomaly hasn't actually been that low since May 2008, so G2 was probably prescient in choosing that particular month as his jumping off point.)

I am a little confused that G2 hasn't recently made the observation that 'temperatures are rising hard and fast', what with this being the warmest 4-month period in the instrumental record (including the two satellite services RSS and UAH) but I am just a simple boy.

Standard disclaimer: Note that I am not pointing to the past year's trend as 'proof' of global warming, rather pointing out that 'choosing' a particular month or season as an ending point for analysis is almost useless.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
Nearly 2 years has passed, what's the data now? Over the last 10 years, temperatures have consistently declined ( see ). IPCC predictions are off by several orders of magnitude - all showed warming.

Everyone knows it:
quote:
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
Yep, no temperature increases for a decade and a half and it's actually gone down instead.

New future:
quote:

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

Let's look at the cycle again:
quote:
GLOBAL COOLING: 1890s-1930s

The Times, February 24, 1895
"Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again"
Fears of a "second glacial period" brought on by increases in northern glaciers and the severity of Scandinavia's climate.

New York Times, October 7, 1912
"Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age"

Los Angeles Times, June 28, 1923
"The possibility of another Ice Age already having started ... is admitted by men of first rank in the scientific world, men specially qualified to speak."

Chicago Tribune, August 9, 1923
"Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada."

Time Magazine, September 10, 1923
"The discoveries of changes in the sun's heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age."

New York Times, September 18, 1924
"MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age"

GLOBAL WARMING: 1930s-1960s

New York Times, March 27, 1933
"America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise"

Time Magazine, January 2, 1939
"Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right.... weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer."

Time Magazine, 1951
Noted that permafrost in Russia was receding northward at 100 yards per year.

New York Times, 1952
Reported global warming studies citing the "trump card" as melting glaciers. All the great ice sheets stated to be in retreat.

U.S. News and World Report, January 18, 1954
"[W]inters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing."

GLOBAL COOLING: 1970s

Time Magazine, June 24, 1974
"Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

Christian Science Monitor, August 27, 1974
"Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster than Even Experts Expect"
Reported that "glaciers have begun to advance"; "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter"; and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool".

Science News, March 1, 1975
"The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed, and we are unlikely to quickly regain the 'very extraordinary period of warmth' that preceded it."

Newsweek, April 28, 1975
"The Cooling World"
"There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now."

International Wildlife, July-August, 1975
"But the sense of the discoveries is that there is no reason why the ice age should not start in earnest in our lifetime."

New York Times, May 21, 1975
"Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable"

GLOBAL WARMING: 1990s-?

Earth in the Balance, Al Gore, 1992
"About 10 million residents of Bangladesh will lose their homes and means of sustenance because of the rising sea level due to global warming, in the next few decades."

Time Magazine, April 19, 2001
"[S]cientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible."

New York Times, December 27, 2005
"Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming"

The Daily Telegraph, February 2, 2006
"Billions will die, says Lovelock, who tells us that he is not usually a gloomy type. Human civilization will be reduced to a 'broken rabble ruled by brutal warlords,' and the plague-ridden remainder of the species will flee the cracked and broken earth to the Arctic, the last temperate spot where a few breeding couples will survive."

About a 30 year cycle, give or take. So it's time for the end of the world to once again be cooling just like it was in the 1970's ... hopefully without the disco music.

Burt Rutan lays it out:
quote:
Specifically, the theory of CAGW is not supported by any of the climate data and none of the predictions of IPCC since their first report in 1991 have been supported by measured data. The scare is merely a computer modeled theory that has been flawed from the beginning, and in spite of its failure to predict, many of the climate scientists cling to it.

 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
Fortunately, there is a simply rebutal to G2's argument.

Consider this chart of the global land-ocean temperatures since 1880, and answer three simple questions.

1. Has average temperatures increased since 1880?

2. Has there ever been a decade and a half between 1880 and 2011 when temperatures have decreased, perhaps even more than the current decade?

3. Considering the answers to 1 and 2, does the current mild downward trend of temperatures conclusively prove that global warming has stopped?

Hopefully, this is the beginning of a long term trend, although I would like to see a much deeper decrease. But it is still too early to tell.

BTW, which computer model was Rutan referring to? [Wink]
 
Posted by edgmatt (Member # 6449) on :
 
You get an A for research and for putting together the headline timeline.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
G2 did not put together the headline timeline.

According to G2, it was James P. Hogan, which he quoted in another thread back in March 2007.
 
Posted by edgmatt (Member # 6449) on :
 
Ah. Too bad, it's a good illustration of media frenzy.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Fortunately, there is a simply rebutal to G2's argument.

Consider this chart of the global land-ocean temperatures since 1880, and answer three simple questions.

Your chart is looking at a different data set, so to some degree this isn't a completely valid comparison.

Here is the graph using the same data set: Link

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
1. Has average temperatures increased since 1880?

Yes, by about 0.8 Celsius between 1880-2011. (roughly 0.6 °C per century)

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
2. Has there ever been a decade and a half between 1880 and 2011 when temperatures have decreased, perhaps even more than the current decade?

Yes, 1940-1958 is a pretty big decline and if you were to trace a plot from 1880 to 1940 you would get a much steeper trend line than if you were to trace a plot from 1880 to 1958.


quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
3. Considering the answers to 1 and 2, does the current mild downward trend of temperatures conclusively prove that global warming has stopped?

No, but it does cast a lot of doubt on the expected long term trend for global warming. And thus, it certainly affects the public debate. It looks as if the truth is somewhere in the middle of a)there is no global warming & b)global warming will be a global catastrophe unless we do something immediately.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
Nearly 2 years has passed, what's the data now? Over the last 10 years, temperatures have consistently declined ( see ). IPCC predictions are off by several orders of magnitude - all showed warming.

Everyone knows it:
quote:
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
Yep, no temperature increases for a decade and a half and it's actually gone down instead.

New future:
quote:

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.


See this for a rebuttal.

Relevant Section:

quote:
Originally posted by Phil Plait:
By "Cycle 25" he’s referring to the solar activity cycle — which I’ll get to in a moment. But first, the most egregiously awful thing about the Mail article is the angle it takes on new results released by The Met Office, the National Weather Service for the UK. The subheadline for the Mail article is "Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years", which is a bit odd given that the very first two paragraphs of the Met’s press release say:

2012 is expected to be around 0.48 °C warmer than the long-term (1961-1990) global average of 14.0 °C, with a predicted likely range of between 0.34 °C and 0.62 °C, according to the Met Office annual global temperature forecast.

The middle of this range would place 2012 within the top 10 warmest years in a series which goes back to 1850.

...

If you can square that with "new figures… show no warming" then congrats! You can write for the Mail.

The article is so fallacious that the Met offices decided to publish another release stating clearly that the Mail article "includes numerous errors", is "misleading", and that the author chose "… to not fully include the answers we gave him".

Also, what the Daily Mail says came from the University of East Anglia, actually came out of the University of Reading. Oops.

[ January 30, 2012, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: NobleHunter ]
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Heck, G2's own post is looking at two different data subsets... and once again cherry picking them. It can be claimed that the temperatures over the past decade have plateaued, but when in one post G2 characterizes temperatures as consistently declining over a 10 year period, then once again quotes from someone using 1998 as a starting point, well, you have to applaud how consistent he is in his misrepresentations.

Take the word 'consistent' - even choosing the relatively warm year of 2002 as a starting point, there were 3 years since then that exceeded the average temperature anomaly for that year.

If choosing 2001 instead of 2002 as the starting point, then 8 of the past 10 years were warmer; if choosing either 1999 or 2000, then every year since then has been warmer. It's only by selecting a good starting point that his claim can be made even partially accurate.

I won't even get into the uselessness of quoting someone who uses 1998 as a starting point while analyzing a decades-long trend. But it is interesting that G2 was silent at the end of 2010, a year that basically tied for the warmest ever during the instrumental record, but only a year later is claiming that temperatures are dropping "consistently". [Smile]
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
Different data sets show different things. But if you are referring to the Hadcrut data then 1998 was the hottest year on record.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Heck, G2's own post is looking at two different data subsets... and once again cherry picking them. It can be claimed that the temperatures over the past decade have plateaued, but when in one post G2 characterizes temperatures as consistently declining over a 10 year period, then once again quotes from someone using 1998 as a starting point, well, you have to applaud how consistent he is in his misrepresentations.

Whoa, got a little woozy from you spin. And that's all you got here is spin. the facts are the facts and the facts contradict you and all the rest of the warmists. But you can whine like this all you want about me, the truth is coming out and the fact that AGW theory got it wrong is being discussed at even among the inner circle:
quote:
... Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and other scientists discuss gaps in understanding of recent variations in temperature. Skeptic Web sites pointed out one line in particular: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” Dr. Trenberth wrote.
Ohh those hacked emails. Devastating.

quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Take the word 'consistent' - even choosing the relatively warm year of 2002 as a starting point, there were 3 years since then that exceeded the average temperature anomaly for that year.

And how many years did these great computer models show anything other than ever increasing temperatures significantly higher than what has been measured? Why do you still believe them and insist other do as well? Once empirical evidence contradicts the theory, we generally throw out the theory. Why are you holding onto it even though it's demonstrably false?

quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
If choosing 2001 instead of 2002 as the starting point, then 8 of the past 10 years were warmer; if choosing either 1999 or 2000, then every year since then has been warmer. It's only by selecting a good starting point that his claim can be made even partially accurate.

2001 was chosen since it is the last year for a decade long measurement that demonstrates current trends. Perhaps you would prefer to use data ending in 1998?

quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
I won't even get into the uselessness of quoting someone who uses 1998 as a starting point while analyzing a decades-long trend. But it is interesting that G2 was silent at the end of 2010, a year that basically tied for the warmest ever during the instrumental record, but only a year later is claiming that temperatures are dropping "consistently". [Smile]

How often do you need me to update this? Is it monthly? Weekly? You think that if I don't post often enough, that means it can't be true. [Roll Eyes] Are logical fallacies like argumentum ad nauseam that ingrained in your thought processes?
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by edgmatt:
You get an A for research and for putting together the headline timeline.

It was James P Hogan, you can see it here. Hogan has written a lot of stuff that demonstrates just how much of a hoax AGW really is.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Fortunately, there is a simply rebutal to G2's argument.

Consider this chart of the global land-ocean temperatures since 1880, and answer three simple questions.

1. Has average temperatures increased since 1880?

Do you know why you're stuck on 1880? Why was that date chosen as the starting point? It was the end of the Little Ice Age. Do you think it's a coincidence you chose (actually been fed) the idea that this should all start at one of the coldest eras of our current ice age? Did you even know we're in the midst of an ice age right now? Just curious ...

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
2. Has there ever been a decade and a half between 1880 and 2011 when temperatures have decreased, perhaps even more than the current decade?

More importantly, where in the theory did it predict a decade and half of flat to cooling temperatures? Comb through the IPCC reports and show us the section where it states anything other than consistent long term warming.
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:

3. Considering the answers to 1 and 2, does the current mild downward trend of temperatures conclusively prove that global warming has stopped?

You seem to think that the mild upward trend from the little ice age to 1998 proved the theory. Now when the trend reverses it suddenly is no longer proof? Yeah ...
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:

Hopefully, this is the beginning of a long term trend, although I would like to see a much deeper decrease. But it is still too early to tell.

That is crazy. If you think cooling is preferable, then you don't understand what that may mean.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:

Hopefully, this is the beginning of a long term trend, although I would like to see a much deeper decrease. But it is still too early to tell.

That is crazy. If you think cooling is preferable, then you don't understand what that may mean.
I don't think he meant that global cooling would be better than global warming. I think he meant that it would be nice if the current trend would head downward for a while to offset some of the late 20th century rise.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
How reliable is the data behind the latest G2 post? Here's a reaction to the article he surfed and deposited here:
quote:
“Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again),” the Daily Mail says. “Global warming trend ended in 1997, new data shows,” the Washington Times promotes.

This is strange, since temperature data and NASA scientists show the 2000s to be the warmest decade in recorded history, significantly hotter than the 1990s.

As it turns out, the Daily Mail’s David Rose concocted the “entirely misleading” story by cherry-picking from two different press releases from the UK Met Office. The first press release said that low solar activity would not counteract global warming from greenhouse gases — the second that 2012 will be much warmer than the 20th century average because of global warming.

Rose deliberately ignored the science, cherrypicked data, and quoted scientists on the fringe of reality. By excluding as many actual facts as possible, Rose came to the conclusion that global warming stopped years before the warmest decade in recorded history.

The Daily Mail is controlled by right-wing British billionaire Jonathan Harmsworth, Viscount Rothermere.

Answer: As reliable as ever.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
Whoa, got a little woozy from you spin.

Well, you are being spun, but it isn't by me... Aside from your almost knee-jerk attempts at misdirection when the flaws in your posts are pointed out to you, I'm beginning to understand that in this particular area, and your assumed persona notwithstanding, you seem honestly to not see the logical failures in your own argument; you sincerely don't understand the mistakes that you consistently repeat every time you bring up the subject.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
For those interested in the science of AGW, Skeptical Science recently published an article that outlines various major studies that point to humans causing the recent rise in temperature. A good read.
 
Posted by KidTokyo (Member # 6601) on :
 
While admitting up front that this is (perhaps...) a bit below-the-belt, I'd like to present Wikipedia's summary of James P. Hogan's views on other matters.

quote:
In his later years, Hogan's views tended towards those widely considered "fringe" or pseudoscientific. He was a proponent of Immanuel Velikovsky's version of catastrophism,[3] and of the hypothesis that AIDS is caused by pharmaceutical use rather than HIV (see AIDS denialism).[4] He stated that he found basic evidence of evolution's being random to be lacking — or to disprove the theory outright,[5] though he didn't propose theistic creationism as an alternative. Hogan was skeptical of the theories on climate change and ozone depletion.[6]

Hogan also espoused the idea that the Holocaust didn't happen in the manner described by mainstream historians, writing that he found the work of Arthur Butz and Mark Weber to be "more scholarly, scientific, and convincing than what the history written by the victors says."[7] Such theories were seen by many[who?] to contradict his views on scientific rationality; he repeatedly stated that these theories held his attention due to the high quality of their presentation — a quality he believed established sources should attempt to emulate, rather than resorting to attacking their originators.[citation needed]

In March 2010, in an essay defending Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel, Hogan stated that the mainstream history of the Holocaust includes "claims that are wildly fantastic, mutually contradictory, and defy common sense and often physical possibility."[8]

He seems to have a thing for revisionism.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
Maybe he just likes betting on the long shot so that if he ever IS correct he can do a massive "I told you so" dance?
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
While Hogan may be drawn to revisionism, it really doesn't have anything to do with what he says.

It is a good example, though, of the fact that even though you can find weaknesses in your opponent's arguments, it does not mean that you are right. [Smile]
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
Whoa, got a little woozy from you spin.

Well, you are being spun, but it isn't by me... Aside from your almost knee-jerk attempts at misdirection when the flaws in your posts are pointed out to you, I'm beginning to understand that in this particular area, and your assumed persona notwithstanding, you seem honestly to not see the logical failures in your own argument; you sincerely don't understand the mistakes that you consistently repeat every time you bring up the subject.
Your only problem is the facts. But for those, you would be right. Unfortunately, for you, you're not entitled to your own facts. I think you don't know that temperatures have declined. Somehow, you see it and just *snap* you just don't know it any more. This is a manifestation of blackwhite it seems, or at least near pathological denial. It's truly freaky to see an otherwise normal human being do these kinds of things, it generally only happens in cults ...

CO2 has risen all this time, all AGW dogma says this must increase temperatures. Computer models, eco-soothsayers, etc. pound out the message that CO2 is the primary driver in global temperatures. If CO2 goes up, so must temperatures. But it's not happening. You might want to review that ... it's not happening.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:

Hopefully, this is the beginning of a long term trend, although I would like to see a much deeper decrease. But it is still too early to tell.

That is crazy. If you think cooling is preferable, then you don't understand what that may mean.
I don't think he meant that global cooling would be better than global warming. I think he meant that it would be nice if the current trend would head downward for a while to offset some of the late 20th century rise.
I believe he has said that before though ... I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure it was someone around here who thought cooling would be good news. That being said, almost all if not all the late 20th century rise has been offset already.

Global temperatures have always been in flux. Always. SO has CO2. Man had had nothing to do with it. Rates of change in these have been proven to occur as quickly as current rates of change. Nothing new or even remotely unusual has happened.

Right now, the planet is at historic temperature lows and CO2 levels are among the lowest ever recorded in planetary history (now at about 390ppm, at around 280ppm, plant life will die off). If either of these decline, we're in for far worse than the tropical paradise the warmist cult believes awaits the enviro-sinner.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
I think you don't know that temperatures have declined. Somehow, you see it and just *snap* you just don't know it any more.

I think it would behoove you to read the posts above more carefully. You share many attributes with Ron Lambert, G2, so I have little hope that this will happen, but at least it wouldn't require you to jettison your religious faith to re-examine your sources with more rigor.

[ February 01, 2012, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by KidTokyo (Member # 6601) on :
 
Historic lows? Declined? Not according to NASA.

View graphs here

NASA concludes:

quote:
Summary
2011 was only the ninth warmest year in the GISS analysis of global temperature change, yet nine of the ten warmest years in the instrumental record (since 1880) have occurred in the 21st century. The past year has been cooled by a moderately strong La Niña. The 5-year (60-month) running mean global temperature hints at a slowdown in the global warming rate during the past few years. However, the cool La Niña phase of the cyclically variable Southern Oscillation of tropical temperatures has been dominant in the past three years, and the deepest solar minimum in the period of satellite data occurred over the past half dozen years. We conclude that the slowdown of warming is likely to prove illusory, with more rapid warming appearing over the next few years.

Is NASA entitled to "their" facts?

[ February 01, 2012, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: KidTokyo ]
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
The only people more committed to their beliefs than some AGW skeptics are evangelicals and more committed to their facts are Wall St. traders.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
The world's greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.

The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall.

The study is the first to survey all the world's icecaps and glaciers and was made possible by the use of satellite data. Overall, the contribution of melting ice outside the two largest caps – Greenland and Antarctica – is much less then previously estimated, with the lack of ice loss in the Himalayas and the other high peaks of Asia responsible for most of the discrepancy.

Bristol University glaciologist Prof Jonathan Bamber, who was not part of the research team, said: "The very unexpected result was the negligible mass loss from high mountain Asia, which is not significantly different from zero."

yeah.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
I don’t care who’s right as long as we can fund research into the ability to cool or warm a planet as needed. The longer the “debate” goes the more concrete the science will become. The better our understanding the better the innovations. In this instance I cheer for the kooks on both ends of the seesaw.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
And what did the rest of the article say, G2?

I find it interesting that you didn't point out that the article demonstrates scientists' willingness to revise their previous knowledge and claims... while still ignoring the other quotes that don't support your regular memes.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
Were you thinking of this quote from the Guardian article, Donald?

quote:
However, the scientist who led the new work is clear that while greater uncertainty has been discovered in Asia's highest mountains, the melting of ice caps and glaciers around the world remains a serious concern.

"Our results and those of everyone else show we are losing a huge amount of water into the oceans every year," said Prof John Wahr of the University of Colorado. "People should be just as worried about the melting of the world's ice as they were before."

His team's study, published in the journal Nature, concludes that between 443-629bn tonnes of meltwater overall are added to the world's oceans each year. This is raising sea level by about 1.5mm a year, the team reports, in addition to the 2mm a year caused by expansion of the warming ocean.

The scientists are careful to point out that lower-altitude glaciers in the Asian mountain ranges – sometimes dubbed the "third pole" – are definitely melting. Satellite images and reports confirm this. But over the study period from 2003-10 enough ice was added to the peaks to compensate.

Or this?

quote:
Wahr warned that while crucial to a better understanding of ice melting, the eight years of data is a relatively short time period and that variable monsoons mean year-to-year changes in ice mass of hundreds of billions of tonnes. "It is awfully dangerous to take an eight-year record and predict even the next eight years, let alone the next century," he said.

 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
Or maybe this:
quote:
One of the fathers of Germany’s modern green movement, Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a social democrat and green activist, decided to author a climate science skeptical book together with geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Vahrenholt’s skepticism started when he was asked to review an IPCC report on renewable energy. He found hundreds of errors. When he pointed them out, IPCC officials simply brushed them aside. Stunned, he asked himself, “Is this the way they approached the climate assessment reports?”

Vahrenholt decided to do some digging. His colleague Dr. Lüning also gave him a copy of Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion. He was horrified by the sloppiness and deception he found. Persuaded by Hoffmann & Campe, he and Lüning decided to write the book. Die kalte Sonne cites 800 sources and has over 80 charts and figures. It examines and summarizes the latest science.

Conclusion: climate catastrophe is called off

That's their emphasis ... [LOL]

quote:
Germany’s flagship weekly news magazine Der Spiegel today also featured a 4-page exclusive interview with Vahrenholt, where he repeated that the IPCC has ignored a large part of climate science and that IPCC scientists exaggerated the impact of CO2 on climate. Vahrenholt said that by extending the known natural cycles of the past into the future, and taking CO2′s real impact into effect, we should expect a few tenths of a degree of cooling.
We should expect a few tenths of a degree of cooling!

The hoax is unraveling faster and faster ... [Big Grin]

[ February 08, 2012, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
What about Vahrenholt's argument do you find so persuasive - that is, aside from the fact that his conclusions are agreeable to your position?

And how do you think he came up the cooling prediction - did he use some kind of model?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
I think you do G2 too much credit by assuming that he's read Vahrenholt's book. [Smile]
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Come to think of it, I have noticed that it's been cooler the past few months. Not cold enough to snow here in Michigan, but cooler than it was back in September. I wonder if G2 might be onto something here. And thank God that there is at least one scientist out of the 1000's that have studied the problem who will stand up for the truth. Ok, he's not a real scientist, but he used to work with some. But he is a real Professor of Chemistry, even if it's an honorary appointment. All in all, his words carry a certain amount of weight.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
*grin* I was going to comment on having a politician (and former Shell board member) and a geologist pass judgment on the methodology of climatologists, but I thought maybe that would be too subtle for some people to understand. [Smile]
 
Posted by KidTokyo (Member # 6601) on :
 
Why respond to G2? He does't respond beyond the level of "I'm rubber, you're glue." What's the point? He's not here to have a conversation -- he's just happy people are paying attention to him with such urgency. Stop feeding the beast.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Actually, he long ago declared that he has a browser tool that filters out my posts, so I'm not responding to him. I don't suspect anybody else here thinks they're corresponding with him, either. I think of him as a practice target for witty remarks I hope one day to make directly to someone like Newt Gingrich during a 3 hour Lincoln-Douglas style debate. I will play Lincoln, Newt will likely play g2.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
Someone needs to tell the Burpee seed catalog folks that it's just their imagination and that it was a mistake to revise all of their hardiness temperature zones northward because plants were consistently not growing properly under the older, cooler assumptions.

The swarm of brown stinkbugs that's infesting Pittsburgh because it's no longer too cold for them to survive here also seem to have missed the memo.

[ February 09, 2012, 07:43 AM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
At least one scientist is tracking climate change by counting the roadkill of muskrats and other critters as it moves northward. The Monroe Michigan muskrat cookoff gets bigger and bigger every year...
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
I don’t care who’s right as long as we can fund research into the ability to cool or warm a planet as needed. The longer the “debate” goes the more concrete the science will become. The better our understanding the better the innovations. In this instance I cheer for the kooks on both ends of the seesaw.

That's one of the most useful remarks that I've seen in this whole debate. This is all very useful research for terraforming. And regardless of whether human tech has or hasn't played a part in certain recent climate changes, it's useful to ask how we might affect it, for our own needs. Clearly the history of the planet suggests that temperatures are going to go back up at some point, which means we need to look at what we might do to stabilize things, maintain homeostasis in order to save our own species and the life that we've grown accustomed to.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
This illustrates my biggest complaint about AGW deniers. Usually they throw up their hands and say, "Climate is too complex for us to understand. We don't know how it works, and never will. But we know that we aren't affecting the climate."

Other than the obvious contradiction in that (imaginary) statement, the worst part is that, typically, they are not interesting in finding out how the climate system works. They just want to know that they don't have to change their lifestyle. Beyond that, they are have no interest.

The biggest evidence of this is the fact that there is no robust climate model (one that takes in all the known forcings and feedbacks of our climate system) that shows that AGW is not happening. While there are several models that show it is happening, to one degree or another, there are none that I know of that show the opposite.

Yet deniers are absolutely sure they are right, to the point of accusing scientists of lying about their work.

I never understood how they could be so sure.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Someone needs to tell the Burpee seed catalog folks that it's just their imagination and that it was a mistake to revise all of their hardiness temperature zones northward because plants were consistently not growing properly under the older, cooler assumptions.

The swarm of brown stinkbugs that's infesting Pittsburgh because it's no longer too cold for them to survive here also seem to have missed the memo.

I don't think you mean it this way, but it looks like you're using these examples as proof of global warming. The deniers do the same thing - sure is a cold winter! Somebody tell Al Gore!

Better not to rely on that sort of example, unless you are just pointing out examples of the sort of consequences we might see from global warming.
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
quote:
I don't think you mean it this way, but it looks like you're using these examples as proof of global warming.
That Burpee has updated their growing zones to reflect the warming temperatures reported by the USDA is a good indication that the people who depend on agriculture for their livelihood are putting stock in global warming theory. That chart hasn't been updated in 20 years, so it's not just a season variation thing.

That doesn't prove that it's happening, but it's an example of warming theory driving money which is more interesting to me than the conspiracy theories about money driving warming theory. It means the market believes that the theory is legitimate, which is a particularly strong statement in conservative-speak.

[ February 09, 2012, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
Good point.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
This illustrates my biggest complaint about AGW deniers. Usually they throw up their hands and say, "Climate is too complex for us to understand. We don't know how it works, and never will. But we know that we aren't affecting the climate."/QB]

You have that exactly backwards. Here, I'll fix it for you:

This illustrates my biggest complaint about AGW believers. Usually they throw up their hands and say, "Climate is too complex for us to understand. We don't know how it works, super smart scientists tell us they do. But we know that we must be affecting the climate.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
[QB]
Other than the obvious contradiction in that (imaginary) statement, the worst part is that, typically, they are not interesting in finding out how the climate system works. They just want to know that they don't have to change their lifestyle. Beyond that, they are have no interest.

That is completely false. Plenty of skeptics make careers in climatology.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
The biggest evidence of this is the fact that there is no robust climate model (one that takes in all the known forcings and feedbacks of our climate system) that shows that AGW is not happening. While there are several models that show it is happening, to one degree or another, there are none that I know of that show the opposite.

Do you truly not understand the deeply flawed logic of that? Here, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum


quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Yet deniers are absolutely sure they are right, to the point of accusing scientists of lying about their work.

I never understood how they could be so sure.

We can be so sure because there is proof of it. Look up ClimateGate 1 and 2. You'll find instances where they did wholly fabricate data and talked about it among themselves.
 
Posted by G2 (Member # 2942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
[QUOTE]That doesn't prove that it's happening, but it's an example of warming theory driving money which is more interesting to me than the conspiracy theories about money driving warming theory. It means the market believes that the theory is legitimate, which is a particularly strong statement in conservative-speak.

Warming is not the controversy. If you follow history, you'll see that we were scheduled for a warming period - it's cyclical. We warm and cool relatively predictably during this interglacial period of the current ice age. We were warming, now we've been cooling, right in line with the historical cycles. CO2 had nothing to do with it then, has nothing to do with it now.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
You don't understand argumentum ad populum either. Quelle surprise.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
Climate is too complex for us to understand.
That's correct. Climate is a chaotic system, with several forcings. It is too complex for any simple system to understand. Which means it is too complex for laymen like me and you to understand. It's too complex for scientists to understand. That's why they have to use supercomputers to calculate it.

Get used to it. It's called Reality.

quote:
We don't know how it works, super smart scientists tell us they do.
Perhaps they do, or perhaps they don't. But they certainly have a much better idea than you or I. That is also called Reality. Get used to it.

quote:
But we know that we must be affecting the climate.
There are strong indications that we are affecting the climate based on the best models that we have.

What do you have? Wishful thinking? [Roll Eyes]

quote:
Plenty of skeptics make careers in climatology.
Sure. But a vast majority are not deniers like you, G2.

Skeptics have specific points where they are skeptical of the results. They are interested in the science. They admit that they don't know everything, and qualify their skepticism.

They don't declare that they are absolutely right. And they certainly don't believe everything that the AGW-deniers say, like you do.

quote:
Do you truly not understand the deeply flawed logic of that?
Please don't quote fallacies. You only make yourself look stupid.

When a vast majority of experts agree on something, it is not just "popular opinion." Or would you argue that the opinion of the majority of doctors, lawyers and car mechanics is just "argumentum ad populum?" [Roll Eyes]

This is especially true when there is no example of the minority. [LOL]

quote:
Look up ClimateGate 1 and 2. You'll find instances where they did wholly fabricate data and talked about it among themselves.
Only in your mind. Show me exactly where they fabricated data, and what the correct data is (or how the data is completely wrong).

Five panels (IIRC--might be six) looked for fabricated data and didn't find it. But I suppose you're a lot smarter than they are... [LOL]

You talk big, G2, but you're just full of hot air like a balloon. [Razz]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
http://www.davidbrin.com/climate3.htm

quote:
Who is an Expert?
Climate Skeptics first admit that they are non-experts in the topic at hand. And that experts tend to know more than non-experts. Since the Neolithic, human civilizations have relied on specialists, a trend that accelerated in the 20th Century. Reasonable people begin their paradigm -- dissent by stipulating respect for the decades that intelligent people invested in complex realms like radiative transfer, ocean chemistry, or microcell computer modeling.

This does not mean experts are always right! But this simple admission separates a Climate Skeptic from the Climate Denialist who partakes in the modern notion that vociferous opinion is worth as much as spending 20 years studying atmospheric data and models from eight planets.

The News I Need from the Weather Report
Next, the Climate Skeptic is keenly aware that, after endless jokes about hapless weathermen who could not prophesy accurately beyond a few hours, we recently entered a whole new era. Meteorologists can now forecast three days ahead fairly well, and more tentatively as far as 14 days, based on a science that has grown spectacularly adept, faster than any other. Now, with countless lives and billions of dollars riding on the skill and honesty of several thousand brilliant experts, the Climate Skeptic admits that these weather and climate guys are pretty damn smart.

(Side note: There is a distinction between weather and climate. Both deal in the same oceans, vapors, gases and sunlight, using almost identical basic equations and expertise. Both are extremely complex, and deal with that complexity with simplifying assumptions and boundary conditions. Clearly, climate modeling is more primitive, right now. Perhaps it is even rife with errors! Still, the overall tools, methods, community and eagerly-skilled people overlap greatly.)

The Climate Skeptic further avows that this rapid progress happened through a process of eager competitiveness, with scientists regularly challenging each other, poking at errors and forcing science forward -- a rambunctious, ambitious process that makes Wall Street look tame.

Climate Denialists also share this utter reliance on improved weather forecasting. They base vacations and investments on forecasts made by the same guys they call uniformly lazy, incompetent, corrupt hacks. Miraculously, they see no contradiction.

A Little Humility
Climate Skeptics go on to admit that it is both rare and significant when nearly 100% of the scientists in any field share a consensus-model, before splitting up to fight over sub-models. Hence, if an outsider perceives "something wrong" with a core scientific model, the humble and justified response of that curious outsider should be to ask "what mistake am I making?" before assuming 100% of the experts are wrong.

By contrast, Climate Denialists glom onto an anecdotal "gotcha!" from a dogma-driven radio show or politically biased blog site, whereupon they conclude that all of the atmospheric scientists must be in on some wretched conspiracy. Uniformly. At the same time.


 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
Thanks, Pyrtolin. I was going to look up that essay if I needed to.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-insider-exposes-institute-s-budget-and-strategy
 
Posted by TheRallanator (Member # 6624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
[qb] This illustrates my biggest complaint about AGW deniers. Usually they throw up their hands and say, "Climate is too complex for us to understand. We don't know how it works, and never will. But we know that we aren't affecting the climate."/QB]

You have that exactly backwards. Here, I'll fix it for you:

This illustrates my biggest complaint about AGW believers. Usually they throw up their hands and say, "Climate is too complex for us to understand. We don't know how it works, super smart scientists tell us they do. But we know that we must be affecting the climate."

I was about to tell Wayward "Look to the anti-intellectualism of Creationists". But you spared everyone on this thread the effort.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Tom, since when do you post links? [Wink]
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
So should we start calling the Heartland Budget and Strategy papers "Deniergate?" [Wink] [Smile]
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
The Heartland Institute has responded to the documents and has declared at least one of them--2012 Heartland Climate Strategy--is completely fake.

They are also incensed that anyone would steal confidential materials and release it to the public.

quote:
We believe their actions constitute civil and possibly criminal offenses for which we plan to pursue charges and collect payment for damages, including damages to our reputation....

The stolen documents were obtained by an unknown person who fraudulently assumed the identity of a Heartland board member and persuaded a staff member here to “re-send” board materials to a new email address. Identity theft and computer fraud are criminal offenses subject to imprisonment. We intend to find this person and see him or her put in prison for these crimes...

But honest disagreement should never be used to justify the criminal acts and fraud that occurred in the past 24 hours. As a matter of common decency and journalistic ethics, we ask everyone in the climate change debate to sit back and think about what just happened.

I don't have to point out the irony embedded in the above statements, do I? [Smile]

[ February 16, 2012, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
Scientific America has an article on the Heartland Papers, too. At the end, they verify at least some of the information:

quote:
However, blogger Anthony Watts and geologist Robert Carter have confirmed online and to news organizations that they have been paid or pledged money by the Institute as outlined in the documents. James M. Taylor, a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute, confirmed to ThinkProgress Green that the school educational project is ongoing.

 
Posted by G3 (Member # 6723) on :
 
A update...

quote:
According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning, so the average yearly temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that forecasts for global cooling are far from groundless.

<snip>

Solar activity follows different cycles, including an 11-year cycle, a 90-year cycle and a 200-year cycle. Yuri Nagovitsyn comments.

“Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesn’t bring about considerable climate change – only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater – up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years. The period of low solar activity could start in 2030-2040 but it won’t be as pervasive as in the late 17th century”.

Solar Cycle 25, our current cycle, activity is off the bottom of the chart. It's below even Dalton Minimum levels and is well into Maunder Minimum levels when we had the Little Ice Age.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
As far as I can tell, G3's quote comes from this article from the Voice of Russia. Unfortunately, it is very thin on the source of Yuri's comments and the details from which he drew his conclusions.

This should be compared to other sources that have examined the solar output to temperatures in the past, as summaried in Skeptical Science. Those studies have shown that total solar irradiance has declined slightly since 1960, while global temperatures have continued to climb.

So while a decrease in solar activity may help alleviate global warming, it seems unlikely that it will overwhelm the reason temperatures have been climbing for the past decades.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
Incredible prediction from 2007:.
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
Science fiction author James P Hogan gives us a glimpse of this same tired story happening before:
quote:
GLOBAL COOLING: 1890s-1930s

The Times, February 24, 1895
"Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again"
Fears of a "second glacial period" brought on by increases in northern glaciers and the severity of Scandinavia's climate.

New York Times, October 7, 1912
"Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age"

Los Angeles Times, June 28, 1923
"The possibility of another Ice Age already having started ... is admitted by men of first rank in the scientific world, men specially qualified to speak."

Chicago Tribune, August 9, 1923
"Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada."

Time Magazine, September 10, 1923
"The discoveries of changes in the sun's heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age."

New York Times, September 18, 1924
"MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age"

GLOBAL WARMING: 1930s-1960s

New York Times, March 27, 1933
"America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise"

Time Magazine, January 2, 1939
"Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right.... weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer."

Time Magazine, 1951
Noted that permafrost in Russia was receding northward at 100 yards per year.

New York Times, 1952
Reported global warming studies citing the "trump card" as melting glaciers. All the great ice sheets stated to be in retreat.

U.S. News and World Report, January 18, 1954
"[W]inters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing."

GLOBAL COOLING: 1970s

Time Magazine, June 24, 1974
"Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

Christian Science Monitor, August 27, 1974
"Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster than Even Experts Expect"
Reported that "glaciers have begun to advance"; "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter"; and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool".

Science News, March 1, 1975
"The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed, and we are unlikely to quickly regain the 'very extraordinary period of warmth' that preceded it."

Newsweek, April 28, 1975
"The Cooling World"
"There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now."

International Wildlife, July-August, 1975
"But the sense of the discoveries is that there is no reason why the ice age should not start in earnest in our lifetime."

New York Times, May 21, 1975
"Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable"

GLOBAL WARMING: 1990s-?

Earth in the Balance, Al Gore, 1992
"About 10 million residents of Bangladesh will lose their homes and means of sustenance because of the rising sea level due to global warming, in the next few decades."

Time Magazine, April 19, 2001
"[S]cientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible."

New York Times, December 27, 2005
"Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming"

The Daily Telegraph, February 2, 2006
"Billions will die, says Lovelock, who tells us that he is not usually a gloomy type. Human civilization will be reduced to a 'broken rabble ruled by brutal warlords,' and the plague-ridden remainder of the species will flee the cracked and broken earth to the Arctic, the last temperate spot where a few breeding couples will survive."

Notice the time progression? As we move through time into a more informed society, the time for fear mongering grows shorter and shorter. 40 years on the first cycle, 30 on the next, then 20. With the power of the internet, maybe we shorten to 15 years? Maybe we do, the trend is starting:
quote:
RIA Novisty(Russian News & Information Agency), February 8, 2007
"Instead of professed global warming, the Earth will be facing a slow decrease in temperatures in 2012-2015. The gradually falling amounts of solar energy, expected to reach their bottom level by 2040, will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-2060," he said, adding that this period of global freeze will last some 50 years, after which the temperatures will go up again."
Quoting Habibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research laboratory at the St. Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory. Full article at http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html

Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics 95, 115-121 (2007)
"Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years"
Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian. The School of Geographic Sciences, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, P. R. China
Full article at http://www.springerlink.com/content/g28u12g2617j5021/fulltext.pdf

And from National Geographic:
quote:
"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."
By 2015, we're going to be back to global cooling and the next ice age.

And now, 2015 is here:
quote:
A mini ice age is on its way - and Britain is going to bear the brunt, warn climate experts.

The country will suffer decades of annual Arctic blasts and sub-zero temperatures due to a change in global ocean conditions and the sun getting weaker, it is claimed.

James Madden, forecaster for Exacta Weather, said the UK should brace itself for colder winters from this year onwards - and the Thames could even freeze over.

Right on schedule.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
http://www.skeptical-science.com/critical-thinking/uk-weather-report-lots-snow-coming/
 
Posted by Mynnion (Member # 5287) on :
 
To be fair there are models that show a slowing of the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic Current. If those models play out the UK could see significantly colder weather. That does not of course contradict the fact that global temperatures as a whole are increasing. That would be why I like the term Global Climate Change as opposed to Global Warming. While both are accurate the later is a little more specific. [Exploding]
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
I wonder how Mexico along with Central and South American countries will treat the Canadians and Americans who are fleeing ice age temperatures along with advancing glaciers.
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
The bad news is that the current trend of record heat everywhere on the globe except for North Atlantic near Greenland is consistent with one of the very bad scenarios.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
And still the atmospheric CO2 level goes higher and higher, warming the planet.

And the oceans become more acidic.

And no predictions about the sun's strength are going to change those facts. [Frown]
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
Perhaps the only thing that has staved off the overdue ice age thus far and saved us all is man-made global warming which is balancing everything out quite nicely.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
The bad news is that the current trend of record heat everywhere on the globe except for North Atlantic near Greenland is consistent with one of the very bad scenarios.

Record heat, you do realize that is manufactured by manipulating past data to be colder, right? Warming stopped 18 years ago.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
And still the atmospheric CO2 level goes higher and higher, warming the planet.

And the oceans become more acidic.

And no predictions about the sun's strength are going to change those facts. [Frown]

CO2 warming the planet, but warming halted 18 years ago. Oceans are just fine. Solar cycles are much better understood than climate and we can see with near 100% certainty that this cycle is a extraordinarily low one.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
CO2 warming the planet, but warming halted 18 years ago. Oceans are just fine. Solar cycles are much better understood than climate and we can see with near 100% certainty that this cycle is a extraordinarily low one.
Out of curiosity, are you open to or interested in the possibility that human produced CO2 is a major driver in warming, but that some other countervailing force (such as solar cycles) could intervene to nullify or even reverse said trends?

In other words, there is a scenario where AGW proponents are entirely correct, yet the planet either stops warming or even begins cooling.
 
Posted by LetterRip (Member # 310) on :
 
jasonr,

there are factors that will tend towards an ice age at some point - best estimates are around 1500 years away if we were at historical CO2 levels without anthropogenic forcings.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/full/ngeo1358.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120108143727.htm
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
quote:
you do realize that is manufactured by manipulating past data to be colder, right?
No
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
quote:
you do realize that is manufactured by manipulating past data to be colder, right?
No
Oh man, I was sure he had you there.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
Record heat, you do realize that is manufactured by manipulating past data to be colder, right?
Where did you get that? [LOL]

quote:
Warming stopped 18 years ago.
Wishful denial. What do you think is going to happen this year, when the massive El Nino kicks in.

Oh, that's right, it'll start another cooling trend the year after that... [Roll Eyes]

quote:
CO2 warming the planet, but warming halted 18 years ago.
The last decade was the warmest ever.

Just think about the last few summers. Those will be the cool ones in the future. Wrap your head around that. That's how cool it's going to get for the foreseeable future. This is as much cooling as you're going to see for the rest of your life.

(Actually, there may some more cooling. But all the models show that it will trend upward. CO2 levels continue to rise; they continue to trap more heat. In a few more decades, what I said will be true. Rafi can deny it all he wants, but nature doesn't give a damn what he thinks.)

quote:
Oceans are just fine.
More ostrich denialism. Look at the facts. Facts trump ideology. The oceans are getting more acidic, because of CO2.

quote:
Solar cycles are much better understood than climate and we can see with near 100% certainty that this cycle is a extraordinarily low one.
And how are you going to extend, and increase, the cycle to keep up with the steadily increasing levels of atmospheric CO2? [Wink]

You better start bringing in God into your arguments, Rafi, because you seem to be relying more and more on miracles to counteract basic physics.

[ October 18, 2015, 11:24 PM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
Just think about the last few summers. Those will be the cool ones in the future.
Interesting that you seem to equate climate and weather with this statement. I'll confess that I didn't find the last few summer massively hot compared with previous summers in my lifetime, although I did find the past winter exceedingly and unusually cold.

So taking your premise, I take it if we have some unusually cold summers in the next few years, that means climate change isn't happening [Smile]
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
quote:
Just think about the last few summers. Those will be the cool ones in the future.
Interesting that you seem to equate climate and weather with this statement. I'll confess that I didn't find the last few summer massively hot compared with previous summers in my lifetime, although I did find the past winter exceedingly and unusually cold.

So taking your premise, I take it if we have some unusually cold summers in the next few years, that means climate change isn't happening [Smile]

jasonr is exactly right in this particular, as the "wasn't this a hot year, everyone?" rhetoric is entirely specious in terms of climate change. No one would physically notice an average one degree increase over several years unless they were looking for it. Now, if climate change in other parts of the world (like the Arctic) creates incoming systems that significantly change the weather patterns inland (note: the patterns, not the ambient temperature) then that could be noticeable.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
Now, if climate change in other parts of the world (like the Arctic) creates incoming systems that significantly change the weather patterns inland (note: the patterns, not the ambient temperature) then that could be noticeable.

Out of curiosity, why is this aspect of "the weather" more relevant to you? I thought you were trying to get away from "weather" until you said this. Is "it's unusually windy lately" or "it's unusually dry lately" somehow more compelling? If so, do you count the recent droughts as something of significance in this regard, or maybe if they persist, or...??
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
Because if bizarre air currents caused by warming create significant effects like increased frequency of hurricanes or other weather conditions, this would affect day to day life in such a way that it would be noticeable on an anecdotal level. A 0.2 degree average increase, though, would not. We very frequently hear people utter the nonsense of "it's been a hot week, must be global warming", which is just bias confirmation at work. Contrast with "there are more tropical storms than ever;" this, if caused by warming, would be a kind of easy thing to spot.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
Interesting that you seem to equate climate and weather with this statement.
Not really. Notice I didn't say "this last month" or "this last summer." I said, "the last few summers."

This last decade has been the hottest one on record. The average temperature over the ten-year period has been higher than ever before. Notice--average temperature. Not any particular month. The average.

This is climate. Average temperatures. Some days, some months, cooler than others. Others hotter. But on average, hotter.

Climate is made up of the average weather. And for the global temperatures to increase by 0.2 degrees, or 2 degrees (as it will, and probably more) means that you will have hot days, more than average. Just like we have been having over the past few years.

And for global average temperatures to increase to 2 degrees higher than now, well, then these have been the cool years. Whatever summer you've had, you'll be getting more of it. How much more depends on where you live and the idiosyncrasies of climate, but on average, it'll be hotter. The heat has to show up somewhere, sometime. [Smile]

So, yes, enjoy the weather, because the weather we've been having for the past few years will be the good weather, the cool weather, in a few more decades. For global temperatures to rise, we must have hot weather. We don't know exactly when, but it will come, in higher frequency, for longer periods. That's what climate change means.

So enjoy the cool weather we have now. It's going to get worse before it gets better. [Frown]
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
The risk is not a slightly higher temperature or a few more centimeters of ocean height. It's the changes that affect biological processes.

10-20 years ago one of the areas most affected by climate change was the Eastern Sahara, in a place called Darfur. In the last 5 years, some of the worst impacts have been felt in the Middle East in a place called Syria where 70% of the agricultural workforce were forced off their land and into cities.

The worst hit areas at first are likely to be in the wide equatorial band - Syria represented approximately 1% of the population in the threatened area.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
The risk is not a slightly higher temperature or a few more centimeters of ocean height. It's the changes that affect biological processes.

10-20 years ago one of the areas most affected by climate change was the Eastern Sahara, in a place called Darfur. In the last 5 years, some of the worst impacts have been felt in the Middle East in a place called Syria where 70% of the agricultural workforce were forced off their land and into cities.

The worst hit areas at first are likely to be in the wide equatorial band - Syria represented approximately 1% of the population in the threatened area.

Regime change and climate change in the same country? That's gotta smart.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
Food shortages due to poor weather have been a big driver behind recent unrest in the Middle East. It was one of the big factors in the Tunisian revolts, and had played into most Arab Spring events afterwards.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
See this analysis from PolitiFact about the link between climate change and ISIS. It was not the only factor in the civil unrest in Syria, but it was a contributing factor.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
This last decade has been the hottest one on record. The average temperature over the ten-year period has been higher than ever before. Notice--average temperature. Not any particular month. The average.

Do you have something new on this? I'm not convinced, based on the data collection methodology that any land or sea based systems are actually representative enough to produce an average global temperature, or that trends in land and sea based changes are not unduly influenced by collection flaws that break the statistical significance of the findings. I'm still not a denier of any sort, I just find the data inconclusive (at best) and subject to intentional manipulation in both directions (at worse).
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
No, I don’t have anything other than what is published by the usual suspects. [Smile] If you have any specific criticisms that are not talked about on the internet, you’d best go directly to the sources.

However, do note that temperature readings are not the only indication that the Earth is warming. There is also ice melting in the Arctic and Antarctic; glaciers melting worldwide; temperature-dependent plant and animal species that are changing territory; Arctic pools that are heating and drying up; growing seasons lengthening and frost days shortening. Data from fields unrelated to climatology also indicate a worldwide warming trend.

Plus the simple fact that increased levels of atmospheric CO2 is trapping more heat, a fact (practically) no one disputes. So all this climatology business is to figure out how this trapped heat is affecting the climate, not whether it is happening.

Whether this last decade, or the decade before that, or the one before that, was the hottest in recorded history is really secondary. The Earth is warming, and our increasing the atmospheric CO2 is causing warming. And if Rafi’s going to argue that a set of data shows that the Earth has been cooling for the last 18 years, then he should also acknowledge that that very same set of data shows that the last decade was the hottest ever, and this cooling trend is practically non-existent. And we should be concerned with what we are doing to the Earth.
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
quote:
Do you have something new on this? I'm not convinced, based on the data collection methodology that any land or sea based systems are actually representative enough to produce an average global temperature, or that trends in land and sea based changes are not unduly influenced by collection flaws that break the statistical significance of the findings.
What flaw do you find in the satellite-based mneasurements from the CERES instruments that have been flying since the late 1990's?
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
March 16, 1986 Chicago Tribune ran the story. you can see the breathless horror here.
quote:
In 1986, scientists were “sure” that sea level would rise one foot on the East Coast in 30-40 years, and destroy beaches and buildings, receding shorelines by 1,000 feet.

So how did they do? There has been less than three inches of apparent sea level rise, most of which is due to land subsidence rather than actual sea level rise.

Again and again, the climate "scientists" get it wrong.

quote:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

-- Richard P. Feynman.


 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
It will be interesting, thirty years from now, to see how G# rationalizes this to himself.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
I think I have it. Rafi/G# is politically O-neg. That means he can donate ideas and opinions to anybody who disagrees with him, but can't receive from anybody not exactly like himself.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
You really shouldn't use a newspaper as your source for scientific information, Rafi.

Sea level has increased on the order of about 3mm per year for the past 30 years, and 3.2mm per year over the past 20 years - say about 9cm (3.4 inches). Assuming that the rate of sea level increase does not continue to rise, as it has been doing for the past 30 years, that would suggest we would see 30cm of sea level increase between 2000 and 2100. That's one foot, assuming no increased rate.

But what were the expected ranges of increases ending in 2100? According to the IPCC Assessment reports:

IPCC1 1990: low 30 cm, high 100cm
IPCC2 1995: low 15 cm, high 95cm
IPCC3 2001: low 20cm, high 75cm
IPCC4 2007: low 18-38cm, high 26-59cm
IPCC5 2014: low 26cm, high 82cm

So if we maintain the same rate as for the last 30 years for the next 85 years, sea level increase will actually be within the range modelled by the contributors to all 5 of the IPCC assessment reports.

Of course, that lowest rate of increase is based at least partly on only the smallest future increases in CO2, levels which are not expected to continue, but which mirror what we are experiencing today.

So basically, the 5 assessment reports are spot on.

The moral of the story: don't read the Chicago Tribune and expect to get a thorough and unbiased scientific summary.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Since we're still waiting for the upcoming ice age, here's a brief update on the past couple of years of monthly global temperature anomalies, courtesy of GISS LOTI:

 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
quote:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
I love this quote, thanks for providing it, Rafi. I presume since you posted it, you also believe that it is valid?
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Since we're still waiting for the upcoming ice age, here's a brief update on the past couple of years of monthly global temperature anomalies, courtesy of GISS LOTI:

GISS. You know they're adjusting historical data downward in order to make those claims right? With over 18 years of no warming, the only way you can make this true is to fake the past.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Would you prefer the Japan Meteorological Agency numbers, Rafi? They list the five warmest years (anomalies) as:
So, they show the last 2 years as the warmest as well, and the last 4 years all being among the warmest 5 historically.

Hadley has slightly different rankings, with only 3 of the past 6 years making the top 5, but 1998 still only ranking 6th warmest.

But they all show warming, even over the cherry-picked time period of 18 years (choosing 1997/1998 as the specific starting point).

Are you really suggesting all the land based data set analyses are faking the past?
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
The satellites show no warming. Are you suggesting those are faked? Where does JMA get its data? Do you know?
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Now, I know that you are actually making reference to UAH, and for the very specific 10-month period during 1997/1998, corresponding to the peak of that years El Nino effects in the lower troposphere, when the satellite numbers do not show a positive linear trend.

Of course, UAH shows a warming trend for the past 15 years, 16 years, 17 years, 19 years, 20 years, etc. if you want to hang your hat exclusively on that type of interpretation.

It just seems funny that you would make that claim in the same post as you accuse other people of "faking" data.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
The satellites show no warming. Are you suggesting those are faked? Where does JMA get its data? Do you know?

No, of course they aren't faked. They do measure different things, however - and the fact is that satellite measurements show similar long term warming as do the surface measurements.

But since you are asking about fake data: are you referring to the "pause buster" adjustments from summer 2015?
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
No. I believe you intentionally misunderstand and obfuscate. There are a total of 5 temperature records upon which global "warming" is based:
quote:
Three of these are based on measurements taken on the Earth’s surface, versions of which are then compiled by Giss, by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit working with the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction, part of the UK Met Office. The other two records are derived from measurements made by satellites, and then compiled by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) in California and the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH).
So to answer the question I asked, and the one you've avoided, JMA gets its data from one of the three surface based data sets. Each of those three gets the data from the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN), managed by the US National Climate Data Center under NOAA, which in turn comes under the US Department of Commerce. Those three are all run by extremists in the man made global warming movement.

In other words, you are promoting a fake "consensus" by calling out JMA since all they're doing is parroting the same results as anyone else would and are provided from those with a vested interest in promoting a quack theory.

There is example after example of tampering with the data to promote the desired result. Some stations see adjustment exceeding 1.5 C with no valid basis for such adjustment and have been demonstrated as faked.:
quote:
But when Homewood was then able to check Giss’s figures against the original data from which they were derived, he found that they had been altered. Far from the new graph showing any rise, it showed temperatures in fact having declined over those 65 years by a full degree. When he did the same for the other two stations, he found the same. In each case, the original data showed not a rise but a decline.
The satellite record shows now warming and, in fact, shows a slight but statistically insignificant cooling over the last 20 years. The only way we get the warming you have been fooled into believing is by making massive, unwarranted adjustments to the source data and propagating it through multiple outlets to make it appear realistic.

It's a scam.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
I'll say one thing which doesn't back Rafi up but makes it very hard to assess these kinds of discussions as a laymen who doesn't study this stuff intensively.

A lot of people claim to 'feel' the temperature change in their daily lives, and attribute all sorts of anecdotal experiences as being evidence that there is climate change. "This was a really hot summer, I can feel the climate changing," or "winters used to be a lot colder when I was growing up, things have definitely changed." I am perfectly happy to say that I think such claims are without any basis in reality and are the perfect example of cluster fallacy, confirmation bias, and even personal perception being shaped by expectation. These kinds of public reassurances that it's really happening can't really be anything more than a collective delusion, and a very simple one to achieve at that as far as so-called 'magick' goes.

None of that, of course, speaks to the reality of climate change at all. Lay people can be completely full of it and there could still be climate change. I'm just saying that the experience of most people is basically irrelevant in adding to the conversation; it's all about the data. And here's the thing: unless I personally go out and verify the sources of data, their methods, their conclusions, etc etc I won't be able to make heads or tails of this issue. I don't know that it's so far beyond me that I simply cannot do this, but it's certainly beyond what I'm willing to do. But to be fair it might be beyond my capabilities also. I'm not qualified to peer review climate scientists' work for various reasons, and so I have to sit on the sidelines and read articles and listen to debate and hope I can come away with something. Based on what I know from MSM in America I have faith in their ability to create a 'consensus' on factual matters that is in fact both fabricated and pushing a political narrative. I'm not saying that's what happening here, but the thought always worries me that if it was happening I wouldn't be able to tell either way.

[ November 29, 2015, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
"This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand"

You sound grumpy Rafi. You should chill. [Smile]

I figured your information was probably wrong, I just wasn't sure how. For future reference, if you want to know where JMA gets its data, you could simply go to the JMA website.
quote:
JMA estimates global temperature anomalies using data combined not only over land but also over ocean areas. The land part of the combined data for the period before 2000 consists of GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) information provided by NOAA (The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), while that for the period after 2001 consists of CLIMAT messages archived at JMA. The oceanic part of the combined data consists of JMA's own long-term sea surface temperature analysis data, known as COBE-SST (see the articles in TCC News No.1 and this report).
So, for land based temperature measurements, JMA uses GHCN only up to 2001, and it doesn't use any of the same data for sea/ocean measurements as does GISS-LOTI.

This is relevant to my earlier point because the recent NASA updates (the so called pause buster adjustments) that brought their sea based values (ERSST4) more closely in line with Hadley, do not affect JMA at all, since JMA uses its own sea based data set (COBE-SST).
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Oh, and this:
quote:
The satellite record shows now warming and, in fact, shows a slight but statistically insignificant cooling over the last 20 years
This is incorrect, assuming you are talking about the UAH product, and calculating a least squares linear trend; then, as I said above, there is only a 10-month period beginning May 1997 and ending February 1998 where the slope is not positive.

At best, you could say that for 17 years and 6 months, there has been no warming, but that would be deceptive.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Just to clarify why this is deceptive - when calculating a linear trend using least squares, the trend line slope is most susceptible to the values near the two end points, and least susceptible to the values near the middle of the set.

So if there was, say, a theoretical 12-value anomaly somewhere in a 240-value series, if you were to calculate a linear trend based on the values of that series, the placement of that anomaly within the overall series would very much affect the resulting trend line slope. If the 12-value subset was anomalously high, and it occurred near the beginning of the series, the effect would be overwhelm the rest of the series' values, pushing the overall slope value downward.

Similarly, if the 12-value set occurred near the end of the series, this would tend to push the slope value upwards.

If, however, the 12-value subset was located near the middle of the series, it would have only a limited, and possibly no effect on the overall slope.

That's why picking a convenient starting point for a linear trend, then generalizing the meaning of the linear trend to a real-world situation, without context, is deceptive.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
it's all about the data. And here's the thing: unless I personally go out and verify the sources of data, their methods, their conclusions, etc etc I won't be able to make heads or tails of this issue.

If only there were a community who dedicated their lives to scrutinizing data, comparing notes and results, repeating measurements and subjecting work to peer review...
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
That's the problem with Marxism and Fascism; they know how to manipulate such communities.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
it's all about the data. And here's the thing: unless I personally go out and verify the sources of data, their methods, their conclusions, etc etc I won't be able to make heads or tails of this issue.

If only there were a community who dedicated their lives to scrutinizing data, comparing notes and results, repeating measurements and subjecting work to peer review...
You didn't get my point. I didn't say no one does the work. I said that if there was a conspiracy to alter data at the source I would never know the difference.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
You didn't get my point. I didn't say no one does the work. I said that if there was a conspiracy to alter data at the source I would never know the difference.

Oh I get your point, I just think it's a corrosive and harmful one. The absence of trust in *anything* collapses all Prisoner's Dilemma situations into hopeless failures - basically nothing can get done in a society without some degree of trust. Less trust might *seem* like a good thing - except that a lot of the world runs on game theory, and little gets done that way.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Sometimes nothing getting done is better than a very bad thing getting done.

When the stakes are high enough, I can respect wanting to check the data and also check the politics and allegiances and bank accounts of those that check the data.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Sometimes nothing getting done is better than a very bad thing getting done.

When the stakes are high enough, I can respect wanting to check the data and also check the politics and allegiances and bank accounts of those that check the data.

For how many decades, Pete? At what point is "needs more study" no longer the appropriate tack? Or is this sort like the mideast peace "process"... just a way of justifying permanent inactivity by dangling the carrot of having a "process" in place?
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
The problem with checking politics and allegiances is that politics have picked sides. Any climate scientist's natural allegiance is going to be to the side that doesn't call them frauds and cheats. I haven't heard of any climate scientist being particularly wealthy or beholden to a specific set of interests.

I have heard of climate change "skeptics" accepting a great deal of money from a multi-billion dollar industry that perceives an existential threat to itself.

It's also worth noting that, Rafi's fond ideas of falsified data notwithstanding, we've been looking for explanations about the climate for quite awhile now. For far longer than there's been any political context to it.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
NobleHunter's point is a good one. AGW has been studied for far longer than most people imagine.

Can anyone--anyone--guess who was the first President to mention global warming in a speech to Congress? (I'd really be surprised if anyone knows this.)
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
Oh I get your point, I just think it's a corrosive and harmful one. The absence of trust in *anything* collapses all Prisoner's Dilemma situations into hopeless failures - basically nothing can get done in a society without some degree of trust. Less trust might *seem* like a good thing - except that a lot of the world runs on game theory, and little gets done that way.

Are you sure you get my point? Or I can ask this differently - is there such a thing as a corrosive fact? Because it is simply a fact that if data was being manipulated to create a false consensus I wouldn't be able to tell the difference. This isn't a political position, isn't a statement of intent or allegiance, and is not a matter of opinion. Maybe someone highly schooled in climate science could tell, but I couldn't.

Maybe you inferred from this that I assume such a thing is happening, and that I would prefer to do nothing about polluting the world. In point of fact I'm a huge enemy of polluting the environment, and was long before AGW became a popular talking point. Cleaning up the world isn't a political issue to me personally, but nature crusading definitely is a political issue for many others and this can create difficulties.

All I'm saying about AGW is that this is perhaps the first time other than the old evolution debate where the populace at large had to support or not support political policy based on the veracity of a scientific theory. When people can't understand that theory but still have to 'have an opinion' on the subject and vote on it there is an element of the silly that cannot be exorcized from the process. And heck, climate science is way more complicated to understand than the theory of evolution and natural selection. We're talking about one organism, compared with an entire geosphere teeming with ecosystems and countless different organisms, water systems, atmosphere, energy sources, etc etc.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
Are you sure you get my point? Or I can ask this differently - is there such a thing as a corrosive fact? Because it is simply a fact that if data was being manipulated to create a false consensus I wouldn't be able to tell the difference. This isn't a political position, isn't a statement of intent or allegiance, and is not a matter of opinion. Maybe someone highly schooled in climate science could tell, but I couldn't.

Maybe you inferred from this that I assume such a thing is happening, and that I would prefer to do nothing about polluting the world.

When you introduce a fact into a conversation, it is assumed to have some value. Introducing doubt, for example, is to give legitimacy to that doubt. But saying that "I wouldn't know the difference" is like me saying "well maybe you're just a bot and not a real person - how would I know the difference"? Because in truth I cannot know, but I carry on speaking with you anyways, and that "fact" that I cannot know is rather useless because it carries no weight.

If you want to introduce doubt without giving it any weight of presumed legitimacy, you're basically just kinda trolling the thread.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
So giving my perspective or take on a laymen's position in the AGW debate is "trolling"? I suppose the only legitimate kind of post on the topic is dogmatic stating of facts in favor of or opposition to?

My post was about information flow, not about climate. I'm sorry if you don't think that's on topic, but I think it is. For instance, if a group of people were being given reason to dispute AGW and the mechanism facilitating this was the media of information then you'd see that I could just as easily be addressing propaganda in either direction. The very fact I mention, that I'd be none the wiser if there was such a conspiracy, is precisely pertinent because many people think this is exactly the case. It basically means they don't have a great way of learning that they're wrong about that unless they step up and learn a heck of a lot about climate science. Most people just won't or can't do that, and so they're stuck with what they're told by their media sources.

This is the particular issue of AGW. Not the facts, but that the populace must make decisions about facts they simply have to take on faith. No one has to vote based on current theories of quantum entanglement. But they do have to vote based on this. Imagine if for some reason the situation was reversed, and maybe you'll see what I'm saying. Most people in Western culture simply cannot stand having their official position as "I don't know enough to form an opinion." They've been trained too deeply as discriminating consumers to tolerate having to admit such a thing.

[ November 30, 2015, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
quote:
...it is simply a fact that if data was being manipulated to create a false consensus I wouldn't be able to tell the difference
This is not a fact - it is, at best, a proposition.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
I think laymen like me are capable of reasoning through what that kind of conspiracy would look like and concluding that it is unlikely, and concluding that it makes sense to trust the experts. e.g. would the anti-AGW lobby be incapable of tempting someone to break ranks? Would no one want to be a famous and lauded whistleblower?

I do not think that such a conspiracy exists, because I don't find it plausible that it would remain intact. There have certainly been enough efforts to find one, and they have come up pretty dry. (I know that Rafi believes otherwise, but he's pretty bad at reckoning with the facts that don't agree with his position on this topic - just based on his lack of engagement with the arguments that DonaldD and others bring up here.)

That it makes sense for reasons unrelated to AGW to do most of the same things that AGW would prompt us to do is just gravy.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Most people in Western culture simply cannot stand having their official position as "I don't know enough to form an opinion."
Indeed- which is why that phrase is followed by, "So I trust the input of specialists who do know enough to sort and interpret the evidence unless I have a clear and compelling reason not to."

When you posit that the experts are unreliable as a possible fact, without providing any evidence to actually support the implicit accusation, then you're sowing doubt, not actually raising a valid, evidence based concern.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
I think you guys are overthinking it by a bit. It doesn't take a "conspiracy" for this to occur. What it takes is a system of training "climate scientists" that introduces a consistent bias, which is exactly what we have. Who goes into research on global warming who's not passionate about the impact of man on the environment? How does their training encourage them to uncover and remove systematic bias, rather than increase it?

There's no controversy about whether the data is manipulated, it's not a fact that is in contention. The scientists who compile and use the data set out exactly how, and why, they make adjustments to the raw data. They do it to correct for different types of biases that have been introduced overtime at various locations.

What's disputable is how valid those adjustments are, and the impact they have on the climate models. This is not impossible for lay people to have judgments on, though it can be pushing the boundaries. But there is so much fudge factor involved in climate science that it's virtually impossible for the systemic analysis not to produce the result the person studying it expects to see.

I've mentioned it many times before, but climate models are pretty much guaranteed to be too complicated to produce the level of significance that climate scientists claim. And there's virtually no chance that the models, at our current level of science, actually reflect even the most meaningful factors correctly. What they've actually done is create a very precise measurement system, without controlling sufficiently for its accuracy. This leaves bystanders with a false impression of significance, and brings us lovely threads like these ones.

Taking one side or the other and aggressively attacking anyone with it is almost too silly for words, and can't be anything, really, but an exercise of faith.

[ November 30, 2015, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: Seriati ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
While I *don't* trust the experts in what looks like a political morass, it seems unreasonable to suppose that we could NOT have damaged the earth's climate with all the Carbon sinks that we have destroyed. The Earth cannot adapt when we systematically destroy its homeostasis mechanisms.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
I don't trust anyone who capitalizes "The Earth" as if it was a religious label when discussing (what one hopes are) matters of science. [Razz]

But it's already politicized, why not made into an official religion?

Further review indicates I may not know my capitalization rules and am projecting. Heavenly bodies indeed...
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
It's only a political morass because some influential and wealthy businesses really, really, really don't want climate change to be real but have no actual data to back it up.

I can't say I blame them, I'd rather climate change be fake, too. But I've seen nothing that suggests the Earth isn't hotter than it "should" be; that humans aren't the cause; or that the results won't be bad. Every single smoking gun gleefully announced by deniers has been all smoke and no gun.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
It's only a political morass because some influential and wealthy businesses really, really, really don't want climate change to be real but have no actual data to back it up

It's a political morass because the proposed solutions have massive economic impact, and there seems to be a real trend to incorporate redistributionist philosophy in as well. For a single example, the carbon capping treaties almost uniformly encourage closing and underutilization of the most efficient western factories in favor of production in the least efficient and most polluting non-western factories. Hard to accept that "solution" as a legitimate answer to a global warming problem. Easy to see it as a feel good piece of political thought though.
quote:
I can't say I blame them, I'd rather climate change be fake, too. But I've seen nothing that suggests the Earth isn't hotter than it "should" be; that humans aren't the cause; or that the results won't be bad.
In the first instance, we don't have an actual information on how hot the Earth should be. We have an assumption that the Earth should be in homeostasis (Pete even called it out above), when every bit of historical data indicates the climate is always on the move (I grant you, not necessary quickly, but also notoriously difficult to judge from a deep historical perspective).

There's plenty to indicate that humans are making changes, there's, however, very little that's convincing that says they are the only cause or even a primary cause (and to even get there you have to have accept the Earth is warmer than it should be). There's also no reason to believe that Carbon production is the primary vector. Maybe its a change in water vapor levels caused by the massive irrigation of farm land, maybe its changes in animal waste levels caused by over production of food animals, maybe its a change in the composition of animal life in the ocean by the removal of megatons of edible ocean life, maybe it really is changes in solar activity levels.

And most importantly, its just an assumption that life would be better on a colder planet. There's every possibility (even likelihood) that life would be better on a warmer planet. Granted you'd want a controlled rate of increase if that was the case, and certainly not an uncontrolled and potentionally out of control one if that were the case. But there's no convincing research that shows a warmer earth wouldn't be better for humans, other than an argument from ignorance.
quote:
Every single smoking gun gleefully announced by deniers has been all smoke and no gun.
I'm not sure that doesn't apply to all smoking guns by both sides at this point. Certainly none of the most dire climate change predictions have come true as predicted. Not to say they can't, just that they have not.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
I think people overthink AGW. They think it is based on climate models, and observed warming, and other complicated factors that the layman can't understand. And it really isn't.

It's based on some simple facts.

1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It "traps" infrared heat. This is easily demonstrated in the lab. (It was first discovered in the 1800s, IIRC, which shows you how simple it is. [Smile] )

2. Carbon dioxide levels are increasing in our atmosphere. Just google Keeling Curve, and look how it keeps rising (and rising faster now than in 1960).

3. Since CO2 is rising in our atmosphere, and it "traps" infrared radiation, then it is warming our planet.

That's really about it. Even AGW deniers acknowledge this.

So the question is now whether CO2 is warming the planet, but what is its effects? And that's where we get into the complex climate models and all that. Exactly how it will change is not known.

But it doesn't take a supercomputer to know that increasing our average global temperature by 4.9 - 6.1 degrees C (which is what the estimates of greenhouse gases predict if CO2 concentrations reach 660-790 ppm--and we have good models of the effects of greenhouse gases, having used them to model the temperatures of other planets in our solar system), is going to have a major effect on our world's climate.

Do we really want to monkey around with our climate like that when we aren't absolutely certain of the outcome, especially when demand for food is expected to double within the next 55 years? [Eek!]

Climate deniers shouldn't be wasting their time debunking climate models and historical records. They should be putting money into climate models. Because they need to prove that rising CO2 levels isn't going to mess up our world.

Because there is no doubt that CO2 is warming the Earth.
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
quote:
Do we really want to monkey around with our climate like that when we aren't absolutely certain of the outcome, especially when demand for food is expected to double within the next 55 years? [Eek!]
Yes! Terraforming beta test, take one.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
Any potential solution is going to be political but that the science itself has become a political football is the result of entrenched interests. To contrast: no one disputes that smoking is unhealthy but it becomes a matter of politics when a solution is attempted.

My understanding is that normative statements of what the temperature should be is based on extrapolation from long term trends. It's not that the Earth's climate should be the same as it was prior to human interference but that it has begun to change in ways that can only be explained by human activity. I'm reasonably sure water vapour has been assessed for its effects, likewise with solar activity. Neither can explain the apparent increase in temperature change. I don't know about animal waste or marine life but I haven't seen them proposed as causes either. You seem to be suggesting that CO2 levels were selected as an explanation without due caution. Given how widespread the consensus is, I'd say you need to do more to back up your assertions.

It's not that a colder planet is better it's that our infrastructure is suited to the one we have. Breadbaskets turning into deserts or sea-levels rising are bad. It doesn't matter if there's more arable if none of it's under cultivation and the fields we do have dry out. Disruption is almost always bad in the short term. Long term benefits are irrelevant if the short term consequence are severe enough. And that doesn't even include things like the Gulf Stream failing.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
Yes! Terraforming beta test, take one.
Great. I bet it'll be just as successful as any Windows beta test. [Crying]
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
That's really about it. Even AGW deniers acknowledge this.

To be fair, it is a fair question whether conditions in a lab can be extrapolated to an Earth-sized system, not even taking into account possible feedback processes that might work against the CO2 effect.

quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
It's a political morass because the proposed solutions have massive economic impact, and there seems to be a real trend to incorporate redistributionist philosophy in as well. For a single example, the carbon capping treaties almost uniformly encourage closing and underutilization of the most efficient western factories in favor of production in the least efficient and most polluting non-western factories. Hard to accept that "solution" as a legitimate answer to a global warming problem. Easy to see it as a feel good piece of political thought though.

Well, not all solutions being proposed are redistributive, but I do see this fear on the part of many. For instance, carbon pricing is not necessarily redistributive, nor are population controls or education (well, education maybe, but I don't think that's what you meant).

quote:
We have an assumption that the Earth should be in homeostasis (Pete even called it out above), when every bit of historical data indicates the climate is always on the move (I grant you, not necessary quickly, but also notoriously difficult to judge from a deep historical perspective).
Well, no, we do not have such an assumption - certainly not anybody who studies climate. I do see this being brought up by those arguing against the idea that the rate of change of the climate is unprecedented and will lead to many undesirable effects, but it's basically a straw man argument that wastes everyone's time and effort.

quote:
There's plenty to indicate that humans are making changes, there's, however, very little that's convincing that says they are the only cause or even a primary cause (and to even get there you have to have accept the Earth is warmer than it should be).
This is a non sequitur. It is perfectly consistent to believe that you would like the Earth to be warmer, for there to be no permanent ice pack in the Arctic, and to also believe that human activity is leading us in that direction, and is even the primary cause of recent warming. This goes back to the homeostasis straw man.

quote:
And most importantly, its just an assumption that life would be better on a colder planet.
Who wants a colder planet? I'm sure you can find yahoos on the internet that support anything, but the major risks that climate scientists are calling out have to do with the rate of change being unprecedented, and will lead to very real costs over time frames that will not be easily managed.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
To be fair, it is a fair question whether conditions in a lab can be extrapolated to an Earth-sized system, not even taking into account possible feedback processes that might work against the CO2 effect.
Fortunately, as I mentioned, our models for greenhouse gases explains the temperatures on other planets, so there is little doubt that they will work on ours. [Smile]

Now feedback processes are a possibility, and there are a few that we have identified. But that is the reason I carefully phrased my statement, that CO2 gases are heating the planet. Perhaps some other system or systems will kick in and cool it. But we have to know that that these systems will cool it as much as the CO2 is heating it, and that they are not limited and will suddenly stop working while CO2 continues to work.

Which is why we need good climate models. And why deniers must have good climate models, to show these things. Otherwise, they are relying on wishful thinking. [Roll Eyes]

And so far, I haven't heard of any good climate model that shows these things. [Frown]
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Right. But that requires additional faith and/or knowledge above just the simplified 3 points that your earlier posited as sufficient - specifically, you suggested that understanding AGW did not involve basing one's position on "climate models, and observed warming, and other complicated factors that the layman can't understand."
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
Certainly scientists are capable of manipulating their theories based on their biases.

No less a scientist than Einstein invented the cosmological constant to make the universe fit his theory.

Nobody gave a crap about whether the universe was expanding or static, except maybe the Vatican and the scientists themselves.

There have been proposals and counter proposals over time - even though surely all cosmologists had become "biased" toward the expanding universe as it was long accepted theory and certainly all of them were trained in this understanding.

Now, if we actually had to DO something about the Big Crunch, or the Heat Death of the Universe, I'm sure we'd all be fighting over that also.

The other situation, is that the US was (and continues) to be cast as the "bad guy" in this discussion. A lot of this stems from Kyoto, and the fact that we had more CO2 emissions than any other nation until recently. This provokes a natural backlash.

I think this turns into a kind of tit-for-tat "your side must be biased because they are on your side" view that doesn't produce useful results.

What we need is better solutions that people aren't going to fight as hard about, but the climate change crowd not only sets their solutions in new taxes, but also privation and altruism. Instead, they might better get conservatives on board if the solution involved bombing the oil.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
I don't trust anyone who capitalizes "The Earth" as if it was a religious label when discussing (what one hopes are) matters of science. [Razz]

But it's already politicized, why not made into an official religion?

Further review indicates I may not know my capitalization rules and am projecting. Heavenly bodies indeed...

Indeed. The Bible and other religious codes I am familiar with leave earth uncapitalized. I was treating it as a planet. Should have said Earth rather than the Earth.

[ November 30, 2015, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Drake:
What we need is better solutions that people aren't going to fight as hard about, but the climate change crowd not only sets their solutions in new taxes, but also privation and altruism. Instead, they might better get conservatives on board if the solution involved bombing the oil.

I agree with this, although maybe not specifically the oil plan! But as a person I care about the planet and I would support any rational action to combat the polluting of the environment just on principle. Insofar as this is my position I don't even care about AGW or warming or anything like that. I would want to clean the place up not to stop warming, but because it matters to me in and of itself. The AGW debate may attempt to define a possible time limit on getting this done (before Bad Things happen) but if anything I wonder whether the political aspect to the debate hasn't hurt the issue rather than help it.

You'd think anyone with a brain would embrace clean and renewable energy, and yet we're going to see certain political factions slouching their way to admitting that it's maybe not so bad to see certain countries predominantly energy green.

The smart way to approach AGW right out of the gates to get the Republicans on board should have been to dress the problem as an economic opportunity. Instead of demanding sacrifices a la Kyoto the private sector should have been sicked on the problem with promises of government rewards, and Republicans should have come on board in order to find ways to help allow this new area to create jobs. The oil men would never have played ball but I doubt all Republicans are on the take from big oil.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
he smart way to approach AGW right out of the gates to get the Republicans on board should have been to dress the problem as an economic opportunity. Instead of demanding sacrifices a la Kyoto the private sector should have been sicked on the problem with promises of government rewards, and Republicans should have come on board in order to find ways to help allow this new area to create jobs.
Except of course that the Republicans have made adamant opposition to such assistance a central point of dogma, not to mention it being completely wrong to present such a solution as being somehow at odds with Kyoto as opposed to exactly what it should have encouraged. The idea that it requires sacrifices instead of innovation is propaganda right out of the playbook to preserve the current status quo in favor of the entrenched fossil fuel companies and prevent investment in alternatives.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
That may be so, but let's say by hypothesis that Kyoto was a bad plan. Maybe the Republicans would have even rejected a good plan anyhow, but by offering a bad plan they can offer sensible reasons for the rejection. If the plan had been good, whatever that means, then they'd be left with nothing but having to fool people into thinking they had a reason.

You may think these two scenarios are identical since either way they make the same claim, but I don't think they're identical. The fact of one statement being true and the other being false...I think it would affect things somehow.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
If the plan had been good, whatever that means, then they'd be left with nothing but having to fool people into thinking they had a reason.
Which is what they've worked actively to do regardless of the quality of the plan, In fact they've actively worked to spread the notion that any kind of plan, even simply investing in renewables on its own merits, is bad so must be opposed on ideological grounds.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It "traps" infrared heat. This is easily demonstrated in the lab. (It was first discovered in the 1800s, IIRC, which shows you how simple it is. [Smile] )

I agree with this, and that it's easy to demonstrate in the lab. I don't agree that such a controlled test means that it will operate in the same manner on the climate as a whole. It may, or it may not. There are any number of factors that a laboratory test cannot account for, any number of which could confound the result.
quote:
3. Since CO2 is rising in our atmosphere, and it "traps" infrared radiation, then it is warming our planet.
I think you are including the disputed conclusion as something everyone agrees on. You have to assume that the planet is warming, and that because we understand in a laboratory setting that CO2 could cause such an effect it therefore is certain that is what is going on.
quote:
Climate deniers shouldn't be wasting their time debunking climate models and historical records. They should be putting money into climate models. Because they need to prove that rising CO2 levels isn't going to mess up our world.
I completely disagree with what you said here. I think that the over-reliance on and excessive belief in the reliability of climate modeling is part of the systemic bias in this area of research. Climate modeling is literally the layering of thousands of assumptions into a computer program and claiming a statistical significance on the backend that is unjustifiable.

Deniers can not use models to prove anything, but neither - really - can supporters. All models fundamentally operate on a garbage in, garbage out system. Not to say they are useless, they still represent our best guesses, but when you try to predict the climate with them you're really only a small step above a fortune teller.
quote:
Originally posted by Noblehunter:
You seem to be suggesting that CO2 levels were selected as an explanation without due caution. Given how widespread the consensus is, I'd say you need to do more to back up your assertions.

I'm not suggesting that CO2 was not selected with due caution, nor implying that anything I said was the cause in fact. I'm suggesting that we focus on things that we easily understand in complex systems or that we can easily measure, and we overemphasize correlations in our mental understanding of issues.

I'm not sure how beneficial arguing the science is going to be. I'm not a denier, I'm always willing to let the scientists do their jobs and propose things. I'm not however willing to allow them (or really anyone else) to overstate what their research actually shows, or can show. The clearest thing I can say on where I stand on the debate, is that mine is an argument of negation. There is no strong proof either way.

But there is a clear trend on the political side, that really has little to do with the actual science involved, or the actual reality of global warming - one way or the other.
quote:
originally posted by DonaldD:
Well, not all solutions being proposed are redistributive, but I do see this fear on the part of many. For instance, carbon pricing is not necessarily redistributive, nor are population controls or education (well, education maybe, but I don't think that's what you meant).

I'm not sure why you would characterize it as "fear." I'm not afraid of it, I'm flat out stating that most proposed solutions have little to no (or even negative) environmental benefits, and were designed to serve other - generally redistributionist - policies.

Carbon pricing is completely redistributive. It only works by reducing the total carbon involved. But when you have most of the world (ie the developing world) completely exempt from the caps it actually creates a direct environmental harm to cap the cleanest factories in the world, or even to increase they comparable costs. If you really cared about the environment, you'd subsidize cleaner first world industry and completely drive third world factories out of business.

Instead we have the equivalent of NIMBY environmental treaties where the clean coal plants in the US are being forced to close so environmentalists can pat themselves on the backs, while Beijing is coated by the worst smog in human history and China hasn't committed to even slowing their rate of increase in carbon production for at least 15 years.

Education may or may not help, it really depends on what's taught. Certainly, western environmentalists have not benefitted from their education in measuring the actual policy effects they seek.
quote:
quote:
There's plenty to indicate that humans are making changes, there's, however, very little that's convincing that says they are the only cause or even a primary cause (and to even get there you have to have accept the Earth is warmer than it should be).
This is a non sequitur. It is perfectly consistent to believe that you would like the Earth to be warmer, for there to be no permanent ice pack in the Arctic, and to also believe that human activity is leading us in that direction, and is even the primary cause of recent warming. This goes back to the homeostasis straw man.
I don't disagree with what you said. Not sure you understood me though. My dispute is with the quality of the evidence and therefore with the strength of the argument for costly change.

Like Fenring, I think a cleaner world is, in and of itself, a goal to pursue. I don't however think that incredibly costly measures for minimal gains are justified, and I am absolutely convinced that the vast majority of changes demanded are actually net harms when you consider the big picture. I don't get those who are passionate on this topic using a global problem to argue for a local "improvement" that makes the global problem worse.
quote:
Originally posted by Drake:
Certainly scientists are capable of manipulating their theories based on their biases.

I think you're understating this, it's not that they are capable of it, it's that it is unavoidable. I don't think you realize how much of generating a climate model is discretionary, how many factors to include, what factors to include, how to build the formulas for their interaction. The results of models look very precise, but it's a false precision. They are over-relied on in climate science specifically because there is no way to run actual experiments. But all they actually are, are opinion pieces writ large.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Carbon pricing and carbon caps are two completely different proposals.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
I completely disagree with what you said here. I think that the over-reliance on and excessive belief in the reliability of climate modeling is part of the systemic bias in this area of research. Climate modeling is literally the layering of thousands of assumptions into a computer program and claiming a statistical significance on the backend that is unjustifiable.

Deniers can not use models to prove anything, but neither - really - can supporters. All models fundamentally operate on a garbage in, garbage out system. Not to say they are useless, they still represent our best guesses, but when you try to predict the climate with them you're really only a small step above a fortune teller.

you are confusing weather prediction and climate prediction. Long term _weather_ forecasts are as yet unreliability because of the complexity involved. Long term climate forecasts have a much lower overall complexity and have been exceptionally reliable and accurate, with refinements only serving to improve precision, not accuracy.

quote:

I'm not sure how beneficial arguing the science is going to be. I'm not a denier, I'm always willing to let the scientists do their jobs and propose things. I'm not however willing to allow them (or really anyone else) to overstate what their research actually shows, or can show. The clearest thing I can say on where I stand on the debate, is that mine is an argument of negation. There is no strong proof either way.

Denying the strong evidence that actually exists to make the false claim that there isn't strong proof is what puts you in the denier camp. Aside from self-interested claims by the fossil fuel industry all evidence supports the position that human sources warming is occurring.

And sure people attracted to climate science do so on the basis of interest in climatology and likely environmental concerns, but none of that suggests a misanthropic motive that would bias them to want to show that there's a problem that humans are causing, but rather toward doing their best to identify any real problems that exist and properly tracing their sources. They gain absolutely nothing from reinforcing a false hypothesis, because doing so does not serve the baseline motivation of environmental protection.

You have to beg the question and assume that human and environmental interests are in conflict to even begin to make that juxtaposition.

quote:
Carbon pricing is completely redistributive. It only works by reducing the total carbon involved. But when you have most of the world (ie the developing world) completely exempt from the caps it actually creates a direct environmental harm to cap the cleanest factories in the world, or even to increase they comparable costs.
Assigning a real price to activity is not redistributive. And it doesn't hurt the cleanest factories/power plants, only the ones that lag behing that standard to the dergree that they refuse to invest in improving themselves to the higher standard.

quote:
If you really cared about the environment, you'd subsidize cleaner first world industry and completely drive third world factories out of business.
So they can use even less efficient methods to support their population? Why would the answer not be to develop cheap clean technology and help start them off at a cleaner baseline standard? They're going to produce what they need by whatever means necessary anyway, so any solution that doesn't give them a clean and efficient way to do it is going to fail.

Population growth is what drives industrial growth in developing countries, not investments in efficiency and low impact processes in developed countries. RAther those investments help create technology and infrastructure models that can be exported to developing countries to help them get ahead of the curve instead of having to go the long way around as we did.

quote:
The results of models look very precise, but it's a false precision. They are over-relied on in climate science specifically because there is no way to run actual experiments. But all they actually are, are opinion pieces writ large.
Which is purely your opinion and based in speculation, not an actual understanding of the field and evidence in question.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Carbon pricing and carbon caps are two completely different proposals.

I don't see them as that different, but if you look I did reference the consequences of increasing the costs as a nod to the difference with carbon pricing. It's exactly the same logic as to why its a bad idea, the costs will be added in countries with the most efficient factories and not in those with the least. We should be subsidizing first world industry, not adding additional costs that the third world factories that they will compete against and that will replace them will not bear.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
you are confusing weather prediction and climate prediction. Long term _weather_ forecasts are as yet unreliability because of the complexity involved. Long term climate forecasts have a much lower overall complexity and have been exceptionally reliable and accurate, with refinements only serving to improve precision, not accuracy.

I'm really not confusing them. You're overstating their accuracy (not to mention ignoring the time scale whereby the models have actually not been proven out as of yet). If you want to demonstrate the validity of a model it's going to take a heck of lot more than assertions, to unwind my own opinion based on past research.
quote:
Assigning a real price to activity is not redistributive. And it doesn't hurt the cleanest factories/power plants, only the ones that lag behing that standard to the dergree that they refuse to invest in improving themselves to the higher standard.
And you just made yourself exhibit A in the local versus global treatment of the problem. Assigning a "real price" to an activity that only applies in certain countries (which is all any of these agreements ever has or ever will get) is completely redistributive. It absolute hurts the cleanest plants, as generally even the most polluting western plants are better for the environment than the average third world plants.
quote:
quote:
If you really cared about the environment, you'd subsidize cleaner first world industry and completely drive third world factories out of business.
So they can use even less efficient methods to support their population?
So that the majority of good purchased in the first world were not supplied in a pollution inefficient manner. So that export goods to the third world were cheaper than locally produced pollution inefficient goods, absolutely.
quote:
Why would the answer not be to develop cheap clean technology and help start them off at a cleaner baseline standard?
Redistributionist policy. But yes it can be a part of the solution. Doesn't help though unless you get them on the pollution reduction requirements at the same time.
quote:
They're going to produce what they need by whatever means necessary anyway, so any solution that doesn't give them a clean and efficient way to do it is going to fail.
Any solution that doesn't require they clean up is going to fail.
quote:
quote:
The results of models look very precise, but it's a false precision. They are over-relied on in climate science specifically because there is no way to run actual experiments. But all they actually are, are opinion pieces writ large.
Which is purely your opinion and based in speculation, not an actual understanding of the field and evidence in question.
It is my opinion, but the rest of your statement is just nonsense.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
I don't agree that such a controlled test means that it will operate in the same manner on the climate as a whole. It may, or it may not. There are any number of factors that a laboratory test cannot account for, any number of which could confound the result.
Can you provide some of these possible factors? Because, AFAIK, the heat-trapping properties of gases act independently of other gases or anything else. It is like gas pressure--each gas contributes its own gas pressure, and the pressure of a mixture of gases is the sum of the individual pressures. So it is with the heat trapping properties of gases. Each contributes its own, and nothing changes that.

Of course, other factors could change the overall temperature, such as cloud cover, which may be related to temperature. As I said, those other factors could mitigate the increased heat from increased CO2 levels.

But they won't affect the heat trapped by CO2. It has nothing to do with laboratory demonstrations.

quote:
I think you are including the disputed conclusion as something everyone agrees on. You have to assume that the planet is warming, and that because we understand in a laboratory setting that CO2 could cause such an effect it therefore is certain that is what is going on.
No, this is something I read that Lord Monckton, a famous AGW denier, said about a conference he attended. That all of the deniers in the conference agreed that CO2 was trapping heat, and that anyone saying they did not believe it was just trying to slander the denier movement. [Smile] I had a link to it on another thread, but I can't find my link right now (too many AGW links to choose from [Embarrassed] ).

quote:
Deniers can not use models to prove anything, but neither - really - can supporters. All models fundamentally operate on a garbage in, garbage out system. Not to say they are useless, they still represent our best guesses, but when you try to predict the climate with them you're really only a small step above a fortune teller.
Well, as I said before, the fact that the increased levels of CO2 are trapping more heat means that the climate models are not the basis of AGW. They are simply our best guess as to the effects of this increased heat, and whether it will increase the global temperatures.

So get it out of your head that because our models aren't perfectly reliable that AGW may not be happening. It's happening. The CO2 levels prove that. The models only give us the best clue--if only a fortune teller's clue--as to how this will affect our climate.

And deniers don't even have that. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
That was actually a pretty good response Wayward Son, not really used to that on climate change threads.
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
I don't agree that such a controlled test means that it will operate in the same manner on the climate as a whole. It may, or it may not. There are any number of factors that a laboratory test cannot account for, any number of which could confound the result.
Can you provide some of these possible factors?
I was being too imprecise. I agree with your response on this for the most part, and I was referring to factors that would cause the increase in energy trapped by the excess carbon to not result in a net increase in global temperature overall. Mitigation is the correct word. Though, it would also include natural processes that might become more efficient in-capturing excess carbon as well as those that might mitigate the heat increase directly.
quote:
But they won't affect the heat trapped by CO2. It has nothing to do with laboratory demonstrations.
But to me that point is moot if there are mechanisms that always (or even intermittently) act to cause temperature decreases that are also linked to increases in atmospheric carbon. It's the direction of net number that really matters, not which element is pushing a component.
quote:
No, this is something I read that Lord Monckton, a famous AGW denier, said about a conference he attended. That all of the deniers in the conference agreed that CO2 was trapping heat,
quote:
that the planet is warming
Those are not equivalent statements, that was kind of the point of what I was getting at. Deniers do not agree that the planet is warming, even if they do agree that the presence of increased atmospheric carbon has the component of effect of trapping extra energy.
quote:
...and that anyone saying they did not believe it was just trying to slander the denier movement. [Smile] I had a link to it on another thread, but I can't find my link right now (too many AGW links to choose from [Embarrassed] ).
Feel free to link it, I'd be happy to take a look.
quote:
Well, as I said before, the fact that the increased levels of CO2 are trapping more heat means that the climate models are not the basis of AGW.
That's sort of true. However, you're leaving out that the models are built to assume there is no corrective mechanism that correlates to increased carbon. Ergo, they can not do anything but predict an increase. Kind of the point, there is no experiment being run in modeling, there is just a logical statement that follows directly from the inputted premises.

They cannot generate anything else (unless they have a direct error built in).
quote:
They are simply our best guess as to the effects of this increased heat, and whether it will increase the global temperatures.
I agree, and I've never said otherwise. I just said I don't believe them to be a very good guess.
quote:
So get it out of your head that because our models aren't perfectly reliable that AGW may not be happening. It's happening. The CO2 levels prove that.
You've flipped a lot of cause and effect and incorporated in a lot of assumptions that aren't really warranted to make that conclusion. Again, like I said, we have a bias to emphasize factors that we easily understand, that doesn't mean that their net impact is what we think it is on a complex system.
quote:
And deniers don't even have that. [Roll Eyes]
Much like I don't respect the logic of atheism, I can't respect the logic of deniers, agnosticism, on the other hand is a perfectly logical philosophy.

But deniers being wrong (because they can't support their claims) is not the same as proponents being correct (because they can't actually support their claims either).
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
Mitigation is the correct word. Though, it would also include natural processes that might become more efficient in-capturing excess carbon as well as those that might mitigate the heat increase directly.
I would love to know which processes you are thinking about. Clouds come to mind, but the jury is still very much out on those. (Last I heard, the reflection on top pretty much balanced out the reflection below. [Frown] )

quote:
quote:
No, this is something I read that Lord Monckton, a famous AGW denier, said about a conference he attended. That all of the deniers in the conference agreed that CO2 was trapping heat,

quote:
that the planet is warming
Those are not equivalent statements, that was kind of the point of what I was getting at. Deniers do not agree that the planet is warming, even if they do agree that the presence of increased atmospheric carbon has the component of effect of trapping extra energy.

Yes, they are not equivalent, and I recognize and acknowledge that.

But think about it for a minute. If there is a gas in our atmosphere that everyone agrees is trapping more heat, then either something has to absorb that heat and not let it out, or emit that heat from our atmosphere, or prevent heat from another source from entering our atmosphere. Otherwise, that heat from the gas will increase the temperature of our Earth.

So if deniers state that CO2 is trapping more heat but it is not increasing the temperature of the Earth, then they must have some idea which one or ones of those things is happening. And I want to know what it is and how it works, to know we don't have to worry about rising levels of CO2! They have to prove that is it not a problem.

Hence the need for supercomputer models. [Smile]

quote:
However, you're leaving out that the models are built to assume there is no corrective mechanism that correlates to increased carbon. Ergo, they can not do anything but predict an increase. Kind of the point, there is no experiment being run in modeling, there is just a logical statement that follows directly from the inputted premises.
Well, it's hard to build a model with the corrective mechanism when you don't know what it is. [Smile] In fact, it's hard to know if such a corrective mechanism actually exists.

And the thing is, every model I've heard of includes other factors that influence the amount of heat absorbed, like solar insolation, cloud cover, surface reflection, atmospheric absorption, surface absorption, radiation from the surface, latent heat of evaporation, IR emission from the surface, atmospheric particle reflection, and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, to name a few. Heck, I saw over a decade ago that scientists at NOAA were looking into the greenhouse effects of termites!

Of course, this doesn't take into account anything that might absorb the CO2 directly, such as the oceans and plants, but we really don't have to worry about that for this discussion, since it would only decrease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and not mitigate its effects. Also, we know that those factors aren't working well enough, since the Keeling Curve keeps going up. [Frown]

So while models aren't build with any corrective mechanism for CO2 increases, you have to remember that there are no such corrective mechanisms that are known. Just about every known mechanism that affects climate is included in the models, and you can't include unknown ones.

And until you actually know about a corrective mechanism, you can't know that it exists.

Which is why deniers need a good model to show that what they say is true, and not just wishful thinking.
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
Okay, so to me, a good plan would require that energy at the completion of the plan would be available at fewer $/Watt than fossil fuels currently are. Elements that could accomplish this:

1. Remove subsidies that currently allow fossil fuels to be built at artificially reduced costs.

2. Remove caps on liability from failed drilling.

3. Launch a massive Manhattan Project style project to generate efficient fuel.

4. Remove blocks to deployment of hydro-electric, wind, and other energy producing technologies - especially those based on "aesthetic" concerns.

5. Firmly establish US hegemony of new energy, exports to pay for programs like #3.

If it is MORE $/Watt, by definition there's a sacrifice being made in terms of productivity, jobs, etc. It also doesn't require a grand international coalition with unenforceable protocols to be joined by China, the US, Russia, the EU, etc - because it will just start to make sense to use a cheaper technology.

If it involves using FEWER Watts, then again there is a sacrifice involved, either in the cost of more energy efficient light bulbs and other commodities, construction costs, etc.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
I would love to know which processes you are thinking about. Clouds come to mind, but the jury is still very much out on those. (Last I heard, the reflection on top pretty much balanced out the reflection below. [Frown] )

I'd love to know all kinds of things, but I can't pass along concepts that haven't been discovered yet.
quote:
Yes, they are not equivalent, and I recognize and acknowledge that.

But think about it for a minute. If there is a gas in our atmosphere that everyone agrees is trapping more heat, then either something has to absorb that heat and not let it out, or emit that heat from our atmosphere, or prevent heat from another source from entering our atmosphere. Otherwise, that heat from the gas will increase the temperature of our Earth.

If the Earth was a completely closed system and there were no outlets or non-understood interactions, then yes. That's kind of the problem with the extrapolation of the experiment, it's conditions don't necessarily hold true against the reality.
quote:
So if deniers state that CO2 is trapping more heat but it is not increasing the temperature of the Earth, then they must have some idea which one or ones of those things is happening.
Why do you think that? Honestly, in what way does it follow in a scientific endeavor that a someone studying a result has to understand why the result occurs? That is exactly the point of what's going on here, the proponents of AGW believe they have demonstrated a result (increasing global temperature) and therefore are looking to explain why it's occurring. It's the result that prompts the search.

You do agree that if it were conclusively shown that warming was NOT occurring despite increased carbon then it would be evidence of such an effect, do you not? How about if it were conclusively shown (as it has been) that the expected increase based on the increased carbon levels has not been achieved in the global system?
quote:
And I want to know what it is and how it works, to know we don't have to worry about rising levels of CO2! They have to prove that is it not a problem.
You're not really correct on this. When we're talking about a policy direction, its not about disproving every possibility so much as it as about making a convincing argument for the most likely possibility, and that the harms are less than the gains. Unfortunately, the discussion on this issue fails because one side places an infinite harm number on the long term environmental change and the other places an infinite harm number on the short term suffering that the changes would cause. I really do believe if the science was convincing the issue would resolve, unfortunately, I think the over reliance on bad arguments from authority has corrupted the debate, which makes it even harder.
quote:
Hence the need for supercomputer models. [Smile]
sigh. They can't show you any new mechanisms, really they can't produce anything that wasn't a logical necessity of the data you put in.
quote:
Well, it's hard to build a model with the corrective mechanism when you don't know what it is. [Smile] In fact, it's hard to know if such a corrective mechanism actually exists.
Agreed, which is the failing of reliance on modeling.
quote:
And the thing is, every model I've heard of includes other factors that influence the amount of heat absorbed, like solar insolation, cloud cover, surface reflection, atmospheric absorption, surface absorption, radiation from the surface, latent heat of evaporation, IR emission from the surface, atmospheric particle reflection, and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, to name a few. Heck, I saw over a decade ago that scientists at NOAA were looking into the greenhouse effects of termites!
Exactly, the made the error of overcounting things they could measure and understand (like terminates). And every single thing included, or not, is a choice that introduces the potential for error (lets face its not just potential). And every weighting of each mitigator is a choice that introduces error. And every misunderstood interaction between factors is an element that is wrongly excluded or included.

When you are modeling the interactions of thousands of factors, as a proxy for a system with an unknowable number of factors (but that almost certainly doesn't match your assumptions), what you get is nothing more than a historical trend repeated back, with your own bias heavily influencing the end result.
quote:
Which is why deniers need a good model to show that what they say is true, and not just wishful thinking.
Actually they don't need a projection at all, all they need is a non-increasing trend line as a matter of history.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
quote:
You do agree that if it were conclusively shown that warming was NOT occurring despite increased carbon then it would be evidence of such an effect, do you not? How about if it were conclusively shown (as it has been) that the expected increase based on the increased carbon levels has not been achieved in the global system?
The thing is looking back, there was an increase. If there isn't (I'm not sure it has been established) an ongoing increase we don't know why. I'm skeptical of claimed effects without an associated cause.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
The thing is looking back, there was an increase. If there isn't (I'm not sure it has been established) an ongoing increase we don't know why. I'm skeptical of claimed effects without an associated cause.

Agreed on the skepticism, but what I'm most troubled by is the where there is claimed certainty. Even today, we don't have a uniform or comprehensive system of land and water based temperature measurement. And for every ten years you go back in time the coverage map gets worse, the measurement technology gets worse and the consistency point to point gets worse. Go back even 50, 100 years and most of the data is indirectly measured (ie measured by observed effects not direct temperature). Go back any further and virtually none of it is directly measured or reliably measured.

It just baffles me that there is such reliance on data that is so obviously questionable and that has been adjusted on a discretionary basis (even presuming good faith). I'm not of the view that this is unknowable, just that it's highly questionable that we do in fact know it correctly at this time.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
You're overstating their accuracy (not to mention ignoring the time scale whereby the models have actually not been proven out as of yet). If you want to demonstrate the validity of a model it's going to take a heck of lot more than assertions, to unwind my own opinion based on past research.
They have yet to be inaccurate, and have been independently confirmed through myriad approaches with sound methodology across a number of different disciplines.

quote:
Assigning a "real price" to an activity that only applies in certain countries (which is all any of these agreements ever has or ever will get) is completely redistributive. It absolute hurts the cleanest plants, as generally even the most polluting western plants are better for the environment than the average third world plants.
Price is a localized factor as well, and is simple to correct by adjusting the price of such goods if we import them to account for the real net cost if the country of origin is trying to shift the cost to us. What you seem to be saying here is that we should blindly allow cost shifting here because other people are allowing cost shifting in their own economies instead of working to make it cheaper to properly account for the costs up front everywhere than it is to shift them, then applying "redistribution" to that without any sense of meaning aside for "not what you want"

quote:
So that the majority of good purchased in the first world were not supplied in a pollution inefficient manner. So that export goods to the third world were cheaper than locally produced pollution inefficient goods, absolutely.
This makes no sense at all. DEveloped countries generally produce their goods efficiently , while the fundamental characteristic of developing countries is that they're establishing industry so as to be self-reliant and not dependent on imports for basic needs. They're going to do that no matter what, so we'd do better to sell them cheap, clean, efficient modern technology and expertise rather than forcing them to try to develop their own expertise by working slowly upwards through old, expensive, inefficient models to get there on their own.

Unless you're suggestion is effectively that we don't allow them to develop economically at all, and instead continue to generate money to send them as foreign aide so that they can be our perpetual consumer colonies?[/quote]

quote:
[quote]Why would the answer not be to develop cheap clean technology and help start them off at a cleaner baseline standard?
Redistributionist policy. But yes it can be a part of the solution. Doesn't help though unless you get them on the pollution reduction requirements at the same time.

Where is there redistribution here? You're really waving it around like a club with no sense of meaning. SElling them efficient technology that we've developed to the point that it's cheaper than inefficient technology is not redistribution, it's just trade. And There's no need to impose limits on them when the lower net cost of the cleaner technology would make it automatically preferable in the first place.

quote:
Any solution that doesn't require they clean up is going to fail.
Any solution that _requires_ they do anything they don't want to will fail. Only solutions that make it more desirable for them to clean up than not have a chance.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Go back even 50, 100 years and most of the data is indirectly measured (ie measured by observed effects not direct temperature). Go back any further and virtually none of it is directly measured or reliably measured.
That falsely suggests that indirect measurements are unreliable without presenting any evidence to black the claim. Indirect measurements are pretty solidly reliable, especially because they allow us to correlate data across an number of different sources and verify that just about every possible method of measurement gives similar results.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
quote:
Hence the need for supercomputer models.
sigh. They can't show you any new mechanisms, really they can't produce anything that wasn't a logical necessity of the data you put in.
If there's a mechanism, then the models need to account for it to match the data.

You've got this exactly backwards here. MEchanisms don't come from the data, mechanisms come from an understanding of the physical factors at play. WHen all known mechanisms are accounted for, they should be able to project the known data to within a reasonable margin of error.

So far all known mechanisms have successfully done that, while new mechanisms have simply refined the precision of hte results.

SO if there's a new, unaccounted for mechanism, then the people promoting it need to put forth what it is and factor it into the models to show that they both still are accurately able to match the known data but then produce a significantly different future result.

In order to debunk the human contribution portion of it, those models would also have to show that there's no significant difference in their model behavior by removing human input for the equation.

But if the claim is just "maybe something we don't know about ill happen" that's not a sound position. It's just begging for a deus ex machina to come in and make the problem go away.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
To echo Pyr, our measurements of past temperature are reliable enough to sustain decades of investigation into why current temperatures seem higher. If there were systematic mis-interpretation causing the apparent warming you'd expect we'd have found it by now.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
And, to be clear, the current models actively account for the fact that there may be unknown mechanisms and that we don't completely understand the effects of some mechanisms. That's why they produce an error margin for their results, covering the range from best case to worst case scenario.

(We've run into that directly by finding that the oceans are absorbing more carbon than expected. That's why we've found both that we're riding the lower end of the margin for temperature increases, but ocean acidification has been well outpacing expected results.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
They have yet to be inaccurate, and have been independently confirmed through myriad approaches with sound methodology across a number of different disciplines.

They have been completely inaccurate, but that doesn't mean I'm questioning the concept of the math they are based on. Their inaccuracy stems from flawed data inclusion and the elective elements, hence this particular critique is just garbage.
quote:
quote:
Assigning a "real price" to an activity that only applies in certain countries (which is all any of these agreements ever has or ever will get) is completely redistributive. It absolute hurts the cleanest plants, as generally even the most polluting western plants are better for the environment than the average third world plants.
Price is a localized factor as well, and is simple to correct by adjusting the price of such goods if we import them to account for the real net cost if the country of origin is trying to shift the cost to us. What you seem to be saying here is that we should blindly allow cost shifting here because other people are allowing cost shifting in their own economies instead of working to make it cheaper to properly account for the costs up front everywhere than it is to shift them, then applying "redistribution" to that without any sense of meaning aside for "not what you want"
Black is white, is black. What I said is that environmental policy is designed to reduce production in the most efficient and cleanest plants in favor of the worst polluting ones and to transfer wealth from the first world to the third. That's not what you are saying I "seem" to be saying.
quote:
quote:
So that the majority of good purchased in the first world were not supplied in a pollution inefficient manner. So that export goods to the third world were cheaper than locally produced pollution inefficient goods, absolutely.
This makes no sense at all. DEveloped countries generally produce their goods efficiently , while the fundamental characteristic of developing countries is that they're establishing industry so as to be self-reliant and not dependent on imports for basic needs. They're going to do that no matter what, so we'd do better to sell them cheap, clean, efficient modern technology and expertise rather than forcing them to try to develop their own expertise by working slowly upwards through old, expensive, inefficient models to get there on their own.
So not only should we send them our jobs, we give them the technology and subsidize them to out compete us as well? Lol. You are literally the poster boy for why environmental policy gets opposed irregardless of the science involved.
quote:
Unless you're suggestion is effectively that we don't allow them to develop economically at all, and instead continue to generate money to send them as foreign aide so that they can be our perpetual consumer colonies?
You could do it that way. Simpler to prohibit the distribution of goods produced in pollution inefficient plants. If you want meaningful pollution limits end the practice of buying products from countries that refuse to apply them. Subsidize pollution efficient plants so that they can compete on cost against the third world plants that gain their advantage by exploiting their workers and not controlling pollution.
quote:
Where is there redistribution here? You're really waving it around like a club with no sense of meaning. SElling them efficient technology that we've developed to the point that it's cheaper than inefficient technology is not redistribution, it's just trade. And There's no need to impose limits on them when the lower net cost of the cleaner technology would make it automatically preferable in the first place.
Selling? What nonsense is that? These treaties require the uncompensated transfer of technology, and often require that we pay them to actually implement it. If they were forced to pay the fair value they'd neither take nor implement the technology.
quote:
quote:
Any solution that doesn't require they clean up is going to fail.
Any solution that _requires_ they do anything they don't want to will fail. Only solutions that make it more desirable for them to clean up than not have a chance.
Funnily enough you are correct in your statement that solutions that require they do anything they don't want to do will fail, and that is exactly while the current climate treaties have led to increases in global pollution rather than reduction. Hey but the more the same is sure to generate a completely different result this time. /sarcasm.

Refuse a first world market for pollution generated goods, and you make it in their interest to move forward. Keep up giveaways with no compliance obligations and you'll be patting yourself on the back while the world burns.
quote:
That falsely suggests that indirect measurements are unreliable without presenting any evidence to black the claim.
I don't think you understand logic, there's nothing about that that "falsely suggests" anything. It is true I didn't put in proof.
quote:
Indirect measurements are pretty solidly reliable, especially because they allow us to correlate data across an number of different sources and verify that just about every possible method of measurement gives similar results
Lol. I get it, you not really built to understand shades of grey.
quote:
You've got this exactly backwards here. MEchanisms don't come from the data, mechanisms come from an understanding of the physical factors at play. WHen all known mechanisms are accounted for, they should be able to project the known data to within a reasonable margin of error.
I don't have anything backwards, you really have a reading comprehension problem. I have no disagreement that when all mechanisms are known and accounted for, it should be possible to create a reasonable projection. That's not the same thing as when "all known mechanisms are accounted for," as you suggest would be sufficient. In fact, what you state is pretty the fallacious belief that the current state of science is unimprovable, that there's nothing new to learn.
quote:
And, to be clear, the current models actively account for the fact that there may be unknown mechanisms and that we don't completely understand the effects of some mechanisms
Lol, I'm not if its scarier that you believe this is possible, or that if you actually believe this occurs you don't understand how it undermines the validity of the model.
quote:
Originally posted by Noblehunter:
To echo Pyr, our measurements of past temperature are reliable enough to sustain decades of investigation into why current temperatures seem higher. If there were systematic mis-interpretation causing the apparent warming you'd expect we'd have found it by now.

The problem with that Noblehunter is that the data requires adjustments to show statistical significance. It's not a clean record. So while I agree with many of the adjustments, and hence am not a denier, it's not the case that the trend is indisputable.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
It requires adjustments, sure, but there's still a consensus about the what the adjustments should be. I haven't heard of any historical models showing the earth as significantly warmer than the standard models. Esepcially since much of the observed or inferred warming has taken place in the last century when our measurements are either accurate or the margin of error is easier to determine.

We can't know how hot the planet was anymore than we can know Napoleon actually existed. But the evidence at our disposal can give us a pretty good idea. It may be possible to dispute the accepted conclusion but I think it's telling that almost no-one is disputing them nor have they significantly changed since they were originally reached.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
quote:
Yes, they are not equivalent, and I recognize and acknowledge that.

But think about it for a minute. If there is a gas in our atmosphere that everyone agrees is trapping more heat, then either something has to absorb that heat and not let it out, or emit that heat from our atmosphere, or prevent heat from another source from entering our atmosphere. Otherwise, that heat from the gas will increase the temperature of our Earth.

If the Earth was a completely closed system and there were no outlets or non-understood interactions, then yes. That's kind of the problem with the extrapolation of the experiment, it's conditions don't necessarily hold true against the reality.
The Earth is not a closed system in a thermodynamics sense, but it can be considered "closed" in that we can make an imaginary sphere around it and consider what comes into the sphere and what goes out. It's really just energy-in, energy-out, and energy stored within. It is just that simple.

You seem to be hung up on "non-understood interactions," as if they surround us and are having major effects all the time. But even a non-understood interaction will fit into one of these categories.

quote:
That is exactly the point of what's going on here, the proponents of AGW believe they have demonstrated a result (increasing global temperature) and therefore are looking to explain why it's occurring. It's the result that prompts the search.
I think you have it backwards here. The rising amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is trapping heat--that is agreed upon by everyone. So we have to wonder where that heat is going. The most obvious solution is that it is being absorbed by the atmosphere (since that is what greenhouse gases do [Smile] ). So we look to see if temperatures are rising. And then we look to see what else might make the temperatures rise. Only after eliminating everything else we can think of was it announced that, yes, the theory is correct that CO2 is causing x amount of warming.

But it didn't start with noticing the Earth warming. That's been pretty minor, so far. What started it (AFAIK) was that we noticed that a greenhouse gas concentration was increasing, and we want to know as much as we can how much it is going to heat the Earth.

quote:
You do agree that if it were conclusively shown that warming was NOT occurring despite increased carbon then it would be evidence of such an effect, do you not?
Yes, if it was conclusively shown, then climatologists would be scrambling to figure out what is preventing it.

quote:
How about if it were conclusively shown (as it has been) that the expected increase based on the increased carbon levels has not been achieved in the global system?
Three problems with this statement. First is that climate is a chaotic system, so "expected" increases are in a range, with lots of slop to account for feedbacks and such. So "conclusively shown" is difficult to show, because AGW is something that takes decades to have the effect. (In fact, the CO2 in the atmosphere today has not yet had it's full effect. If we kept the CO2 concentrations precisely where they are today, it will take a decade or two before it stops warming the Earth.)

Second is that the models are still be perfected. So temperatures not fitting the models would first elicit a tweeking of the models, to see if they can be made better. If that doesn't work, then other factors will be looked for (assuming they don't pop up on their own).

The third is that I haven't heard that it's been "conclusively shown" that the models haven't accounted for the increased temperatures, and that they haven't shown that they are from increased CO2 levels. In fact, I have heard the opposite--that the models are fairly close to what actual temperatures are, but when CO2 levels are taken out, they show no warming and become very inaccurate.

Perhaps you can provide a link to where it is "conclusively shown" that the expected increase based on the increased carbon levels has not been achieved in the global system?

quote:
Exactly, the made the error of overcounting things they could measure and understand (like terminates). And every single thing included, or not, is a choice that introduces the potential for error (lets face its not just potential). And every weighting of each mitigator is a choice that introduces error. And every misunderstood interaction between factors is an element that is wrongly excluded or included.

When you are modeling the interactions of thousands of factors, as a proxy for a system with an unknowable number of factors (but that almost certainly doesn't match your assumptions), what you get is nothing more than a historical trend repeated back, with your own bias heavily influencing the end result.

It is not entirely just our own biases repeated back. The weighing have certain limits; you can't say that CO2 causes 100 times more IR reflection than what is shown in the lab. And all these factors do play a part in creating our climate, so you have to take them into account in any complete model.

But I think there is one concept that you are not taking into account. What if there is no mitigating factor? You keep acting as if there is some factor that we don't know about, and aren't taking into account, that is counteracting this greenhouse gas. What if there isn't? We haven't see such factors in the other planets we have modeled for their climate based on greenhouse gases. Why should our planet be that much different?

We know CO2 traps heat, we know CO2 levels are rising, and we know that overall temperatures are rising (and not just from temperature measurements). So if someone states that CO2 is not heating the Earth, then it must be because of a mitigating factor. And if they know it is true, then the must know what that factor is.

Because I don't know what that factor could be, and I suspect that they are just practicing wishful thinking.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
It requires adjustments, sure, but there's still a consensus about the what the adjustments should be.

Firstly, no there's not. Many of the adjustments are made by single teams and not freely shared and/or reviewed. There's no consensus on specific adjustments, just on the need for adjustment. Secondly, who cares if there is a consensus, that's not the same thing as a measured result, as proof or necessarily consistent with reality.
quote:
I haven't heard of any historical models showing the earth as significantly warmer than the standard models.
Not sure what you mean by this, what are the "historical models" and what are the "standard models"? Study of the Earth's history certain implies times where the global temperature has been significantly higher (and lower) than is currently the case. And unless new data is available since I last looked that there have been periods where atmospheric carbon was far higher than it is now and global temperatures lower.
quote:
Esepcially since much of the observed or inferred warming has taken place in the last century when our measurements are either accurate or the margin of error is easier to determine.
Agreed on the time period, but completely subject to the specific biases and problems I already stated, hence why its disputable.
quote:
We can't know how hot the planet was anymore than we can know Napoleon actually existed.
Honestly, I think that's a horrid analogy, there's zero chance we've accurately described how "hot" the planet is, and a pretty good chance we can get in the ballpark (but being able to tell it was in the ballpark is a far cry from knowing it was a ground out to third). It would take a fraud of almost unimaginable scale for Napoleon not to have existed.
quote:
But the evidence at our disposal can give us a pretty good idea. It may be possible to dispute the accepted conclusion but I think it's telling that almost no-one is disputing them nor have they significantly changed since they were originally reached.
What do you mean by significantly changed? The predictions and timelines bear no resemblance to the original predictions or time lines. The statistical significance changes immensely after the data is manipulated. And the trend to date changes immensely based on any number of measurement adjustments.

Seriously, I'm not at all sure what you think hasn't changed significantly?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Secondly, who cares if there is a consensus, that's not the same thing as a measured result, as proof or necessarily consistent with reality.
Indeed. A consensus means that multiple independently measured results have arrived at the same conclusion. It's a much stronger position than a single result that may or may not have been in error. Consensus is essential to establishing fact, since it shows that the results are independently verifiable, regardless of the approach one takes.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
They have been completely inaccurate, but that doesn't mean I'm questioning the concept of the math they are based on. Their inaccuracy stems from flawed data inclusion and the elective elements, hence this particular critique is just garbage.

When? That have yet to be inaccurate.

Unless you mean that we haven't stuck to the worst case scenarios that the media hypes, which is a reflection on the media, not the science you're flat out wrong here. THe models have been accurate for decades- not precise, but very accurate. Temperature trends have stayed entirely within the margins of error on the predictions, even if they track the lower bounds.

More information has made the projections more precise, but at no point in the at least the past 20-30 years have they failed to be accurate.


Can you show any point here global temperatures were outside the predicted ranges in the past two decades to back that up?
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
With apologies, I reordered your post a bit. I do want to say, as I said before, I'm not sure that debating the science here is going to be profitable. None of you have convinced me that your grasp of how models work is better than my own, which leaves me and you frustrated with these arguments, and makes it unlikely for me to switch positions. But take heart, I fully expect that I will take a position at some point in the future, through no really action on any of your parts, when I'm convinced the data has produced a result that's more significant than my own objections justify. Now that said, I have a few specific issues on what you said:
quote:
But I think there is one concept that you are not taking into account. What if there is no mitigating factor? You keep acting as if there is some factor that we don't know about, and aren't taking into account, that is counteracting this greenhouse gas. What if there isn't?
Then the models will be closer to reality than they otherwise would be. I think the current trends demonstrate that there are in fact mitigating factors (hence repeated scrambling to improve the models, which have uniformly predicted faster growth than occurred).
quote:
We haven't see such factors in the other planets we have modeled for their climate based on greenhouse gases. Why should our planet be that much different?
I think of 3 unique factors for our planet, that don't apply to the other planets observed. Liquid water, life, and intelligent life. You already acknowledge the last has an impact hence the "A" in "AGW."

It's my understanding that a runaway greenhouse effect is completely dependent on the presence of large amounts of liquid water, which means its not an observable phenomenum on those other planets.

And life reacts to every step and piece of the AGW theory, increased carbon increases plant growth, increased heat increases growth of all life (on a net basis). It's entirely possible that we would wipe ourselves out yet generate a situation that is more friendly to life overall.
quote:
The Earth is not a closed system in a thermodynamics sense, but it can be considered "closed" in that we can make an imaginary sphere around it and consider what comes into the sphere and what goes out. It's really just energy-in, energy-out, and energy stored within. It is just that simple.
And our understanding of the in and out gets better all the time. So what's the impact of the Earth's core temperature on climate change? Is there or is their not one additional molecule of matter per cubic mile floating between the Earth and the sun than is the historical average? How much impact does one centimeter of continental drift have on the climate of the world? What's the impact that changing the color of the ocean's through the accumulation of floating sea garbage, or of solar radiance lost from reflecting off of artificial satellites?

No need to specifically rebut any of that, I doubt it's relevant too, but I have to think something like separating North and South America would have a dramatic impact, even if a slight decrease in the size of the Pacific ocean does not.
quote:
You seem to be hung up on "non-understood interactions," as if they surround us and are having major effects all the time. But even a non-understood interaction will fit into one of these categories.
I am more hung up on the arrogance of believing that we have correctly included the relevant factors and their weights. I point to the potential for non-understood interactions because it's easier to understand and because its nothing but theory people don't get into dogmatic arguments about data interpretation.
quote:
Second is that the models are still be perfected. So temperatures not fitting the models would first elicit a tweeking of the models, to see if they can be made better. If that doesn't work, then other factors will be looked for (assuming they don't pop up on their own).
Which by the way is another common area of criticism, the tuning of models. I wrote a long series of posts on one of these threads about how such adjustments may act to mask erroneous concepts in the model, that can cause extraordinary divergence under certain circumstances. Should show up if you search for kludge.
quote:
The third is that I haven't heard that it's been "conclusively shown" that the models haven't accounted for the increased temperatures, and that they haven't shown that they are from increased CO2 levels. In fact, I have heard the opposite--that the models are fairly close to what actual temperatures are, but when CO2 levels are taken out, they show no warming and become very inaccurate.
You're disputing that the models have consistently predicted a faster increase in global temperature than has been observed? Even if you accept the adjustments to the data, without which statistically significant heat increases can not be demonstrated, and assume that even with them they have been demonstrated, they still have uniformly been lower increases than have been predicted by the models overtime.
quote:
Perhaps you can provide a link to where it is "conclusively shown" that the expected increase based on the increased carbon levels has not been achieved in the global system?
Whose models do you want me to use?
quote:
It is not entirely just our own biases repeated back.
Of course it isn't. I'll even posit that the vast majority of inclusions represent the good faith opinion of educated scientists. It still doesn't change that the amount of discretion and judgment involved makes it impossible to view the end model as free from relevant bias.
quote:
The weighing have certain limits; you can't say that CO2 causes 100 times more IR reflection than what is shown in the lab. And all these factors do play a part in creating our climate, so you have to take them into account in any complete model.
But you have to set a value for the percentage impact of CO2 levels on the system as a whole. And you have to decide, what other gases to include and at what levels. And whether to include algae, or grass, or pavement and their impact levels. And whether to include solar radiance and gravitational impacts of the moon and their percentage of accounting for the result.

The truth is, most of these factors receive a zero or a near zero weight, and for most of them that is probably correct. But it only takes one or two that are 1% off, or not included in the thousands considered for the model, out of the infinite potential number that exist in reality to break the validity of the model. And that doesn't even consider what happens if there are grossly less relevant factors, what if there are only two factors that can generate a long term effect, and everything else is just short term variance?
quote:
So if someone states that CO2 is not heating the Earth, then it must be because of a mitigating factor. And if they know it is true, then the must know what that factor is.
If they know that its true, they are overstating their case. And it doesn't follow that they would understand the mitigation mechanism just because they observe it in operation.
quote:
Because I don't know what that factor could be, and I suspect that they are just practicing wishful thinking.
I don't think most people actually have a strong reasoned opinion on the science. I think they have a general leaning towards accepting it or not (with most leaning towards accepting it), but they have strong opinions about what solutions they find acceptable.

You see that all the time in how they approach solutions. There's been outright hostility to the idea of directly removing atmospheric carbon as a solution (rather than restricting its production and/or implementing redistribution).

[ December 03, 2015, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: Seriati ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Black is white, is black. What I said is that environmental policy is designed to reduce production in the most efficient and cleanest plants in favor of the worst polluting ones and to transfer wealth from the first world to the third. That's not what you are saying I "seem" to be saying.
Which is nonsense that has no basis in reality.

quote:
So not only should we send them our jobs, we give them the technology and subsidize them to out compete us as well? Lol. You are literally the poster boy for why environmental policy gets opposed irregardless of the science involved.
What jobs? Who said "give"? I said sell. They have to pay for development one way or another; if we provide a cheaper cleaner path, they'll take that instead of the more expensive dirty one.

I mean you can keep making stuff up, or you can actually address what I'm saying.

And that's not even getting into the absurd zero-sum argument that they're basing this on, unless you're referring to the not to distant point where the world is completely out-producing its needs and we "lose" jobs to leisure time because people everyone don't need to work as much. We're not in competition with them, we're looking to cooperate with them to develop them into good trading partners so that we both benefit.

quote:
These treaties require the uncompensated transfer of technology, and often require that we pay them to actually implement it.
Can you back that claim? I can see requirements to invest in them being reasonable, but investment comes with returns when they get off the ground and become viable trading partners as they find specializations that they can produce in excess of their need.

quote:
If they were forced to pay the fair value they'd neither take nor implement the technology.
The would if we were making the necessary investments in bringing the cost down to the point here it was the most reasonable option. As it stands, countries like China and South Africa are gaining the edge on us in developing hte technology to the point that they're likely to be global providers. Solar cells in particular come to mind here, but were lagging in other similar technology as well the longer we twiddle out thumbs instead of fully committing to being the leading source of research and production.

quote:
Funnily enough you are correct in your statement that solutions that require they do anything they don't want to do will fail, and that is exactly while the current climate treaties have led to increases in global pollution rather than reduction. Hey but the more the same is sure to generate a completely different result this time.
You're the one standing on the side of more of the same here- which is non participation and letting our chance to be the technological leader in the process sip away. I'm actively advocating that we stop trying to make it everyone else's problems and invest in creating the solutions here first.

quote:
Refuse a first world market for pollution generated goods, and you make it in their interest to move forward.
Those countries are their own primary markets. If we refuse to trade with them, they'' continue to do what they do anyway because they're working to provide for themselves without regard to us. Traded with them so that they can get cheap access to better technology than they can invent their way through on their own and they'll clean up more quickly and reach the point where we can mutually profit from trade in much less time.

quote:
quote:
That falsely suggests that indirect measurements are unreliable without presenting any evidence to black the claim.
I don't think you understand logic, there's nothing about that that "falsely suggests" anything. It is true I didn't put in proof.
Okay, so you didn't mean to claim that indirect measurements are unreliable? Because that false assertion seemed to be implied by your phrasing.

quote:
That's not the same thing as when "all known mechanisms are accounted for," as you suggest would be sufficient.
What huge gap are you suggesting exists in our understanding of chemistry and physics that would allow for us to currently not know about a possible significant mechanism?
I mean, you're making a huge claim here, that there's such a vast hole in our knowledge that, despite seeming to be extremely accurate something outside the bounds of our understanding of physics, geology and chemistry is occurring that will push us outside the current margins of error on the models that account for all the factors that we currently know about. At the same time, it has to be so subtle and only active under very limited circumstances that it doesn't throw off comparisons with prior data across hundreds, if not thousands of analyses from a wide range of disciplines.

This right here is what puts you into the denier camp. You posit the possibility of an unspecified magic mechanism that we don't know about, but put forth absolutely not proposal for where that lack of understanding lies. you're not raising a verifiable concern but just casting shade on the whole process without any evidence to support it. (While actively misrepresenting the current state of understanding at the same time purely to cast doubt on it, not because of any evidence of error)
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
I think the current trends demonstrate that there are in fact mitigating factors (hence repeated scrambling to improve the models, which have uniformly predicted faster growth than occurred).
They have not. The worst case scenario that the media likes to report has certainly not been met, but the increases have consistently been within the margin of error on the models. The revisions have been for _precision_ of future forecasts; narrowing hte margin of error, not accuracy; whether or not the outcome falls within the margin of error.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
It's my understanding that a runaway greenhouse effect is completely dependent on the presence of large amounts of liquid water, which means its not an observable phenomenum on those other planets.
That sounds completely wrong to me. From what I know, the classic example of a run-away greenhouse effect is Venus, which has absolutely no liquid water. (It's hard to have an ocean when lead melts on the surface. [Smile] ) I would double-check your source.

Reading over your last post, Seriati, I get the feeling that you doubt AGW because the models are not as accurate as you'd like. That, because the models are flawed, you question whether CO2 will actually raise the overall temperature of the Earth. Is that correct?

Let me try a different approach then.

If the Sun started emitting more light, and was increasing at a steady rate, would the Earth become hotter or stay the same?

If the Earth's orbit drifted away from the Sun, and continued to go further and further away, would the Earth become colder or stay the same?

Would you be concerned about the mitigating factors in those situations before you would become concerned about climate change? Would you question the accuracy of the models before you would acknowledge that we have a problem? Or would you wait until all factors were properly accounted for and understood before you would admit that we really should do something about it (assuming there was something we could do)?

This is how I see AGW. Greenhouse gases are one of the major factors in how much heat our planet has, along with the output of our Sun and the orbit of our planet. Increase those gases, the gases trap more heat, period. Just like more light means more energy hits the planet, which increases the heat on the planet. Or a further orbit means less light hits the planet, which means decreases the heat.

Admittedly, our planet has more interaction and "control" of the amounts of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, but that really doesn't matter for this discussion, because our planet is not controlling its greenhouse gases. CO2 keeps going up. It is continuing to increase, regardless of the plants and other systems on this planet. Look at the Keeling Curve.

So while the models may try to explain and predict what the warming of the planet will look like, they do not "prove" that the planet is warming from CO2. So any inadequacies in the models in no way disproves AGW.

AGW is happening because greenhouse gases concentrations, especially CO2, are rising in our atmosphere. As they continue to rise, they will trap more heat.

We observe warming on the planet through direct temperature measurements, indirect temperature measurements, and the changing climate in multiple areas around the globe, most dramatically at the poles.

We have something that we knows that warms the planet (like how much sunlight it receives) increasing. We see the planet is warming. Unless there is something that we know that is mitigating this process, then no one can state for certain that the planet will not become warmer. And those that state the AGW is not happening had better show exactly what it is that is mitigating the effects of CO2. Or they're just talking out of their, ahem, behinds. [Smile]
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
It's my understanding that a runaway greenhouse effect is completely dependent on the presence of large amounts of liquid water, which means its not an observable phenomenum on those other planets.
That sounds completely wrong to me. From what I know, the classic example of a run-away greenhouse effect is Venus, which has absolutely no liquid water. (It's hard to have an ocean when lead melts on the surface. [Smile] ) I would double-check your source.
You missed my point, Venus is a model for a greenhouse effect. On Earth, the fear is a run-away greenhouse effect that causes a radical shift in the climate. Check your sources as well, because my understanding is that what makes it irreversible is that the excess carbon pushes over a tipping point where production of water vapor has increased to the point that the heating effect becomes self-replicating (at least until a new balance is reached). Cloud formation is directly related to this as a potential mitigator.
quote:
Reading over your last post, Seriati, I get the feeling that you doubt AGW because the models are not as accurate as you'd like. That, because the models are flawed, you question whether CO2 will actually raise the overall temperature of the Earth. Is that correct?
Doubt is a strong word. I said the proof isn't there, and that the models generate a false sense of statistical significance.
quote:
Let me try a different approach then.

If the Sun started emitting more light, and was increasing at a steady rate, would the Earth become hotter or stay the same?

Absent a mitigator, hotter.
quote:
If the Earth's orbit drifted away from the Sun, and continued to go further and further away, would the Earth become colder or stay the same?
Colder (can't imagine an effective mitigator for this).
quote:
Would you be concerned about the mitigating factors in those situations before you would become concerned about climate change?
Are you asking me if I think the impact of star that is responsible for the generation of virtually all heat and energy and life on a plant is in my view more significant than the impact of human beings? Not trying to be difficult with you here. If such solar events were occurring I'd be incredibly concerned, but also aware that there would be little to nothing we could do to correct the situation.
quote:
Would you question the accuracy of the models before you would acknowledge that we have a problem?
The models would be irrelevant, we'd have direct measurements in such a situation. Or are you trying to equate the simple model for increases and decreases in solar radiation to the model climate scientists are running? Do you understand the difference between calculating the odds in a game of craps versus playing the market?
quote:
Or would you wait until all factors were properly accounted for and understood before you would admit that we really should do something about it (assuming there was something we could do)?
Already answered. I think you should pick a better example though to get to a meaningful response.
quote:
This is how I see AGW.
It scares me that you think AGW is as clear as a significant change in solar radiance. It really does say to me that you don't understand it, apologies, I don't say that to be offensive.
quote:
Admittedly, our planet has more interaction and "control" of the amounts of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, but that really doesn't matter for this discussion, because our planet is not controlling its greenhouse gases. CO2 keeps going up. It is continuing to increase, regardless of the plants and other systems on this planet. Look at the Keeling Curve.
It really does matter, the interactions on a greenhouse gas increase are way more difficult to be certain of than a change in solar radiance.
quote:
We observe warming on the planet through direct temperature measurements, indirect temperature measurements, and the changing climate in multiple areas around the globe, most dramatically at the poles.
This is the only relevant information that you're adding, and like I said, overtime I expect it will become convincing. It's not there yet.
quote:
We have something that we knows that warms the planet (like how much sunlight it receives) increasing. We see the planet is warming. Unless there is something that we know that is mitigating this process, then no one can state for certain that the planet will not become warmer.
Your third statement is true, no one could be sure, it doesn't depend on your second statement as you imply. And you have overstated the second sentence (as of today, maybe not in the future).
quote:
And those that state the AGW is not happening had better show exactly what it is that is mitigating the effects of CO2. Or they're just talking out of their, ahem, behinds. [Smile]
Or they could show warming is not occurring, which requires that an unknown mitigator occurs. Or like the good little scientists some of us like to think we're being they could show something else with a better correlation to the temperature trends (not convincing yet, but solar variance is a strong possibility on that front).
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Or like the good little scientists some of us like to think we're being they could show something else with a better correlation to the temperature trends (not convincing yet, but solar variance is a strong possibility on that front).
Which is why temperatures continue to increase despite us being at the low end of solar output contribution to our overall temperature? Solar variance is already accounted for, and is not mitigating the current warming trend, despite being in hte best position that it can be to do so.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
quote:
they could show something else with a better correlation to the temperature trends (not convincing yet, but solar variance is a strong possibility on that front).
I know you think that you are being unbiased in your position, but how is it possible, if you have put any effort whatsoever into following the debate on climate change, for you not to know that solar irradiance has been dropping for the past 50+ years, exactly during the period while we have seen the greatest amount of warming?

Seriously, think about that.
 


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1