Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience.

[Wild Cobra]

If it were that simple, then it should be simple enough to model accurately, correct?

One of your main assertions regarding this issue that the climate models are not accurate enough.

Which is it, simple or complex?
When talking long term, it's simple. As I stated before, equilibrium is reached when the outgoing energy is equal to the incoming energy At any given time, there is also latent energy. It's the latent energy that gets very complex in nature. There is almost always an imbalance between the incoming and outgoing energy. The best scientists are not equipped to better than speculate on the modeling of any short term change. There are simple too many variables, and we cannot keep all but one static for testing.

Again, I base my conclusions over the fact that long term temperature changes match solar changes rather well. I have found probable explanations for all the points that temperature does not follow solar changes, and it's laughable for anyone to think there will ever be a 100% correlation when there are so many variable.

The simple model that shows a 0.18% increase in solar output results in a 0.93 w^2 meter increase in radiative forcing is a simple thing that I fail to understand how anyone can dismiss. In another forum, I has someone go through the complex black body math, just for me to show him his errors, and he never responded after that.

Even if you don't agree with my 0.18%, and use something like 0.09%, then the solar radiative increase in the atmosphere is now 0.465 watt/square meter.

The normal 11 year solar cycle changes are about 0.07% from high to low. Is it unreasonable to believe the sun changes by 0.18% over the long term?

Oh...

I also used the 11 year average to get the 0.18% increase. Before I did that, I had a 0.24% increase.

Lean 2000, updated 2004 (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt)

[Wild Cobra]

Elements of scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)

Four essential elements of a scientific method are iterations, recursions, interleavings, or orderings of the following:

1) Characterizations (observations, definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)
2) Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)
3) Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from the hypothesis or theory)
4) Experiments (tests of all of the above)
We are only at step 2 so the AGW thing is still only a hypothesis. Predictions still are failure as the commonplace.

Looks like this does not comply with step 3:


Climatologist Michael Hulme of the University of East Anglia, in England, told Ritter that the scientific evidence backing the basic idea of human activity changing the global climate system is now overwhelming, even if scientific predictions for future climate change are still shrouded in uncertainty.

[DarrinS]

If the consensus of 9 of 10 doctors who review a spot on your X-ray is that you need to get a biopsy, is that a valid reason for the test?


I biopsy doesn't harm the patient and can be tested and verified immediately.


Analogy fail

[DarrinS]

Yes, actually it does. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus)





science <> policy

[RandomGuy]

I biopsy doesn't harm the patient and can be tested and verified immediately.


Analogy fail

http://www.imaginis.com/biopsy/risks-of-biopsy

Risks of [Breast cancer]
Biopsy

Infection of the biopsy area
Hematoma: (blood blister) pooling of blood trapped inside the biopsy area
Hemorrhage: bleeding
Vasovagal response: loss of consciousness due to sudden slowing of the heart beat, usually brought on by pain, stress, shock or fear)
Rarely more significant complications can occur when structures near the biopsy target are entered with the needle (for example, puncture of lung or bowel)

Surgical biopsy has some additional risks versus needle biopsy:

Surgical biopsies require sutures (stitches) and can leave a disfiguring scar, depending on the size of the excision
Surgical biopsy carries a small risk of mortality (due to risks of anesthesia)
Surgical biopsy causes moderate chances of bleeding, infection, wound healing problems
The localizing wire may fracture or migrate during wire localization breast biopsy
Surgical biopsy usually requires one day of recuperation at home

among others easily found witha google search. (http://www.google.com/search?q=biopsy+risk)

Biopsies always entail some risk and although generally this risk is minor, it is NOT fully "harmless", especially if you get an antibiotic-resistant infection.

*Fact* fail.

Analogy win.

[boutons_deux]

War Of The Graphs, Part Quatre-Vingt-Deux


Top 10 Climate-Change Denier Arguments Debunked

http://www.ecosalon.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/1000-yr-temp-records.jpg


http://www.ecosalon.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/100-yr-temp-record.jpg

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/149101

[jack sommerset]

k0_GO7cj0jk

[boutons_deux]

Rising temperatures in the Arctic -- increasing at two to three times the global average -- have peeled back the region's floating ice cover by 20 percent over the last three decades.

This has allowed more of the Sun's radiative force to be absorbed by dark-blue sea rather than bounced back into space by reflective ice and snow, accelerating the warming process.

More critically for weather patterns, it has also created a massive source of heat during the winter months.

"Say the ocean is at zero degrees Celsius (32 degrees Fahrenheit)," said Stefan Rahmstorf, a climate scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.

"That is a lot warmer than the overlying air in the polar area in winter, so you get a major heat flow heating up the atmosphere from below which you don't have when it is covered by ice. That's a massive change," he told AFP in an interview.

The result, according to a modeling study published earlier this month the Journal of Geophysical Research, is a strong high-pressure system over the newly-exposed sea which brings cold polar air, swirling counter-clockwise, into Europe.

"Recent severe winters like last year's or the one of 2005-2006 do not conflict with the global warming picture, but rather supplement it," explained Vladimir Petoukhov, lead author of the study and a physicist at the Potsdam Institute.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/biting-winters-global-warming/






"As I look out my window is see about 30 centimeters of snow and the thermostat reads -14.0 C," said Rahmstorf, speaking by phone from Potsdam.

"At the same time, in Greenland we have above zero temperatures -- in December.

[Wild Cobra]

Boutons...

Where do you keep coming up with this bullshit?

The loss is only about 10%. Not 20%!

[Wild Cobra]

Ever ask yourself, if this is a "global" incident, "why is the southern hemisphere normal?"

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png

[RandomGuy]

Ever ask yourself, if this is a "global" incident, "why is the southern hemisphere normal?"
[ginormous graph showing much smaller southern hemisphere ice anomoly omitted for readability-RG]

Is it possible that the explanation lies in the fact that the behavior of the system is complex enough to be more pronounced in some areas than others?

[Wild Cobra]

Is it possible that the explanation lies in the fact that the behavior of the system is complex enough to be more pronounced in some areas than others?
Well, there is a major difference between the norther ice shelves and southern ice shelves.

It's called black carbon on ice and snow.

[RandomGuy]

Well, there is a major difference between the norther ice shelves and southern ice shelves.

It's called black carbon on ice and snow.

The question remains:

Is it possible that the explanation lies in the fact that the behavior of the system is complex enough to be more pronounced in some areas than others?

The only evidence supporting this theory I have seen you present was a paper done showing soot in the Himalayas if memory serves.

Do you have any evidence that the artic ice is similarly affected? (genuinely curious)

[McFudpucker]

Well, there is a major difference between the norther ice shelves and southern ice shelves.

It's called black carbon on ice and snow.

Actually, there is an even bigger difference. Most of the Arctic Ice Mass is floating in the Arctic Ocean while a good chunk of the Antarctic Ice Mass is blanketing the continent of Antarctica. I only mention this in passing because that graph you posted only covers Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area.

To say that the 'Southern Hemisphere is normal' would not be accurate.

[Wild Cobra]

The question remains:

Is it possible that the explanation lies in the fact that the behavior of the system is complex enough to be more pronounced in some areas than others?

The only evidence supporting this theory I have seen you present was a paper done showing soot in the Himalayas if memory serves.

Do you have any evidence that the artic ice is similarly affected? (genuinely curious)
I have posted several NASA links on the topic in the past.

Check some articles in this search:

Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3A+NASA.gov+black+carbon+on+ice)

[Wild Cobra]

Actually, there is an even bigger difference. Most of the Arctic Ice Mass is floating in the Arctic Ocean while a good chunk of the Antarctic Ice Mass is blanketing the continent of Antarctica. I only mention this in passing because that graph you posted only covers Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area.

To say that the 'Southern Hemisphere is normal' would not be accurate.
There are still ice shelves affected. Think what you wish, but there is so much more going on than just CO2.

[RandomGuy]

I have posted several NASA links on the topic in the past.

Check some articles in this search:

Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3A+NASA.gov+black+carbon+on+ice)

NASA Study Finds Soot May Be Changing The Arctic Environment (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/04/050411135517.htm)

That is the only mention outside of the Himalayan study I meantioned.

It has been your and Darrin's position that NASA data and models supporting global warming are suspect.

Yet here you seem to be claiming them as accurate, when they support your position.

Is this correct?

[RandomGuy]

Antarctic ice cover 'increasing due to hole in ozone layer'


By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent 1:03PM BST 22 Apr 2009
In stark contrast to the loss of sea ice in the Arctic over the last 30 years, the frozen seas surrounding the South Pole have increased at the rate of 100,000 square kilometres a decade over the last 40 years.

Scientists believe the growth is down to stronger surface winds over Antarctica and more frequent storms in the Southern Ocean – both direct consequences of the ozone hole.

But the team from British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and Nasa warned the ozone hole was only delaying the impact of greenhouse gases on the climate of the White Continent.

If ozone levels recover as expected over the next 100 years, thanks to the international ban on damaging CFCs, weather patterns will return to normal and Antarctic sea ice will shrink rapidly, they said.

Professor John Turner of BAS, lead author of the paper published in the Geophysical Research Letters journal, said the results underlined the complexity of climate change.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/antarctica/5200229/Antarctic-ice-cover-increasing-due-to-hole-in-ozone-layer.html

Interesting bit that had nothing to do with soot.

[MannyIsGod]

Coral expert J.E.N. Veron, former chief scientist of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, had this to say in an excellent interview he did with Yale Environment 360 last year: "the science is clear: Unless we change the way we live, the Earth's coral reefs will be utterly destroyed within our children's lifetimes.

"You may well feel that dire predictions about anything almost always turn out to be exaggerations. You may think there may be something in it to worry about, but it won't be as bad as doomsayers like me are predicting. This view is understandable given that only a few decades ago I, myself, would have thought it ridiculous to imagine that reefs might have a limited lifespan on Earth as a consequence of human actions. It would have seemed preposterous that, for example, the Great Barrier Reef--the biggest structure ever made by life on Earth--could be mortally threatened by any present or foreseeable environmental change. Yet here I am today, humbled to have spent the most productive scientific years of my life around the rich wonders of the underwater world, and utterly convinced that they will not be there for our children's children to enjoy unless we drastically change our priorities and the way we live."

Reefs are the ocean's canaries and we must hear their call. This call is not just for themselves, for the other great ecosystems of the ocean stand behind reefs like a row of dominoes. If coral reefs fail, the rest will follow in rapid succession, and the Sixth Mass Extinction will be upon us--and will be of our making.

I might add that not only are reefs the ocean's canaries, they are incredibly valuable in their own right. According to the World Meteorological Organization, coral reefs provide economic services--jobs, food and tourism--estimated to be worth $30 billion per year. NOAA put this figure at twelve times higher, $375 billion each year. Corals cover just 0.2% of the world's oceans, but contain about 25% of all marine species.


This type of information does not fit into a scenario where the world is cooling and where the oceans are the source of CO2 rising in the atmosphere.

Also, this very much goes to show the interdisciplinary nature of climate science.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1722

[DarrinS]

This type of information does not fit into a scenario where the world is cooling and where the oceans are the source of CO2 rising in the atmosphere.

Also, this very much goes to show the interdisciplinary nature of climate science.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1722



Too bad we can't control an El Niño event.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/warming-coral.html




In 1998 an El Niño weather pattern sparked the worst coral-bleaching event ever observed.

"Over 16 percent of the world's reefs … were lost in that one year," said Graham, part of a team that recently received an unrelated research grant from the National Geographic Society Committee for Research and Exploration. (National Geographic News is a part of the National Geographic Society.)

"It was a huge event."

[MannyIsGod]

You realize that we're in a La Nina event right now and seeing the worst bleaching on record? Also, the areas mentioned (such as the Indian Ocean) are not affected by El Nino?

The ironic thing about bringing up El Nino is that we're in the exact opposite phase of the ENSO right now. If the Positive phase is what causes bleaching then you should definitely not see that in a year dominated by a strong La Nina.

[Phenomanul]

Focus people... focus...

In other news, the solar output last year (2010) increased 0.08% over the previous year (2009); a year which in turn saw an increase of 0.18% over 2008.

That is, in two years the power output from our sun has increased by 0.26% and here we are fussing about how it's all our fault? Doesn't make any sense to take credit for the primary factor, the utmost cause in this picture.

But... people and politicians will say anything to further their political agenda.

And before I get lambasted for stating the obvious, few people here participate in as many conservation programs as I do... those that truly aim to save the planet. That still doesn't mean that the global warming message is 100% accurate and agenda-free.

I don't buy bottled water.
I don't use styrofoam products or throwaway plastic silverware.
I use tablecloth napkins instead of paper ones.
I collect rainwater and use it to irrigate my lawn.
I protect several hectares of land in the Amazon rainforest.
I use organic soaps and shampoos.
I go on several trips a year to clean the beach.
I plant more than 100 trees per year, and give our local farmers seminars on how to prevent topsoil errosion.
I make biodiesel from several reclaiming processes.
I installed a wind-powered generator.
I've installed solar cells on my roof and changed out most of the lighting fixtures to LED array fixtures.
etc... etc... etc...

[MannyIsGod]

I would love to see your information on solar output increasing last year and I'd like to see the trend dating back farther than 2 years.

Also, AGW theory does not maintain that it is "all our fault" at all. Thats a complete Red Herring.

[MannyIsGod]

Also, if you could tie in how solar output leads to the acidification of the ocean I'd like to know as well.

[Yonivore]

Face it, Manny, AGW will soon go the way of Vaccines causing Autism, Anthropogenic Global Cooling, Alar killing kids, Saccharin causing cancer, DDT doing more harm than good, and all of the rest of the alarmist causes that have served more to fuck up society than solve anything.

Hey, hear the latest?

Electric Cars May Accelerate Global Warming (http://blogs.forbes.com/williampentland/2011/01/05/electric-cars-may-accelerate-global-warming/)

You people really need to get your shit together before embarking on these hysterical initiatives that do nothing more than burden the economy and introduce products to the market that no one would want, otherwise.

[Wild Cobra]

This type of information does not fit into a scenario where the world is cooling and where the oceans are the source of CO2 rising in the atmosphere.

Also, this very much goes to show the interdisciplinary nature of climate science.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1722
Problem...

He assumes the oceans are changing because of mankind, when they have in fact been collecting latent energy for several decades, maybe centuries from the sun.

Correlation does not equal causation.

[Wild Cobra]

Focus people... focus...

In other news, the solar output last year (2010) increased 0.08% over the previous year (2009); a year which in turn saw an increase of 0.18% over 2008.

That is, in two years the power output from our sun has increased by 0.26%
Are you sure it's that much? I agree it can, but I don't think it has by that much. That's more than a nominal 11 year peak to peak, and the 11 year rolling average is about a 0.18% increase from 1750 to 2004.

Do you have a link? I'd like to see that.

[MannyIsGod]

Problem...

He assumes the oceans are changing because of mankind, when they have in fact been collecting latent energy for several decades, maybe centuries from the sun.

Correlation does not equal causation.


:lol

[MannyIsGod]

Are you sure it's that much? I agree it can, but I don't think it has by that much. That's more than a nominal 11 year peak to peak, and the 11 year rolling average is about a 0.18% increase from 1750 to 2004.

Do you have a link? I'd like to see that.

Its not that much at all.

[MannyIsGod]

Face it, Manny, AGW will soon go the way of Vaccines causing Autism, Anthropogenic Global Cooling, Alar killing kids, Saccharin causing cancer, DDT doing more harm than good, and all of the rest of the alarmist causes that have served more to fuck up society than solve anything.

Hey, hear the latest?

Electric Cars May Accelerate Global Warming (http://blogs.forbes.com/williampentland/2011/01/05/electric-cars-may-accelerate-global-warming/)

You people really need to get your shit together before embarking on these hysterical initiatives that do nothing more than burden the economy and introduce products to the market that no one would want, otherwise.


"You people"? When I have I argued for Electric cars to replace cars in places where the power made to run those cars would be dirtier than a gasoline engine?

:lol You People.

Comparisons to autism/vacine link which was made by one bad study as opposed to countless studies in a huge field that back each other up? That is about par for you.

Comparison to something called AGC which was never (and I've proven this so many times on this forum) considered a real threat by climate scientists? That is about par for you.

[Yonivore]

"You people"? When I have I argued for Electric cars to replace cars in places where the power made to run those cars would be dirtier than a gasoline engine?

:lol You People.

Comparisons to autism/vacine link which was made by one bad study as opposed to countless studies in a huge field that back each other up? That is about par for you.

Comparison to something called AGC which was never (and I've proven this so many times on this forum) considered a real threat by climate scientists? That is about par for you.
Yep, You People.

[MannyIsGod]

Its funny to watch you numb skulls just throw shit against the wall. Darrin immediately comes out with El Nino which is hilarious given 2010 was a La Nina year. Then Yonivore comes out with electric car crap and AGC crap which is a total load. And lets not forget Hector and his "its the sun" with random numbers that aren't based upon the sun we have in this solar system. Then of course, WC, pointing out how the ocean temps have been going up for centuries yet not touching the CO2 factor and not explaining how ocean temps in recent decades have increased so much.

So much shit being thrown against the wall and not one bit sticking.

:tu

[MannyIsGod]

Yep, You People.

No link to where I've ever advocated that huh? :lol

Perhaps its time for another epiphany, Yonivore? :lmao

[DarrinS]

Comparisons to autism/vacine link which was made by one bad study as opposed to countless studies in a huge field that back each other up? That is about par for you.


"Countless studies". Still doesn't mean shit.


For over half a century, it was widely accepted that peptic ulcers were caused by stress, dietary factors, smoking, drinking, etc.

It is NOW accepted, based only on two reports in the New England Journal of Medicine, that these ulcers are caused by a bacteria called Helicobacter pylori.

[DarrinS]

Continental drift was not a mainstream theory.

There are numerous other examples.

Consensus <> truth

[Yonivore]

No link to where I've ever advocated that huh? :lol

Perhaps its time for another epiphany, Yonivore? :lmao
Do you believe in Anthropogenic Global Climate Change?

If yes; then, you're a You People.

[MannyIsGod]

"Countless studies". Still doesn't mean shit.


For over half a century, it was widely accepted that peptic ulcers were caused by stress, dietary factors, smoking, drinking, etc.

It is NOW accepted, based only on two reports in the New England Journal of Medicine, that these ulcers are caused by a bacteria called Helicobacter pylori.

Great, when some studies come around that disprove the studies currently proven accurate then they'll be accepted. But science doesn't assume its going to be disproven until it actually happens. Let me know when thats the case in this situation and I'll proclaim to the world AGW is not true.

[MannyIsGod]

Do you believe in Anthropogenic Global Climate Change?

If yes; then, you're a You People.

Cool, one monolithic group with no difference in opinion on anything. :tu

Very useful viewpoint for gaining an accurate world view. This is why you don't understand the world, Yonivore. You try to fit everything into a few select categories you've designated and then you're surprised when it doesn't go according to how you saw it.

[MannyIsGod]

Continental drift was not a mainstream theory.

There are numerous other examples.

Consensus <> truth

Then disprove AGW. All you have to do is give another mechanism that accounts for the warming and explain why the increase in CO2 has not caused the warming.

Pretty easy to do.

[Yonivore]

Cool, one monolithic group with no difference in opinion on anything. :tu

Very useful viewpoint for gaining an accurate world view. This is why you don't understand the world, Yonivore. You try to fit everything into a few select categories you've designated and then you're surprised when it doesn't go according to how you saw it.
It's a fairly delineating descriptor. Either you believe in it and, therefore, are an idiot. Or, you don't and recognize, like most people, we have an insignificant impact on global climate.

[MannyIsGod]

It's a fairly delineating descriptor. Either you believe in it and, therefore, are an idiot. Or, you don't and recognize, like most people, we have an insignificant impact on global climate.

:blah:blah:blah:blah:blah

One of us is an idiot all right. Its the one who thinks Iraq had chemical weapons and that George Bush is going to end up on Mt. Rushmore.

:lol

[Yonivore]

:blah:blah:blah:blah:blah

One of us is an idiot all right. Its the one who thinks Iraq had chemical weapons and that George Bush is going to end up on Mt. Rushmore.

:lol
No, it's the one that believes Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is real because a bunch of liars tell him so.

But, nice deflection.

[MannyIsGod]

Deflection? LOL!

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV


Face it, Manny, AGW will soon go the way of Vaccines causing Autism, Anthropogenic Global Cooling, Alar killing kids, Saccharin causing cancer, DDT doing more harm than good, and all of the rest of the alarmist causes that have served more to fuck up society than solve anything.

Hey, hear the latest?

Electric Cars May Accelerate Global Warming (http://blogs.forbes.com/williampentland/2011/01/05/electric-cars-may-accelerate-global-warming/)

You people really need to get your shit together before embarking on these hysterical initiatives that do nothing more than burden the economy and introduce products to the market that no one would want, otherwise.



If you want to tell me why AGW is not happening and what exactly scientists are lying about I'm all ears.

[Yonivore]

What empirical evidence do you have that mankind is affecting global climate to the point it should drastically alter its behavior in order to stave off a cataclysmic global climate catastrophe?

It's all theories forwarded by people who have to stick by their assertions in order to remain funded and/or relevant.

[MannyIsGod]

See what I mean about you not being able to understand the world because you try to fit it into your neat little boxes? When did I say that there was going to be a "cataclysmic global climate catastrophe"? Where do most proponents of AGW say that?

[MannyIsGod]

As for evidence, read the fucking thread.

[Winehole23]

(manbearpig thread)

[Yonivore]

As for evidence, read the fucking thread.
This thread isn't evidence.

[MannyIsGod]

Are you sure? Was hoping to get it published in a journal.

[MannyIsGod]

You shouldn't insult our military and call them idiots and liars, Yonivore. They'll revoke your GOP status. As a republican you must always publicly praise the military while silently fucking them as opposed to just being out in the open about it. :tu

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63J4EJ20100420

[RandomGuy]

Oooh goodie! :clap

I see Darrin AND Yoni both probably contributed more fodder for the OP.

I can't wait to catalogue one of the new logical mistakes or dishonest statements that are sure to be given.

Darrin had, by my last count 12 logical fallacies in this thread alone.

[DarrinS]

Oooh goodie! :clap

I see Darrin AND Yoni both probably contributed more fodder for the OP.

I can't wait to catalogue one of the new logical mistakes or dishonest statements that are sure to be given.

Darrin had, by my last count 12 logical fallacies in this thread alone.



Want to see something that will scare the crap out of you?

This app at NOAA lets you graph temperatures for various years.


Graph for 1930-1934
http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/cdodivisionalselect.cmd?nationSelect=110&startMonthSelect=01&startYearSelect=1930&endMonthSelect=01&endYearSelect=1934&outputRadio=Graph&interactiveGraphElementSelect=TMP&method=doGraphOutput&reqtype=nation

Graph for 2006-2010
http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/cdodivisionalselect.cmd?nationSelect=110&startMonthSelect=01&startYearSelect=1930&endMonthSelect=01&endYearSelect=1934&outputRadio=Graph&interactiveGraphElementSelect=TMP&method=doGraphOutput&reqtype=nation


Open them up in two tabs of your browser and then tab back and forth.


OOOOOOOOOH. Scary. :wow

[Yonivore]

Oooh goodie! :clap

I see Darrin AND Yoni both probably contributed more fodder for the OP.

I can't wait to catalogue one of the new logical mistakes or dishonest statements that are sure to be given.

Darrin had, by my last count 12 logical fallacies in this thread alone.
Catalogue? Do you have a fucking life? I barely pay attention to the post to which I'm responding.

Hey, whatever floats your boat...now, get to work.

[Yonivore]

Global Warming Explained


cdxaxJNs15s

Okay...I'm on board.

[Wild Cobra]

Want to see something that will scare the crap out of you?

This app at NOAA lets you graph temperatures for various years.


Graph for 1930-1934
http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/cdodivisionalselect.cmd?nationSelect=110&startMonthSelect=01&startYearSelect=1930&endMonthSelect=01&endYearSelect=1934&outputRadio=Graph&interactiveGraphElementSelect=TMP&method=doGraphOutput&reqtype=nation

Graph for 2006-2010
http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/cdodivisionalselect.cmd?nationSelect=110&startMonthSelect=01&startYearSelect=1930&endMonthSelect=01&endYearSelect=1934&outputRadio=Graph&interactiveGraphElementSelect=TMP&method=doGraphOutput&reqtype=nation


Open them up in two tabs of your browser and then tab back and forth.


OOOOOOOOOH. Scary. :wow
Your second link should be this:

2006-2010 (http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/cdodivisionalselect.cmd?nationSelect=110&startMonthSelect=01&startYearSelect=2006&endMonthSelect=01&endYearSelect=2010&outputRadio=Graph&interactiveGraphElementSelect=TMP&method=doGraphOutput&reqtype=nation)

Can anyone explain where the global warming is please?

[DarrinS]

Your second link should be this:

2006-2010 (http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/cdodivisionalselect.cmd?nationSelect=110&startMonthSelect=01&startYearSelect=2006&endMonthSelect=01&endYearSelect=2010&outputRadio=Graph&interactiveGraphElementSelect=TMP&method=doGraphOutput&reqtype=nation)


Oops. Copied the same link twice. Thanks for the correction.

[RandomGuy]

Catalogue? Do you have a fucking life? I barely pay attention to the post to which I'm responding.

Hey, whatever floats your boat...now, get to work.

I am out to make a case, as outlined in the OP.

How better to make it than to use your own words?

If I take the position that you believe in pseudoscience, and think about the world illogically, then engaging you in conversation, and letting you do the exact things that I am talking about is the best way to do it.

You, Darrin, and WC can't help yourselves. Pseudoscience and bad logic is at the heart of many of your emotion-based beliefs.

[RandomGuy]

Want to see something that will scare the crap out of you?

This app at NOAA lets you graph temperatures for various years.


Graph for 1930-1934
http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/cdodivisionalselect.cmd?nationSelect=110&startMonthSelect=01&startYearSelect=1930&endMonthSelect=01&endYearSelect=1934&outputRadio=Graph&interactiveGraphElementSelect=TMP&method=doGraphOutput&reqtype=nation

Graph for 2006-2010
http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/cdodivisionalselect.cmd?nationSelect=110&startMonthSelect=01&startYearSelect=1930&endMonthSelect=01&endYearSelect=1934&outputRadio=Graph&interactiveGraphElementSelect=TMP&method=doGraphOutput&reqtype=nation


Open them up in two tabs of your browser and then tab back and forth.


OOOOOOOOOH. Scary. :wow

That cherry-picking data points seems to be sufficient for you to form opinions simply supports the premise of the OP, yet again.

You have done more to prove the point that your beliefs are based on irrationality and/or dishonesty than anyone else. Thank you. :toast

[RandomGuy]

Your second link should be this:

2006-2010 (http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/cdodivisionalselect.cmd?nationSelect=110&startMonthSelect=01&startYearSelect=2006&endMonthSelect=01&endYearSelect=2010&outputRadio=Graph&interactiveGraphElementSelect=TMP&method=doGraphOutput&reqtype=nation)

Can anyone explain where the global warming is please?

Most scientists have abandoned the "global warming" in favor of "climate change", and did so years ago.

Your implication here is, essentially yet another "strawman" wherein you distort the theory you are attempting to discredit, then discredit the distortion.

Why do you keep doing things like that? Is your case really that weak?

Can you even define exactly what it is these scientists are theorizing?

Mouse can't adequately or honestly explain the theory of evolution. Just saying.

[DarrinS]

That cherry-picking data points seems to be sufficient for you to form opinions simply supports the premise of the OP, yet again.

You have done more to prove the point that your beliefs are based on irrationality and/or dishonesty than anyone else. Thank you. :toast


1920-1924
http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/cdodivisionalselect.cmd?nationSelect=110&startMonthSelect=01&startYearSelect=1920&endMonthSelect=01&endYearSelect=1924&outputRadio=Graph&interactiveGraphElementSelect=TMP&method=doGraphOutput&reqtype=nation

1940-1944
http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/cdodivisionalselect.cmd?nationSelect=110&startMonthSelect=01&startYearSelect=1940&endMonthSelect=01&endYearSelect=1944&outputRadio=Graph&interactiveGraphElementSelect=TMP&method=doGraphOutput&reqtype=nation


1950-1954
http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/cdodivisionalselect.cmd?nationSelect=110&startMonthSelect=01&startYearSelect=1940&endMonthSelect=01&endYearSelect=1944&outputRadio=Graph&interactiveGraphElementSelect=TMP&method=doGraphOutput&reqtype=nation



If I had time, I'd download the data and overlay all of them together.

Regardless, the temperature anomaly of the past century is basically flat, unless you use a whopping 2 degree range on the y-axis.

[RandomGuy]

1920-1924
http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/cdodivisionalselect.cmd?nationSelect=110&startMonthSelect=01&startYearSelect=1920&endMonthSelect=01&endYearSelect=1924&outputRadio=Graph&interactiveGraphElementSelect=TMP&method=doGraphOutput&reqtype=nation

1940-1944
http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/cdodivisionalselect.cmd?nationSelect=110&startMonthSelect=01&startYearSelect=1940&endMonthSelect=01&endYearSelect=1944&outputRadio=Graph&interactiveGraphElementSelect=TMP&method=doGraphOutput&reqtype=nation


1950-1954
http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/cdodivisionalselect.cmd?nationSelect=110&startMonthSelect=01&startYearSelect=1940&endMonthSelect=01&endYearSelect=1944&outputRadio=Graph&interactiveGraphElementSelect=TMP&method=doGraphOutput&reqtype=nation



If I had time, I'd download the data and overlay all of them together.

Regardless, the temperature anomaly of the past century is basically flat, unless you use a whopping 2 degree range on the y-axis.

I can't really comment on the links, as they don't work on this computer. I may check them out at some point, though.

Here is a question for you.

Do computer models get better with more data?

[DarrinS]

I can't really comment on the links, as they don't work on this computer. I may check them out at some point, though.

Here is a question for you.

Do computer models get better with more data?


More data would, in general, improve a very simplistic model, e.g. a simple regression model, etc.

But, if the underlying assumptions of a computer model aren't very good, then more data can't remedy that problem.

Regardless, the total warming of the past century is on the order of measurement noise.

[ChumpDumper]

How does the US = the globe?

[DarrinS]

How does the US = the globe?


It's not. Never claimed it was.


Here's a question: How does our current measurement of temperature equal the global temperature? What is the resolution of our measurements? I'm guessing we have more measurement stations where there are more people.

[RandomGuy]

More data would, in general, improve a very simplistic model, e.g. a simple regression model, etc.

But, if the underlying assumptions of a computer model aren't very good, then more data can't remedy that problem.

Regardless, the total warming of the past century is on the order of measurement noise.

Would more data improve the underlying assumptions?

[MannyIsGod]

It's not. Never claimed it was.


Here's a question: How does our current measurement of temperature equal the global temperature? What is the resolution of our measurements? I'm guessing we have more measurement stations where there are more people.

Hey, what are those things orbiting in space again?

Also, what range in temperature change makes a difference. You continuously mock the change in temp sayings its "only" so much but tell me how much energy does it take to heat the entire globe by 1 degree Celsius over the course of a year? Put your "only" remarks in context. How many degrees of change become significant?

[DarrinS]

Would more data improve the underlying assumptions?

No. It takes humans to do that.

[DarrinS]

Hey, what are those things orbiting in space again?


Duh. Satellites. How many are there?





Also, what range in temperature change makes a difference. You continuously mock the change in temp sayings its "only" so much but tell me how much energy does it take to heat the entire globe by 1 degree Celsius over the course of a year? Put your "only" remarks in context. How many degrees of change become significant?


I would think it should be more than what a person might experience driving from one part of town to another. (or around the block for that matter).

[MannyIsGod]

You think that based on your extensive background in climate sciences right? You basically have no understanding or context to place the temperature increases in and that leads you to the simple minded understanding that it takes a rise in temperature much greater to actually change the global dynamics.

Instead of asking how much you make stupid assumptions.

[DarrinS]

You think that based on your extensive background in climate sciences right? You basically have no understanding or context to place the temperature increases in and that leads you to the simple minded understanding that it takes a rise in temperature much greater to actually change the global dynamics.

Instead of asking how much you make stupid assumptions.


Based on my background in mathematics and engineering, I know what signal-to-noise ratio is and what statistical significance means. And based on my knowledge of thermodynamics, I know a lot about gases and temperature.

[Yonivore]

I am out to make a case, as outlined in the OP.

How better to make it than to use your own words?

If I take the position that you believe in pseudoscience, and think about the world illogically, then engaging you in conversation, and letting you do the exact things that I am talking about is the best way to do it.

You, Darrin, and WC can't help yourselves. Pseudoscience and bad logic is at the heart of many of your emotion-based beliefs.
You do have a lot of time on your hands, don't you?

[ChumpDumper]

It's not. Never claimed it was.Then why are you using US temperature data to make a point about global temperatures?

[RandomGuy]

Would more data improve the underlying assumptions?


No. It takes humans to do that.

So humans, given more and better data can form better underlying assumptions?

[Wild Cobra]

You, Darrin, and WC can't help yourselves. Pseudoscience and bad logic is at the heart of many of your emotion-based beliefs.
Please explain to us, just how this AGW scare is justified, when the temperatures between the two graphs are so similar?

please...

Do you have an explanation, or are you just going to criticize?

[DarrinS]

Then why are you using US temperature data to make a point about global temperatures?



Why do very prominant climate scientists use bristlecone pines as a proxy for global temperature? Do bristlecone pines grow in the middle of the ocean?

[RandomGuy]

Please explain to us, just how this AGW scare is justified, when the temperatures between the two graphs are so similar?

please...

Do you have an explanation, or are you just going to criticize?

As I noted, the graphs don't work on this computer.

The explanation is likely cherrypicking, given the history of Darrin's posts.

The IPCC's contention is that the world is, in general, warmer than it would be otherwise for the increased CO2, though.

Sight unseen concerning the graphs, if the temperature stayed constant for the next hundred years, that would not disprove this thesis.

Can you tell me why not, and thereby attempt to demonstrate some understanding of the idea *you* are attempting to criticize?

[RandomGuy]

Why do very prominant climate scientists use bristlecone pines as a proxy for global temperature? Do bristlecone pines grow in the middle of the ocean?

They do not.

But if the data you produce using that method is reinforced by other data and other methods, would that not imply that it might be somewhat useful?

[DarrinS]

They do not.

But if the data you produce using that method is reinforced by other data and other methods, would that not imply that it might be somewhat useful?



So, a person that has a belief in a particular theory finds a small sample of data to butress that belief.


Isn't that confirmation bias?

[RandomGuy]

So, a person that has a belief in a particular theory finds a small sample of data to butress that belief.


Isn't that confirmation bias?

Quid pro quo

My question remains unanswered:

So humans, given more and better data can form better underlying assumptions?

Answer that and I will answer yours.

[DarrinS]

So humans, given more and better data can form better underlying assumptions?



They CAN.

[RandomGuy]

So, a person that has a belief in a particular theory finds a small sample of data to butress that belief.


Isn't that confirmation bias?

That is the definition of confirmation bias yes, especially if one completely ignores contradictory data-sets.

[RandomGuy]

Do computer models get better with more data?


More data would, in general, improve a very simplistic model, e.g. a simple regression model, etc.

But, if the underlying assumptions of a computer model aren't very good, then more data can't remedy that problem.



Would more data improve the underlying assumptions?


No. It takes humans to do that.


So humans, given more and better data can form better underlying assumptions?


They CAN.

So now are are at a point where we can tie into climate models.

I have contended that as time goes by, and we get more data, the models will get better at modeling our earths overal climate.

The ONLY assumption I have to make is that the people doing the modeling are acting in good faith, and avoiding the confirmation bias, which ties into your question.

Is this about right? (do you agree with this as stated?)

[DarrinS]

So now are are at a point where we can tie into climate models.

I have contended that as time goes by, and we get more data, the models will get better at modeling our earths overal climate.

The ONLY assumption I have to make is that the people doing the modeling are acting in good faith, and avoiding the confirmation bias, which ties into your question.

Is this about right? (do you agree with this as stated?)



If those doing the science and computer modeling are competent and acting in good faith, I would expect the computer models to be in better agreement with observations as more data are added (assuming the data is good).

[MannyIsGod]

If those doing the science and computer modeling are competent and acting in good faith, I would expect the computer models to be in better agreement with observations as more data are added (assuming the data is good).

You have no idea how modeling works regarding the atmosphere and this is a great example of this. Do some research on how many different models are used into weather forecasting then come back and understand the methodology used. I've explained it to you before.

[ChumpDumper]

So, a person that has a belief in a particular theory finds a small sample of data to butress that belief.


Isn't that confirmation bias?Yes.

And that's exactly what you did with the temperature data you posted.

:lmao

[RandomGuy]

Yes.

And that's exactly what you did with the temperature data you posted.

:lmao

oooh snap.


I didn't notice that obvious zinger.

[DarrinS]

Yes.

And that's exactly what you did with the temperature data you posted.

:lmao



Pick any four year period you want. It doesn't seem to matter.

[DarrinS]

You have no idea how modeling works regarding the atmosphere and this is a great example of this. Do some research on how many different models are used into weather forecasting then come back and understand the methodology used. I've explained it to you before.


Climate models <> weather models, as has been pointed out.


Stay in school, Manny.

[RandomGuy]

So, a person that has a belief in a particular theory finds a small sample of data to butress that belief.


Isn't that confirmation bias?

Yes, I would say it is, as noted previously.

Since Chump pointed it out:




This app at NOAA lets you graph temperatures for various years.

Graph for 1930-1934
Graph for 2006-2010

Open them up in two tabs of your browser and then tab back and forth.

OOOOOOOOOH. Scary. :wow

Would four years of climate data on temperature qualify as a 'small set of data'?

[ChumpDumper]

Pick any four year period you want. It doesn't seem to matter.Right, because you will be guilty of confirmation bias in every case.

[DarrinS]

You have no idea how modeling works regarding the atmosphere and this is a great example of this. Do some research on how many different models are used into weather forecasting then come back and understand the methodology used. I've explained it to you before.



Modeling is modeling, btw. Different models may require different subject matter expertise, but the practice of modeling physical dynamic systems is the same.

[DarrinS]

Right, because you will be guilty of confirmation bias in every case.


You can randomly pick any four year period.


I would think you would see some differences in older periods vs more recent periods if global warming were significant.

[RandomGuy]

If those doing the science and computer modeling are competent and acting in good faith, I would expect the computer models to be in better agreement with observations as more data are added (assuming the data is good).

I agree with this as well.

The good thing about the whole climate change is that we can expect to get that data one way or another in the next 15-20 years.

By the time my first grandkids are rolling off the delivery table, we should have some pretty good data.

[DarrinS]

Would four years of climate data on temperature qualify as a 'small set of data'?


I didn't built that website, so I don't know why they limited it to four years.

[ChumpDumper]

You can randomly pick any four year period.


I would think you would see some differences in older periods vs more recent periods if global warming were significant.I would think you would see the tremendous flaw in your argument if more than one poster pointed it out to you, yet here we are.

[RandomGuy]

Modeling is modeling, btw. Different models may require different subject matter expertise, but the practice of modeling physical dynamic systems is the same.

I would fairly agree as well, although our climate seems to me to have a lot of complexities and unknowns/less knowns. The IPCC points out as much in their reports.

[DarrinS]

I would fairly agree as well, although our climate seems to me to have a lot of complexities and unknowns/less knowns. The IPCC points out as much in their reports.


Definitely. That's why I have my doubts that ONE variable is the driving factor.

[DarrinS]

I would think you would see the tremendous flaw in your argument if more than one poster pointed it out to you, yet here we are.


No, not really. If the theory of AGW is that there is "apparent unprecedented warming in the last century", then I would expect to see some warming in the last century.

[ChumpDumper]

No, not really.No, obviously you would not see the tremendous flaw in your argument if more than one poster pointed it out to you.

In response, I have lowered my expectations once again.

[DarrinS]

No, obviously you would not see the tremendous flaw in your argument if more than one poster pointed it out to you.

In response, I have lowered my expectations once again.


Well, no one is asking for you to respond. You have every right to ignore this thread.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, no one is asking for you to respond. You have every right to ignore this thread.I would expect you to get pissy at this point and try to shut things down -- so at least I don't have to adjust those expectations.

[Wild Cobra]

As I noted, the graphs don't work on this computer.

The explanation is likely cherrypicking, given the history of Darrin's posts.
Call it what you want. Darrin showed graphs of differing time periods that are too similar to this last warming trend. The cherry picking is done by the AGW crowd. They will cherry pick data from a cool period to a warm period to show warming.

The IPCC's contention is that the world is, in general, warmer than it would be otherwise for the increased CO2, though.
Yes, we agree that is their contention. Problem is, it is no warmer than other times in history. Now I agree CO2 will cause a greater greenhouse effect, problem is, it seems to do nothing when the other climatic factors do their thing. Worse yet, about 2/3rd the warming from 1750 to 2004, the time-frame the AR4 uses, is no doubt caused by the sun. It comes back to that silly theory called "conservation of mass and energy" that no scientist yet has been able to poke holes in.

Sight unseen concerning the graphs, if the temperature stayed constant for the next hundred years, that would not disprove this thesis.
If I had the time, I would cop[y the graphs into photobucket. Remind me in case I forget.

Can you tell me why not, and thereby attempt to demonstrate some understanding of the idea *you* are attempting to criticize?
LOL...

You cannot when you admit to not seeing the graphs.

[Wild Cobra]

I found some time.

Here are the first two graphs:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/twographs.jpg

Here they are in overlay form:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/twocombined.jpg

Here are the next three graphs:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/threegraphs.jpg

And again, an overlay:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/threecombined.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

I see Wild Cobra missed the huge error as well and chose to propagate it in graph form.

Not surprising. :tu

[RandomGuy]

I see Wild Cobra missed the huge error as well and chose to propagate it in graph form.

Not surprising. :tu

What else gets missed is that the temperature variances the IPCC talks about are on the order of a degree or so's worth of upward variance, to my understanding. (Fahrenheit)

Not quite something that would be visible on the scale chosen. Not quite purposefully misleading on WC's part, but more likely a less than careful attempt at making a point.

That said, the biggest problems might not be average global temperatures, but *where* the temperatures rise. If the entire rest of the globe gets slightly cooler, but the places where massive ice sheets are sitting gets warmer, that is still a problem.

This is probably why climate scientists talk more about change than warming, as has been noted here in response to the constant strawmen of the "deniers"

[Wild Cobra]

What else gets missed is that the temperature variances the IPCC talks about are on the order of a degree or so's worth of upward variance, to my understanding. (Fahrenheit)

Not quite something that would be visible on the scale chosen. Not quite purposefully misleading on WC's part, but more likely a less than careful attempt at making a point.

That said, the biggest problems might not be average global temperatures, but *where* the temperatures rise. If the entire rest of the globe gets slightly cooler, but the places where massive ice sheets are sitting gets warmer, that is still a problem.

This is probably why climate scientists talk more about change than warming, as has been noted here in response to the constant strawmen of the "deniers"
Point in case should be the first two alone. They are too similar. As for ice sheets warming, they are warming primarily because of soot on ice, from Asia, rather than from CO2. CO2, if it actually had any notable effect, would be clearly seen from the highs of the 30's to the highs recently.

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I see Wild Cobra missed the huge error as well and chose to propagate it in graph form.

Not surprising.
What error? You'll have to explain. I'll look at your next post. Remember, you are on IGNORE. I don't see what you write unless I choose to.

[DarrinS]

What else gets missed is that the temperature variances the IPCC talks about are on the order of a degree or so's worth of upward variance, to my understanding. (Fahrenheit)



Serious question. Do we even have the ability to measure the GLOBAL temp to the nearest degree? I think the margin of measurement error is greater than the warming of the last century.

[ChumpDumper]

What error? You'll have to explain.Why should I? It's more fun watching you rave on with this huge flaw.
I'll look at your next post. Remember, you are on IGNORE. I don't see what you write unless I choose to.Nobody sees what anybody writes unless that person chooses to, genius.

If you're reading this and you read the post you quoted, you're not ignoring me.

[DarrinS]

Serious question. Do we even have the ability to measure the GLOBAL temp to the nearest degree? I think the margin of measurement error is greater than the warming of the last century.


Can anyone answer this question?

[Yonivore]

What else gets missed is that the temperature variances the IPCC talks about are on the order of a degree or so's worth of upward variance, to my understanding. (Fahrenheit)

Not quite something that would be visible on the scale chosen. Not quite purposefully misleading on WC's part, but more likely a less than careful attempt at making a point.

That said, the biggest problems might not be average global temperatures, but *where* the temperatures rise. If the entire rest of the globe gets slightly cooler, but the places where massive ice sheets are sitting gets warmer, that is still a problem.

This is probably why climate scientists talk more about change than warming, as has been noted here in response to the constant strawmen of the "deniers"
Yeah, about the IPCC and their "projections."

Sea level may drop in 2010 (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/17/sea-level-may-drop-in-2010/)


Based on the most current data it appears that 2010 is going to show the largest drop in global sea level ever recorded in the modern era. Since many followers of global warming believe that the rate of sea level rise is increasing, a significant drop in the global sea level highlights serious flaws in the IPCC projections. The oceans are truly the best indicator of climate. The oceans drive the world’s weather patterns. A drop in the ocean levels in a year that is being cited as proof that the global warming has arrived shows that there is still much to learned. If the ocean levels dropped in 2010, then there is something very wrong with the IPCC projections.
Falling Sea Level Upsets Theory of Global Warming (http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/global/sea_level.html)

Did IPCC also get sea levels wrong? (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Did-IPCC-also-get-sea-levels-wrong/articleshow/5486537.cms)

Nevermind the allegations of skewing data and hiding information that undercuts their "theory," the IPCC has been demonstrably wrong in short-term predictions.

Why in the Hell do they continue to have any credibility on this issue?

I'll tell you why...

Because they're the only ones with a position to which the alarmists can cling. If not for the IPCC, the global climate change religion would have to close shop.

[Wild Cobra]

Serious question. Do we even have the ability to measure the GLOBAL temp to the nearest degree? I think the margin of measurement error is greater than the warming of the last century.
My God...

Why do I miss such simple things? Why don't they tell us their error margins, not only in measurement, but the calculation they attempt to use to compensate for changing influences like asphalt?

[Wild Cobra]

Why should I? It's more fun watching you rave on with this huge flaw.Nobody sees what anybody writes unless that person chooses to, genius.

If you're reading this and you read the post you quoted, you're not ignoring me.
I will correspond with you an this matter as long as you stay on topic.

What did I miss. I am not infallible, and am curious of your take on this one.

[Yonivore]

Climate change study had 'significant error': experts (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110119/ts_afp/climatewarmingfood_20110119163335)

The hell you say?!?!?!


Scientist Osvaldo Canziani, who was part of the 2007 Nobel Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was listed as the scientific advisor to the report.

The IPCC, whose figures were cited as the basis for the study's projections, and Al Gore jointly won the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2007 "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change," the prize committee said at the time.

Canziani's spokesman said Tuesday he was ill and was unavailable for interviews.
No way!!!

[MannyIsGod]

Yoni does a good job pointing out peer review works quite well. Thanks!

Darrin, the margin of error is much smaller than the observed warming. The global temperature is an average of all temperature data collected across the globe. There are obviously different measuring techniques whether they are done by actual thermometers or by satellite but the accuracy of thermometers is smaller MUCH smaller than a degree and the vast amount of data collection lowers the margin of error to a large degree.

For Satellites, their data would be dependent on the resolution they operate at but I don't have exact figures for this. However, This is also going to lower the margin much lower than the observed warming.

The observed warming is not signal noise.

[DarrinS]

Yoni does a good job pointing out peer review works quite well. Thanks!

Darrin, the margin of error is much smaller than the observed warming. The global temperature is an average of all temperature data collected across the globe. There are obviously different measuring techniques whether they are done by actual thermometers or by satellite but the accuracy of thermometers is smaller MUCH smaller than a degree and the vast amount of data collection lowers the margin of error to a large degree.

For Satellites, their data would be dependent on the resolution they operate at but I don't have exact figures for this. However, This is also going to lower the margin much lower than the observed warming.

The observed warming is not signal noise.



Link?

[DarrinS]

Very interesting paper.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdf

[RandomGuy]

climate seems to me to have a lot of complexities and unknowns/less knowns. The IPCC points out as much in their reports.


Definitely. That's why I have my doubts that ONE variable is the driving factor.

If you see a change, and almost everything else remains fairly constant, then that one factor starts looking more and more probable as a cause for that change.

"The sun is responsible for all the cooling/warming" we see is a good example. If that is the case, and the sun's emissions don't change as much as temperature/climate does, then it becomes easy to discard that particular variable.

As it is, with our increasing CO2 emissions and increasing atmospheric concentration, the effects, if any, will be more obvious and pronounced as time goes by, whatever the mechanisms or particulars.

[RandomGuy]

Yeah, about the IPCC and their "projections."

Sea level may drop in 2010 (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/17/sea-level-may-drop-in-2010/)


Falling Sea Level Upsets Theory of Global Warming (http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/global/sea_level.html)

Did IPCC also get sea levels wrong? (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Did-IPCC-also-get-sea-levels-wrong/articleshow/5486537.cms)

Nevermind the allegations of skewing data and hiding information that undercuts their "theory," the IPCC has been demonstrably wrong in short-term predictions.

Why in the Hell do they continue to have any credibility on this issue?

I'll tell you why...

Because they're the only ones with a position to which the alarmists can cling. If not for the IPCC, the global climate change religion would have to close shop.

11 year old news articles citing "studies" but not specific ones, really isn't anything to hang your hat on.

Sadly, that seems to be what passes for "evidence" in your world.

Honestly, I would be perfectly happy for the worst that the IPCC speculates could or is likely to happen not to come to pass, as I have said before.

I can only wish that you would put your money where your mouth is.

Pick one of those low level islands and then put you and your family's entire life savings into a resort hotel there.

In thirty years we can see how that pans out. :toast

[RandomGuy]

Serious question. Do we even have the ability to measure the GLOBAL temp to the nearest degree? I think the margin of measurement error is greater than the warming of the last century.

I believe we have the ability to measure temperature pretty accurately, and the margin of measurement error is less than the warming noted. This is simply working from memory of past reading.

In gathering data, you get pretty accurate results with a lot of measurements over a long period of time. The "margin of error" shrinks with larger and larger data sets.

Feel free to find/present proof of this assertion at any time.

[DarrinS]

I believe we have the ability to measure temperature pretty accurately, and the margin of measurement error is less than the warming noted. This is simply working from memory of past reading.

In gathering data, you get pretty accurate results with a lot of measurements over a long period of time. The "margin of error" shrinks with larger and larger data sets.

Feel free to find/present proof of this assertion at any time.



Or, you could present proof of your assertion.

[DarrinS]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Calculating_the_gl obal_temperature


Not even a measurement, but a calculation.

[Wild Cobra]

If you see a change, and almost everything else remains fairly constant, then that one factor starts looking more and more probable as a cause for that change.

I agree. That's why I say solar changes are the primary factor.


"The sun is responsible for all the cooling/warming" we see is a good example. If that is the case, and the sun's emissions don't change as much as temperature/climate does, then it becomes easy to discard that particular variable.

You obviously don't know shit about these sciences.

Just how much do you think the sun changes global temperature?

The zero point isn't 0 C, but -273.15 C. If the sun changes by 0.1%, a correlation from the kelvin scale is almost 0.3 degrees. The total average increase of solar energy since 1750 is about 0.2%, or almost 0.6 C. The IPCC claims a warming range of about 0.6 C to 0.85 C.

[RandomGuy]

Or, you could present proof of your assertion.

I really didn't make much of an assertion other than stating what I know of statistics and sampling.

It is a fair enough request, but I would point out you got there first.

I merely pointed out that it seemed to conflict with my understanding of the issue, based on what I could remember.

I have already made my case for the OP, so doing your work for you doesn't hold much appeal.

Your assertion, your burden of proof.

[DarrinS]

I really didn't make much of an assertion other than stating what I know of statistics and sampling.

It is a fair enough request, but I would point out you got there first.

I merely pointed out that it seemed to conflict with my understanding of the issue, based on what I could remember.

I have already made my case for the OP, so doing your work for you doesn't hold much appeal.

Your assertion, your burden of proof.



I measured the air temp in two different offices in our building. They differed by 1.6 degrees F.


But we are supposed to believe that temperature from surface stations (densely distributed in the northern hemisphere, sparsely distributed elsewhere) and from a handful of satellites are collected, massaged by some FORTRAN code, resulting in a single global temperature that represents the temperature of the entire Earth to within one degree?

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

I'm supposed to believe someone who doesn't understand what an average is somehow has families who have income because of his software patents?


LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOL


There is no such thing as "the temperature of the entire earth". Obviously the temperature is going to vary quite a bit across the entire globe.

Jesus Christ I never thought I would have to explain what an average is on this forum. This is the point where I give up.

[temujin]

I measured the air temp in two different offices in our building. They differed by 1.6 degrees F.


But we are supposed to believe that temperature from surface stations (densely distributed in the northern hemisphere, sparsely distributed elsewhere) and from a handful of satellites are collected, massaged by some FORTRAN code, resulting in a single global temperature that represents the temperature of the entire Earth to within one degree?

How interesting.
The temperature in Caracas is indeed different from the temperature in Antarctica, right now.

[RandomGuy]

Do we even have the ability to measure the GLOBAL temp to the nearest degree? I think the margin of measurement error is greater than the warming of the last century.


Your assertion, your burden of proof.


I measured the air temp in two different offices in our building.

"I measured the air temperature in two different offices in our building, so therefore the IPCC's global temperature measurements must be wrong."

Really?

That's what you are going with?

Seriously?

If ever there was a series of thoughts strung together the prove the main assertion of the OP, that would be it. Pure pseudoscience.

"I measured the air temp in two offices..." will get filed right next to "contrails look totally different today than they did when I was a kid".

Here is your new t-shirt so you can be more readily identified, now go sit in the corner with Parker.

[RandomGuy]

How interesting.
The temperature in Caracas is indeed different from the temperature in Antarctica, right now.

Glad I wasn't the only one who noticed the sheer craptacular stupidity of that post.

Sigworthy if ever there was one.

[DarrinS]

Wow. Three back-to-back dipshits who can't understand a simple point.


I work in a small one-story building with only about a dozen offices. That's not that much geography to deal with. If I put one thermometer in each office, I already have WAAAAAAAAY more measurement resolution that what is available to the IPCC.


You guys can go on believing that data from surface stations and satellites then massaged with some dubious FORTRAN code, represents global temperature to within a degree --- wait, it must be even BETTER than that, because one degree is supposedely the grand total of global warming for the past 100 years. :lmao

[RandomGuy]

Wow. Three back-to-back dipshits who can't understand a simple point.


I work in a small one-story building with only about a dozen offices. That's not that much geography to deal with. If I put one thermometer in each office, I already have WAAAAAAAAY more measurement resolution that what is available to the IPCC.


You guys can go on believing that data from surface stations and satellites then massaged with some dubious FORTRAN code, represents global temperature to within a degree --- wait, it must be even BETTER than that, because one degree is supposedely the grand total of global warming for the past 100 years. :lmao

You can go on believing that you have debunked reams of data and scientific studies by wandering around an office building with a thermometer.

[xrayzebra]

Damn RG, nothing like beating a dead hog.

Everything, I mean everything, is being blamed
on global warming.

I am sure the folks in the middle of the U.S. would
love to discuss global warming with you and all
the crap about weather and climate.

This old man is freezing his butt off and you want
to tell me the climate is warming.

Well okay, I guess you have forgotten about the
ice age. We had just a slight increase in Temps
after that period. Want to see some of the results of those periods. Go see the Great Lakes.

Go talk to Steve Brown on channel 12. You all
have a lot in common. And it isn't your sense.

[RandomGuy]

Damn RG, nothing like beating a dead hog.

Everything, I mean everything, is being blamed
on global warming.

I am sure the folks in the middle of the U.S. would
love to discuss global warming with you and all
the crap about weather and climate.

This old man is freezing his butt off and you want
to tell me the climate is warming.

Well okay, I guess you have forgotten about the
ice age. We had just a slight increase in Temps
after that period. Want to see some of the results of those periods. Go see the Great Lakes.

Go talk to Steve Brown on channel 12. You all
have a lot in common. And it isn't your sense.

It is entirely possible for some areas to get colder, and the globe still warm, on average, and we aren't talking about making it 60 degrees and balmy in January all month, we are talking about a bump of some 1-5 degrees fahrenheit, with some areas actually getting colder on average.

Such arguments, although widely-made and easily understandable, are based on flawed logic and a lack of understanding about the theory put forth by climate scientists.

[temujin]

Damn RG, nothing like beating a dead hog.

Everything, I mean everything, is being blamed
on global warming.

I am sure the folks in the middle of the U.S. would
love to discuss global warming with you and all
the crap about weather and climate.

This old man is freezing his butt off and you want
to tell me the climate is warming.

Well okay, I guess you have forgotten about the
ice age. We had just a slight increase in Temps
after that period. Want to see some of the results of those periods. Go see the Great Lakes.

Go talk to Steve Brown on channel 12. You all
have a lot in common. And it isn't your sense.


Can you REALLY believe the earth is turning around the sun?
C'mon!
I mean, REALLY?
Don't you just SEE the sun moving, if you pay enough attention?
I have NEVER seen the earth move, ever!

THEY are telling a lot of crap, and a lot of thes folks believe it!!!!

[temujin]

Wow. Three back-to-back dipshits who can't understand a simple point.


I work in a small one-story building with only about a dozen offices. That's not that much geography to deal with. If I put one thermometer in each office, I already have WAAAAAAAAY more measurement resolution that what is available to the IPCC.


You guys can go on believing that data from surface stations and satellites then massaged with some dubious FORTRAN code, represents global temperature to within a degree --- wait, it must be even BETTER than that, because one degree is supposedely the grand total of global warming for the past 100 years. :lmao

I make you do an experiment.
A simple one, an extension to the one you have done that already.
Just turn on the heater max, then measure the temp in the different offices.
It might, just might eh, rise.
Possibly not to the same degree in the different offices.
In fact, that would be my prediction.

[temujin]

Glad I wasn't the only one who noticed the sheer craptacular stupidity of that post.

Sigworthy if ever there was one.

I am making an exception here.
My father used to tell me: "Son, never fight backward battles."

[MannyIsGod]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Calculating_the_gl obal_temperature


Not even a measurement, but a calculation.

^^^^^^^^^

LOL Comedy for days. Imagine that, an average temp is a fucking calculation.


:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol :lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol

If only we had an earth sized thermometer.

[DarrinS]

I make you do an experiment.
A simple one, an extension to the one you have done that already.
Just turn on the heater max, then measure the temp in the different offices.
It might, just might eh, rise.
Possibly not to the same degree in the different offices.
In fact, that would be my prediction.


Sure, I could easily conduct that experiment and I could have someone else repeat it and verify my results.


The difference between this experiment and what the IPCC uses for "global temperature", is that I can actually go measure each office in my building and calculate the average. The IPCC would measure one or two offices, run those numbers through some FORTRAN code and come up with a value that supposedly represents the average global temp to within 1 degree. I am skeptical. Especially when one considers the current state of surface stations.

http://www.surfacestations.org/

[ChumpDumper]

Didn't you just use the same method to try to disprove warming earlier in this thread?

[MannyIsGod]

Sure, I could easily conduct that experiment and I could have someone else repeat it and verify my results.


The difference between this experiment and what the IPCC uses for "global temperature", is that I can actually go measure each office in my building and calculate the average. The IPCC would measure one or two offices, run those numbers through some FORTRAN code and come up with a value that supposedly represents the average global temp to within 1 degree. I am skeptical. Especially when one considers the current state of surface stations.

http://www.surfacestations.org/

You shouldn't have to lie to make your case. Why do you lie?

[xrayzebra]

Well RG, I will not argue if the temps or rising or
falling here on earth. But I will argue that man is
not causing any such fluctuations.

I would bring this little article to your attention.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm

I am sure you are also aware that much of the
information that was put out by all the so called
experts was found to the skewed in the favor of
their argument. It was all man made.

Earth is not fragile. Earth can and does just
about anything it so desires. It can pollute more
in five minutes than we can in a lifetime. It can
destroy cities in mere minutes, which we have
witnessed in recent times.

And still people who you have faith in tells you
that you
and I we are destroying "mother" earth and it's
fragile environment. Hog Wash. We may dirty
things up in some small area but Earth will
correct the problem over time.

I will refer you to the recent oil spill that was
destroying the Gulf of Mexico. They are having
trouble finding any evidence of the spill mere
months after it occurred. But our Prez and
Salazar are using the incident to further their
little farce about you can drill, but wont approve
any drilling permits. Studying the issue. More
BS

RG, common sense and thinking goes a long way
in explaining why these people insist on putting
out the same old BS. Money....money....money
and power to implement their dumb ideas.

And our wonderful news media. Saw an article in
this mornings mini NYT, The San Antonio Express-News. One sentence caught my eye.
About the new electric car (Obama's car).
It "seems" that San Antonio is wanting
these cars with bated breath. Paraphrased
of course, but the word that caught my eye in
the sentence: "seems". :lmao

[RandomGuy]

Well RG, I will not argue if the temps or rising or
falling here on earth. But I will argue that man is
not causing any such fluctuations.

I would bring this little article to your attention.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm

I am sure you are also aware that much of the
information that was put out by all the so called
experts was found to the skewed in the favor of
their argument. It was all man made.

Earth is not fragile. Earth can and does just
about anything it so desires. It can pollute more
in five minutes than we can in a lifetime. It can
destroy cities in mere minutes, which we have
witnessed in recent times.

And still people who you have faith in tells you
that you
and I we are destroying "mother" earth and it's
fragile environment. Hog Wash. We may dirty
things up in some small area but Earth will
correct the problem over time.

I will refer you to the recent oil spill that was
destroying the Gulf of Mexico. They are having
trouble finding any evidence of the spill mere
months after it occurred. But our Prez and
Salazar are using the incident to further their
little farce about you can drill, but wont approve
any drilling permits. Studying the issue. More
BS

RG, common sense and thinking goes a long way
in explaining why these people insist on putting
out the same old BS. Money....money....money
and power to implement their dumb ideas.

And our wonderful news media. Saw an article in
this mornings mini NYT, The San Antonio Express-News. One sentence caught my eye.
About the new electric car (Obama's car).
It "seems" that San Antonio is wanting
these cars with bated breath. Paraphrased
of course, but the word that caught my eye in
the sentence: "seems". :lmao

By that logic there is a helluva lot more money lined up against climate change science than for it.

The industries with the most to lose, oil and coal producers, measure their economic output in the trillions.

The market capitalization for the major oil and gas companies is more than US GDP, at 12.6Tn

http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/120.html

If climate change were true, and the science was good, these companies have more than enough firepower to play up any doubts, and fund all the competing "scientific" papers they wanted to, and there is some evidence that is exactly what they are doing, in almost the exact same manner as the tobacco companies did when they funded "studies" that showed how harmless tobacco consumptions was.

These companies have, I firmly believe, magnified any flaws in the science far out of proportion.

They do this, and it gives people who want to be suspicious of environmentalists fodder for their own confirmation bias.

You will note the entire purpose of the thread was to show that global climate change denial is pseudoscience.

Read the first two posts or so. I think I have made a fair case for it.

[xrayzebra]

Making a case for "it" one way or the other by
you and I or anyone else is superfluous. Nature
will do what it does and has always done.

But I will point you to an article I saw this morning,
to show just how ridiculous this has become. And
the really sad part. It is going to happen.

Climate change: Dogs of law are off the leash

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jLQy3ze-D7N4ZQzyDjvLA8ChIEhQ?docId=CNG.0974f2ca1c91adea909 b6017dc4d554e.471

I know what I am fixing to say is only my own
experience, but it is indicative of my own
personal experience. I lived in Canada in the
late 50's and one winter it got down to -48.
The weather that winter was much like they
are experiencing in parts of the U.S. right now.

But you have headlines, such as this one, that
say one thing:

Rising waters threaten the coast of North Carolina

But when you read on down, you find:

"While polls show growing public skepticism of global warming, the people paid to worry about the future - engineers, planners, insurance companies - are already bracing for a wetter world.

"Sea-level rise is happening now. This is not a projection of something that will happen in the future if climate continues to change," said geologist Rob Young of Western Carolina University, who studies developed shorelines.

Nobody knows how high or fast the sea will rise. Water isn't likely to submerge all the state's low coastland because landowners will fight back. But the coast we know, with its fringe of salt marshes, its fluffy beaches and old harbor towns, might look like a different place a few generations from now.

...

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/01/18/1983784/rising-waters-threaten-nc-coast.html

A quick read of the whole article. One thing
stands out. "by centuries end". Reckon you
will be around to see it. I know for sure I wont.
So who among us will be around to witness this?

It seems this is always the case, the time frame
for all these dooms days scenarios is way down
the line.

Remember what you have always been taught
about "computer models" Garbage in, garbage
out.

I may very well be wrong, the old world might
be ready to burn up. Hehehehe, some of us
might start a little earlier than planned, burning,
that is.

But if it is, ready to burn up, it damn sure wont
be the making of mankind. I promise you that.
It will be the making of a higher authority.
Burning up Earth, as Obama said, is way above
our pay grade.:lol

[RandomGuy]

Making a case for "it" one way or the other by
you and I or anyone else is superfluous. Nature
will do what it does and has always done.

But I will point you to an article I saw this morning,
to show just how ridiculous this has become. And
the really sad part. It is going to happen.

[here are some links I want you to read]



The issue is waaay more complicated, and you are simply repeating some previously debunked illogical ideas.

If I thought you might actually read links or watch things I posted, I might be inclined to read your articles.

Generally people on your side of the debate tend to not watch anything that they don't agree with, so I will simply assume that you won't do that either, and will not extend a courtesy that I will not be given.

Thanks, but no thanks.

[RandomGuy]

The ironic thing about the whole denier movement, is that they advocate doing nothing now, because that would harm the economy, in their opinion.

There are some indications that by doing nothing, and letting other countries get ahead of us in the renewable tech race, we will hurt the economy more in the long run, as Europe and China build up industries and companies. There is some evidence this is already happening.

The US will be an "also ran" in renewable energy, forced to pay the premiums for oil and coal as it depletes, while the countries that do just what I have said we should do, get the benefits.

I will get the cold comfort of saying "I told you so", but I would prefer we pull our heads out of Rush Limbaugh's ass and avoid this in the first place.

[DarrinS]

Damn, I hope Greenland doesn't melt.

http://vortex.plymouth.edu/uschill.gif

[RandomGuy]

Damn, I hope Greenland doesn't melt.

[picture showing cold temperatures in lower 48 omitted]

This is yet another example of a logical fallacy.

It is either a strawman logical fallacy, or simply an ad hominem.

Personally, I think it is more of a former than the latter.

Why do you keep trying to make your case using flawed logic, Darrin?

Are you incapable of thinking logically, or just trying to single-handedly prove the OP?

[RandomGuy]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/01/global_warming

Climate change and evolution

Jan 24th 2011, 14:31 by M.S.
Tweet
.OUR topics this morning are global warming, evolution and feathers. Let's start with the warming. Despite a frenzied last-minute drive involving snowstorms in Europe and the eastern United States, planet Earth failed to save itself from another last-place finish in 2010: once again, it was the least cold year on record. The World Meteorological Organization announced its finding last week that global mean temperatures for the year were 0.53°C above the 1961-1990 mean, 0.01°C warmer than 2005 and 0.02°C above 1998. With the comparison having a margin of uncertainty of 0.09°C, the three years are considered tied for the hottest year on record. That followed results the previous week from NOAA, which found 2010 and 2005 tied as the hottest years ever, and NASA, which found the same thing. (They both think 1998 was a bit colder.)

By itself, as we always say, one hot year doesn't prove anything. The fact that every one of the twelve hottest years on record has come since 1997 is a little harder to wave away. 2010 was also the wettest year ever, corresponding to the expectation that higher heat means more water vapour. More countries set national high-temperature records in 2010 than ever before, including the biggest one, Russia. Arctic sea ice in December was at its lowest level ever, temperatures across a broad swathe of northern Canada have been 20° C higher than normal for the past month, the record temperatures are coming despite the lowest levels of solar activity in a century and a La Nina effect that should be making Canada colder rather than warmer, and so on. It is of course possible that global warming plateaued this year; it's also possible that it plateaued this morning. One can always hope! For now, though, this is the basic shape of things:

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/long%20term%20temps%20chart.gif

The George Will "global warming has ended" moment shows up as that little dip towards the end, before it returns to trend. So, what effect will the new data have on that meme? Quite possibly none. People who tried to cast doubt on global warming in 2009 based on a few years one could isolate so that they didn't show a discernible trend will now no doubt respond that a couple of very hot years don't prove anything. Which underlines how often the conclusions one draws from data are determined by a combination of the hypotheses you're framing, and at what point you start looking.

This brings me to the feathers. In this month's National Geographic, Carl Zimmer sums up recent paleontological progress in figuring out when and how feathers evolved, and how they fit into the relationship between dinosaurs and birds. Apparently there have been tons of new feather-bearing fossils unearthed over the past 15 years, and scientists can now use microscopic analysis and knowledge of how modern feathers work to actually figure out what color some of the feathers on these dinosaurs were. It's pretty clear that the development of feathers came long before they had anything to do with flight, but it's still not so clear whether feathered dinosaurs evolved into birds or whether they (and feathered proto-crocodiles!) shared a common feathered ancestor. Anyway, towards the beginning of the article comes this:


The origin of this wonderful mechanism is one of evolution's most durable mysteries. In 1861, just two years after Darwin published Origin of Species, quarry workers in Germany unearthed spectacular fossils of a crow-size bird, dubbed Archaeopteryx, that lived about 150 million years ago. It had feathers and other traits of living birds but also vestiges of a reptilian past, such as teeth in its mouth, claws on its wings, and a long, bony tail. Like fossils of whales with legs, Archaeopteryx seemed to capture a moment in a critical evolutionary metamorphosis. "It is a grand case for me," Darwin confided to a friend.

Think about how that must have looked to contemporaries. Darwin publishes his theory that species develop through evolution from other species. Okay, many people think, wild idea, but can one species really change so deeply over time that it becomes a different species? Wolves into dogs, sure, but fish into lizards and so forth? Then, two years later, a fossil is discovered that suggests dinosaurs evolving into birds. To first have a theory presented that suggests these outlandish transformations, and then to have an example turn up that perfectly describes the theory's most improbable consequences, with no possibility of prior knowledge—this is an extremely convincing sequence of evidence.

But if you grew up, say, 150 years after "The Origin of Species" was published, you didn't experience that remarkable sequence of evidence. You get the theory of evolution and the fossil background presented at the same time. So if you want to be an evolution sceptic, the fossil record just becomes another set of data you can poke holes in, along with the theory. After all, nobody understands what function feathers served before they were used for flight. If they were for mating displays, why did they turn out to be perfect for aerodynamics? How come nothing has feathers anymore that doesn't fly, or isn't descended from something that did? Darwin's theory can't explain it! And so on.

Now, back to global warming. For me, or anyone older, the thesis that rising global temperature data were due to a greenhouse effect produced by industrial emissions of CO2 and other gases, and that this might lead to environmental disaster, was something we first encountered as a mind-bending idea being thrown around by scientists in the mid-1980s. The first time we heard a scientist authoritatively state that the evidence was in, and that global warming was real, was when James Hansen said it while presenting his research to Congress in 1988. That was a daring claim for Mr Hansen to make at that point. It was daring because it was very clearly falsifiable. If, after 1988, global temperatures had stopped rising, or had started to exhibit a lot of volatility—if there had been a decade-long cooling episode, such as the world saw in the late 1930s and 40s—then Mr Hansen would have been discredited. But that didn't happen. Instead, for a decade and a half after Mr Hansen made the call, global mean temperatures kept going up and up. They bounced around a bit in the mid-2000s, and have now resumed rising again.

For people my age or older who were paying attention over the past couple of decades, that really ought to be convincing. But for people who just joined the conversation when "An Inconvenient Truth" came out, things are different. For them, the evidence of global warming was presented at the same time as the theory. And so they're susceptible to people trying to poke holes in the data or the theory. The temperature rise from 1998-2008 isn't statistically significant, tree ring data is unreliable, and so forth. Give them another two decades, and they'll probably come around. Unfortunately, by that time an enormous amount of damage will already have been done.

As to why George Will buys this stuff, I have no explanation. Maybe, in the internet age, we're all effectively getting our memories wiped every week or two, and it's as if we don't remember the sequence of events; everything is presented simultaneously. Or maybe we selectively wipe our own memories of the sequence of events when they threaten to prove inconvenient to our interests or our ideological predispositions.

[RandomGuy]

I appear, once again, not to be the only one who draws parallels between the pseudoscience of creationism and that of climate change deniers.

Many professional skeptics and debunkers of various pseudosciences tend to lump climate change denial into the same category as "orgone accumulators" "free energy" and "water cars".

One has to ask, if so many people have come independently to the same conclusion, doesn't that say something about the nature of the arguments being presented?

[DarrinS]

It's a matter of scale.


Less than one degree in over 100 years.


Scary.





http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/long%20term%20temps%20chart.gif

[MannyIsGod]

Darrin, trolling away!

[DarrinS]

Greenland temperature data from paper "Extending Greenland temperature records into the late eighteenth century".



Remember, Greenland is where Al Gore's sci fi doomsday scenarios come from.


http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/Greenland_temps1.JPG

[RandomGuy]

It's a matter of scale.


Less than one degree in over 100 years.


Scary.


The World Meteorological Organization announced its finding last week that global mean temperatures for the year were 0.53°C above the 1961-1990 mean, 0.01°C warmer than 2005 and 0.02°C above 1998. With the comparison having a margin of uncertainty of 0.09°C, the three years are considered tied for the hottest year on record.

They also answered your question, but you didn't read the whole thing, just the graph, I'm sure. :lol

Again, more flawed logic. This is a strawman logical fallacy, in which the assertions someone makes are distorted and then "defeated" as if they actually did anything other than debunk an idea that no one has. I stopped counting such things you posted after about 12 verifiable instances.
It isn't the wholesale magnitude of the change, but the fact that it is accelerating, and creating hosts of problems that can't be shown in temperature graphs, such as droughts, floods, desertification, etc.

Again, I have to ask, are you even capable of thinking logically? Or do you just choose not to do it here?

[DarrinS]

They also answered your question, but you didn't read the whole thing, just the graph, I'm sure. :lol

Again, more flawed logic. This is a strawman logical fallacy, in which the assertions someone makes are distorted and then "defeated" as if they actually did anything other than debunk an idea that no one has. I stopped counting such things you posted after about 12 verifiable instances.
It isn't the wholesale magnitude of the change, but the fact that it is accelerating, and creating hosts of problems that can't be shown in temperature graphs, such as droughts, floods, desertification, etc.

Again, I have to ask, are you even capable of thinking logically? Or do you just choose not to do it here?



I was watching this show on National Geographic the other day and there was this scientist talking about methane being released as the permafrost melts and the underlying roots, etc. start to decay.

Where did the roots come from?

[DarrinS]

More scary Greenland data.


http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/globalcool3.jpg

[MannyIsGod]

Darrin still trolling!

[xrayzebra]

RG, IMO, honestly, it is all about money.

The re-distribution of money. All the experts all
say the same thing. Tax the big guys, give to
the little guys and all will be well.

About you reading my links. I could care less.
I give them to back up what I said. Whether you
accept them, well that is up to you.

All the stats that you want to give, fine, it proves
absolutely nothing to "me". My pass and my
future, as well as yours, is your lifetime. I know
what I know and I know what has occurred and
I also know that BS is BS.

Now you take that as it may. But I have seen
the evolution of people who want to live your
life as well as mine and have done a good job
of doing it. Smoking, wearing seat belts, putting
kids in kids seats, banning kids meals in McDonalds and on and on and on.

So forgive an old man for telling you that you
are worried about mankind, don't!, there are
so many people who, like you, worry about me,
good Lord, did you read about Jack, kicked sand
in my face, LaLanne. He died. Like he said:
Death will ruin my reputation.

Quit worrying about Earth and start worry about
"you" and the people who would tell you how to
live your life, or mine for that matter.

A nice glass of Scotch and a good steak is
almost as "almost" as good as, well, you name
it.

I have been in many places on this old earth,
from the smog in London in the 50's to
two revolutions in Turkey and saw men walk
on the moon and heart transplants and people
living from their 60's to people like me who
have outlived their parents. So RG, take
everything with a grain of salt and and just
a little bit of doubt. Scientist are human and
have prejudice just like you and I. And some are
full of BS just like those you and I know.:lol

:toast

[RandomGuy]

RG, IMO, honestly, it is all about money.

The re-distribution of money. All the experts all
say the same thing. Tax the big guys, give to
the little guys and all will be well.

About you reading my links. I could care less.
I give them to back up what I said. Whether you
accept them, well that is up to you.

...

I have been in many places on this old earth,
from the smog in London in the 50's to
two revolutions in Turkey and saw men walk
on the moon and heart transplants and people
living from their 60's to people like me who
have outlived their parents. So RG, take
everything with a grain of salt and and just
a little bit of doubt. Scientist are human and
have prejudice just like you and I. And some are
full of BS just like those you and I know.:lol

:toast

Well, I have read a LOT of stuff given by Wild Cobra over the years, and done some reading of it myself.

Scientists may be human, but they are not, en masse, as dishonest as many seem to want to claim when it suits them.

I see this as less re-distribution, as a moneyed interest fighting very hard to keep its business model going.

I find that waaay more believable than claiming tens of thousands of scientists as so dishonest as to pervert science itself to futher their own ends.

[xrayzebra]

RG, dishonest. Hmmm. I am not sure how you can
define that.

It seems and I can be wrong, but that dishonesty
now days all boils down to politics. I will include
myself in that category.
It seems, unlike our ancestors, we get so defensive
about our positions on things that we leave out the
most common denominator, common sense. And
that may be because we have this "instant" communications, like this forum. When in the, not so distant past, we only had newpapers and radio. And radio was a luxury in my youth on
farms. Newspapers were when you can get them, sorta things, you didn't have paperboys in
the rural areas. By the way I was a paperboy in
my small town. Got 1 cent per paper delivered.

Anyhow, I am rambling. The point I am trying
to make is that some how things have gotten so
upside down that we forgot about responsibility.
Responsibility of taking care of our kids, our
families. That is not governments job. That is
our job.

That is what I mean when I talk about wealth
redistribution. I mean, yes, it is "MY"
responsibility to help my neighbor, my family.
But it isn't governments job.

Global warming. Global cooling. Do you really
think government or government intervention
could stop either? Do you? I don't. They couldn't stop poverty. They can't stop deaths from car accidents. Government can't stop a damn thing. Think about it, RG, think....think.

Government was designed to provide basic functions. Charity isn't one of them, regardless
of what anyone says. Families are designed to
take care of families and each other.

And you know what, families fail....yeah, they
do and there isn't a damn thing anyone can
do about it......nothing.

So back to the topic, there isn't anyone or
government can do to change our weather
or climate. That is a real, common sense,
fact.

So much for stats, whether from you or
WC. They honest wont change a thing

[temujin]

RG, dishonest. Hmmm. I am not sure how you can
define that.

It seems and I can be wrong, but that dishonesty
now days all boils down to politics. I will include
myself in that category.
It seems, unlike our ancestors, we get so defensive
about our positions on things that we leave out the
most common denominator, common sense. And
that may be because we have this "instant" communications, like this forum. When in the, not so distant past, we only had newpapers and radio. And radio was a luxury in my youth on
farms. Newspapers were when you can get them, sorta things, you didn't have paperboys in
the rural areas. By the way I was a paperboy in
my small town. Got 1 cent per paper delivered.

Anyhow, I am rambling. The point I am trying
to make is that some how things have gotten so
upside down that we forgot about responsibility.
Responsibility of taking care of our kids, our
families. That is not governments job. That is
our job.

That is what I mean when I talk about wealth
redistribution. I mean, yes, it is "MY"
responsibility to help my neighbor, my family.
But it isn't governments job.

Global warming. Global cooling. Do you really
think government or government intervention
could stop either? Do you? I don't. They couldn't stop poverty. They can't stop deaths from car accidents. Government can't stop a damn thing. Think about it, RG, think....think.

Government was designed to provide basic functions. Charity isn't one of them, regardless
of what anyone says. Families are designed to
take care of families and each other.

And you know what, families fail....yeah, they
do and there isn't a damn thing anyone can
do about it......nothing.

So back to the topic, there isn't anyone or
government can do to change our weather
or climate. That is a real, common sense,
fact.

So much for stats, whether from you or
WC. They honest wont change a thing

Nice post.
But sad.
I can't do anything about (insert poverty, global waming etch).
I lost.

The greatness is in the fight, not in the outcome.
Pound that rock.
Pound that rock a thousand times and on the 1001st it will break open.

[temujin]

Well, I have read a LOT of stuff given by Wild Cobra over the years, and done some reading of it myself.

Scientists may be human, but they are not, en masse, as dishonest as many seem to want to claim when it suits them.

I see this as less re-distribution, as a moneyed interest fighting very hard to keep its business model going.

I find that waaay more believable than claiming tens of thousands of scientists as so dishonest as to pervert science itself to futher their own ends.

The problem with dishonesty in science is that if you cheat on small stuff, who cares.
If you do with big stuff -and global warming is big stuff- they'll prove you wrong right away.

[xrayzebra]

Nice post.
But sad.
I can't do anything about (insert poverty, global waming etch).
I lost.

The greatness is in the fight, not in the outcome.
Pound that rock.
Pound that rock a thousand times and on the 1001st it will break open.

What fight. I can't do anything about it?
" (insert poverty, global waming etch)."

Yes you cant, "you" not government not anyone
else, you.

You are looking for someone else to accept you
responsibilities.

Government is was created to take care of
basic things they are good at. Things, we as
citizens have a common need for.

Government is not a human entity. It cannot
provide for people. It has no heart, it is has
no feelings. It is composed of political entities
who have designs on powers to further what
they want........

It is composed of people just like you and I. Us!
They are not magical, they cannot perform
miracles. The are not smarter than us. They
cannot produce no more than what we give them,
taxes.

What part of that do you not undrstand?

[~~~~~~]

Also, if you could tie in how solar output leads to the acidification of the ocean I'd like to know as well.Not sure if it's been answered.

Theoretically, greater solar output can lead to faster thermal/photo decomposition of carbon based compounds, one of the byproducts being CO2. Phytoplankton, photosynthesizing organisms, living near the the ocean's surface are susceptible to UV radiation. Since there's big ozone hole, higher solar output makes these organisms vulnerable. The effect of phytoplankton dying is two-fold. One being decomposition of carbon based organic matter in the ocean increases CO2 levels. CO2 reacts with water to form carbonic acid leading to a decrease in the ocean's alkalinity. Second, since phytoplankton photosynthesize, the organisms use CO2 as a carbon source thereby effectively removing CO2 from both the ocean and atmosphere.

[RandomGuy]

Not sure if it's been answered.

Theoretically, greater solar output can lead to faster thermal/photo decomposition of carbon based compounds, one of the byproducts being CO2. Phytoplankton, photosynthesizing organisms, living near the the ocean's surface are susceptible to UV radiation. Since there's big ozone hole, higher solar output makes these organisms vulnerable. The effect of phytoplankton dying is two-fold. One being decomposition of carbon based organic matter in the ocean increases CO2 levels. CO2 reacts with water to form carbonic acid leading to a decrease in the ocean's alkalinity. Second, since phytoplankton photosynthesize, the organisms use CO2 as a carbon source thereby effectively removing CO2 from both the ocean and atmosphere.

I imagine that effect would be fairly short lived, all things considered. You are talking about massive populations of short-lived, fast-reproducing organisms. Expose them to more UV light, and you would probably get a species capable of handling that in short order, ala anti-biotic resistant bacteria.

This is simply speculation on my part, but evolutionary processes would almost certainly produce populations of things capable of surviving in such an environment.

The differences in solar output are very very small, percentage wise, from what I understand. I would find it hard to believe, ozone holes aside, that there is really all that much variance in UV over the long term at sea level to make much of a global change.

Good thing about that belief is that it is easily tested, I guess. Hopefully someone will look into it.

[DarrinS]

I imagine that effect would be fairly short lived, all things considered. You are talking about massive populations of short-lived, fast-reproducing organisms. Expose them to more UV light, and you would probably get a species capable of handling that in short order, ala anti-biotic resistant bacteria.

This is simply speculation on my part, but evolutionary processes would almost certainly produce populations of things capable of surviving in such an environment.

The differences in solar output are very very small, percentage wise, from what I understand. I would find it hard to believe, ozone holes aside, that there is really all that much variance in UV over the long term at sea level to make much of a global change.

Good thing about that belief is that it is easily tested, I guess. Hopefully someone will look into it.



If the sun is so insignificant, why have some scientists toyed with the idea of putting sulfer aerosols into the atmosphere to offset the massive 1 degree warming detected by FORTRAN computer models?

[RandomGuy]

How does the sun affect our climate?The sun is the source of most of the energy that drives the biological and physical processes in the world around us—in oceans and on land it fuels plant growth that forms the base of the food chain, and in the atmosphere it warms air which drives our weather. The rate of energy coming from the sun changes slightly day to day. Over many millennia in the Earth-Sun orbital relationship can change the geographical distribution of the sun’s energy over the Earth’s surface. It has been suggested that changes in solar output might affect our climate—both directly, by changing the rate of solar heating of the Earth and atmosphere, and indirectly, by changing cloud forming processes.

Over the time-scale of millions of years the change in solar intensity is a critical factor influencing climate (e.g., ice ages). However, changes in solar heating rate over the last century cannot account for the magnitude and distribution of the rise in global mean temperature during that time period and there is no convincing evidence for significant indirect influences on our climate due to twentieth century changes in solar output.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/gw/sun-energy-variation.jpg

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/global-warming-faq.html

[RandomGuy]

Will responding to global warming be harmful to our economy?

Reducing oil dependence. Strengthening energy security. Creating jobs. Tackling global warming. Addressing air pollution. Improving our health. The United States has many reasons to make the transition to a clean energy economy. What we need is a comprehensive set of smart policies to jump-start this transition without delay and maximize the benefits to our environment and economy. Climate 2030: A National Blueprint for a Clean Energy Economy (“the Blueprint”) answers that need.

To help avoid the most dangerous consequences of climate change, ranging from extreme heat, droughts, and storms to acidifying oceans and rising sea levels, the United States must play a lead role and begin to cut its heat-trapping emissions today—and aim for at least an 80 percent drop from 2005 levels by 2050. Blueprint policies lower U.S. heat-trapping emissions to meet a cap set at 26 percent below 2005 levels in 2020, and 56 percent below 2005 levels in 2030.

The nation achieves these deep cuts in carbon emissions while saving consumers and businesses $465 billion annually by 2030. The Blueprint also builds $1.7 trillion in net cumulative savings between 2010 and 2030. Blueprint policies stimulate significant consumer, business, and government investment in new technologies and measures by 2030. The resulting savings on energy bills from reductions in electricity and fuel use more than offset the costs of these additional investments. The result is net annual savings for households, vehicle owners, businesses, and industries of $255 billion by 2030.

Under the Blueprint, every region of the country stands to save billions. Households and businesses—even in coal-dependent regions—will share in these savings.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/gw/net-consumer-and-business-lg.gif

[RandomGuy]

Is global warming already happening?

Yes. The IPCC concluded in its Fourth Assessment Report, that nearly 90 percent of the 29,000 observational data series examined revealed changes consistent with the expected response to global warming, and the observed physical and biological responses have been greatest in the regions that warmed the most.

The kinds of changes already observed that create this consistent picture include the following:

Examples of observed climatic changes
Increase in global average surface temperature of about 1°F in the 20th century
Decrease of snow cover and sea ice extent and the retreat of mountain glaciers in the latter half of the 20th century
Rise in global average sea level and the increase in ocean water temperatures
Likely increase in average precipitation over the middle and high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, and over tropical land areas
Increase in the frequency of extreme precipitation events in some regions of the world

Examples of observed physical and ecological changes
Thawing of permafrost
Lengthening of the growing season in middle and high latitudes
Poleward and upward shift of plant and animal ranges
Decline of some plant and animal species
Earlier flowering of trees
Earlier emergence of insects
Earlier egg-laying in birds

[RandomGuy]

Global Thermometer Still Climbing
Climate Science Update January 2010

Download pdf from the Union of Concerned Scientists:
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/climate-science-update-temperatures.pdf

The Earth’s average temperature is continuing to rise, regardless of the fact that some parts of the United States now are experiencing an atypically cold winter.

The U.S. land area covers only about two percent of the Earth’s surface, which means that even when much of the United States is cold, most of the rest of the world may be warmer. This winter, for example, many Americans are experiencing extreme cold, but the oceans and much of the rest of the world are much warmer than usual. Overall, the past ten years have been the warmest on record globally. Here at home, the continental United States record daily highs have exceeded record daily lows by a margin of two to one from 2000 to 2009.[1]

The Globe is Warming
Burning coal, oil and gas and destroying forests overloads the atmosphere with excess carbon dioxide, adding to heat-trapping gases that already are present in the atmosphere. Combined, these gases act like a blanket covering the earth. The human contribution to this effect is unmistakable. The part of the atmosphere where excess carbon dioxide accumulates has expanded and warmed dramatically in recent years precisely during the period when emissions from human activity have increased.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/gw/global_surface_temps.png

Scientists from NASA and other research institutions routinely collect temperature data from around the world and have records of the Earth’s average temperature going back to the 1880s, when temperatures were first recorded. The data shows that, globally, the last decade has been the warmest ever recorded. [1], [2]

Over the last century, global average temperature has increased by more than 1°F (0.6°C). While the record shows significant regional differences in warming, the long-term global upward trend is unambiguous.

However, surface temperature is only one indicator of climate change. Patterns of rainfall and snow, droughts and storms, and lake ice also are changing. Plant and animal behavior are changing. Glaciers are melting and sea level is rising. These shifts are well documented and are largely attributed to human-caused global warming. [3] Scientists can now positively identify the “human fingerprints” associated with these changing patterns.


Climate and Weather
Climate is a good indicator of what to expect in general, such as cold days in February in New England. Weather, on the other hand, is what we actually experience, like a blustery, snowy day with temperatures in the low 20s. In other words, climate describes phenomena observed over long time periods, such as decades and centuries, while weather is observed over short time periods, such as days and weeks.

It is clear that the Earth’s climate is changing, largely due to human activity. Over the last 25 years, Earth’s global average temperature has been increasing at more than twice the rate of the last century. In fact, nine of the warmest years on record have occurred in just the last 10 years.[1], [2] This warming has been accompanied by a decrease in very cold days and nights and an increase in extremely hot days and warm nights. Additionally, the oceans reached their highest recorded temperature in the summer of 2009. Oceans have absorbed much more heat from global warming than the air at the Earth’s surface because water is much better at retaining heat.

The “Long” and the “Short” of Temperature Trends
Relatively short-term natural phenomena that cause global temperatures to fluctuate are occurring at the same time human activity continues to drive up average global temperatures by overloading the atmosphere with heat-trapping emissions.

These short-term effects on climate make it possible to have “cooler” periods in regions even as the general trend of warming continues.[4] For example, during late 2007 and early 2008, the tropical Pacific Ocean was much cooler than normal due to a strong La Niña episode that kept temperatures across much of the globe lower than usual. Nevertheless, both years were still in the top ten warmest years on record and would have been even hotter without this short-term cooling effect. Conversely, in 1998, a very strong El Niño episode, which made the tropical Pacific Ocean warmer than normal, combined with human-induced global warming to make that year one of the hottest on record.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/gw/50-year-global-temps.png

Focusing on relatively short time periods to claim global warming is not happening is a misleading way to use statistics. These false claims have become so persistent that late last year the Associated Press asked a team of independent statisticians to review global temperature data without revealing to them what the data represented.[5] All of the statisticians concluded that the data showed an unmistakable upward trend over time.

References
1. NOAA National Climatic Data Center, accessed January 12th, 2010: www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.html
2. NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, accessed January 12th, 2010: data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
3. IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (AR4). S. Solomon et al. eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and NY, USA.
4. Easterling, D.R. and M. F. Wehner (2009). Is the climate warming or cooling? Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L08706.
5. Associated Press: www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/26/tech/main5423035.shtml

[RandomGuy]

Just thought I would throw in what scientists are actually saying.

We talk about them and what they say a lot abstractly, so perhaps seeing what they say is worth a read or two.

[DarrinS]

Looks dramatic until you actually look at numbers on the temperature side of that graph.

Insignificant

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/gw/50-year-global-temps.png

[DarrinS]

Just thought I would throw in what scientists are actually saying.

We talk about them and what they say a lot abstractly, so perhaps seeing what they say is worth a read or two.



Are there any scientists that disagree?


Are any of those people "deniers"? Even the one who worked on IPCC reports?

[DarrinS]

From paper: "Greenland Warming of 1920-1930 and 1995-2005”, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, 2006




“Almost all decades between 1915 and 1965 were warmer or at least as warm as the 1995 to 2005 decade…suggesting the current warm Greenland climate is not unprecedented and that similar temperatures were a norm in the first half the 20th century. … no statistically significant difference between the average temperature from the 1905 to the 1955 period and 1955 to 2005 period,” the only difference being that summertime (JJA) average temperatures were warmer at both stations during the 1905-1955 period. Further, although the decade 1920-1930 was as warm as the decade 1995-2005, the rate of warming was “50% higher” during the earlier decade.”

[RandomGuy]

Are there any scientists that disagree?


Are any of those people "deniers"? Even the one who worked on IPCC reports?

Creationists like to talk about the number of biologists who disagree with the theory of evolution as well.

They bemoan the fact that scientific peer-review publications don't tend to include creationists on the review panels.




But that's just it... not all biologists believe in macro-evolution. You're just assuming that the ones that believe like you do are correct, and that those that don't are not. So much so, that you all dismiss them from the get go. They number far greater than you would believe. Again, you must resort to the fallacy of consensus gentium to pick one group over the other in the absence of true evidence.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4907725&postcount=469

Given: Creationism is pseudoscience.

Creationists argue that the number of scientists who doubt the theory of evolution is relevant to whether it is true.

Logical form:
People who believe in X argue that the number of scientists who doubt Y, the theory they disagree with is relevant to whether it is true.

People who believe that humans are not responsible for climate change argue that the number of scientists who doubt human-caused climate change is relevant to whether it is true.

Logical conclusion?
??????
Want to bring up that Oregon petition now? or wait until WC does?

[RandomGuy]

From paper: "Greenland Warming of 1920-1930 and 1995-2005”, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, 2006

True or false:

The theory of man-made climate change implies that temperatures in all areas will rise by the same amount over time with additional atmospheric CO2.

??

[DarrinS]

Creationists like to talk about the number of biologists who disagree with the theory of evolution as well.

They bemoan the fact that scientific peer-review publications don't tend to include creationists on the review panels.



http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4907725&postcount=469

Given: Creationism is pseudoscience.

Creationists argue that the number of scientists who doubt the theory of evolution is relevant to whether it is true.

Logical form:
People who believe in X argue that the number of scientists who doubt Y, the theory they disagree with is relevant to whether it is true.

People who believe that humans are not responsible for climate change argue that the number of scientists who doubt human-caused climate change is relevant to whether it is true.

Logical conclusion?
??????
Want to bring up that Oregon petition now? or wait until WC does?



Are you saying that IPCC contributors are akin to creationists? There are numerous scientists that have contributed to IPCC reports that aren't advocates of the alarmist language added to their "executive summaries".

[DarrinS]

True or false:

The theory of man-made climate change implies that temperatures in all areas will rise by the same amount over time with additional atmospheric CO2.

??


Northern hemisphere should heat more rapidly and Greenland is like the so-called canary in the coal mine.


The current warmth in Greenland is not even unprecedented in the past century.

[Wild Cobra]

However, changes in solar heating rate over the last century cannot account for the magnitude and distribution of the rise in global mean temperature during that time period and there is no convincing evidence for significant indirect influences on our climate due to twentieth century changes in solar output.
True, but that magnitude is a small snippet of data, and is approximately the same change as 1750 to today. There are other factors besides the sun that make it difficult to see any particular net change in the gross change.

There is also the tremendous lag time for much of the latent energy, we could very easily see the warmed up waters from the 1700, because of latent energy collected near the south pole finally changing the surface temperature near and north of the equator. That is a very slow moving system, with an average 800 year lag for total energy released.

Again, conservation of mass and energy dictates that a particular level of warming is from the sun.

[temujin]

Looks dramatic until you actually look at numbers on the temperature side of that graph.

Insignificant

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/gw/50-year-global-temps.png

It's actually even more dramatic after you have looked at the data.

The pinatubo eruption of the 90 did just a little dip that bounced less than 2 years after.
And the iceland vulcano eruption of last year might even have hard times producing that smallish dip.

[temujin]

Just thought I would throw in what scientists are actually saying.

We talk about them and what they say a lot abstractly, so perhaps seeing what they say is worth a read or two.

Never mind, can't fight beliefs with data.

Beliefs are precisely what escapes from data, what can't be measured.

Mankind is entitled to beliefs: just don't call them data, since they are ontologically different terms.

[temujin]

What fight. I can't do anything about it?
" (insert poverty, global waming etch)."

Yes you cant, "you" not government not anyone
else, you.

You are looking for someone else to accept you
responsibilities.

Government is was created to take care of
basic things they are good at. Things, we as
citizens have a common need for.

Government is not a human entity. It cannot
provide for people. It has no heart, it is has
no feelings. It is composed of political entities
who have designs on powers to further what
they want........

It is composed of people just like you and I. Us!
They are not magical, they cannot perform
miracles. The are not smarter than us. They
cannot produce no more than what we give them,
taxes.

What part of that do you not undrstand?

I understand more than you might want me to.

Lonely, lonesome world.

No thanks, not for me.

[RandomGuy]

Never mind, can't fight beliefs with data.

Beliefs are precisely what escapes from data, what can't be measured.

Mankind is entitled to beliefs: just don't call them data, since they are ontologically different terms.

That is actually the entire point of the thread. :lol

I'm not really here to argue the merits of IPCC reports. Merely to show that a lot of what passes for skepticism of those reports and the data they summarize is less about real science or policy, and more about ingrained, illogical belief and knee-jerk anti-environmentalism.

[DarrinS]

That is actually the entire point of the thread. :lol

I'm not really here to argue the merits of IPCC reports. Merely to show that a lot of what passes for skepticism of those reports and the data they summarize is less about real science or policy, and more about ingrained, illogical belief and knee-jerk anti-environmentalism.


data: 1 degree in 100 years

[LnGrrrR]

data: 1 degree in 100 years

Is 1 degree inconsequential?

If the temperature were continue to shift 1 degree warmer over the next 3 years, what would the consequences be?

[DarrinS]

Is 1 degree inconsequential?

If the temperature were continue to shift 1 degree warmer over the next 3 years, what would the consequences be?


Obviously a rate of (1 degree)/(3 years) would be much worse than a rate of (1 degree)/(100 years).


No such trends have continued unabated in Earth's history. That's also why I don't believe in "tipping points".

[MannyIsGod]

Two quick things:

Rapid climate change has occuoured in the past weather darrin "believes in" it or not.

Agw theory points to future acceleration in warming. Darrin acknowledges 1 degree of warming like agw theory says there should be and also claims that the temp increase has not occured or that we are cooling depending on the day.

Oh that darrin! Bless his heart.

[Wild Cobra]

That is actually the entire point of the thread. :lol

I'm not really here to argue the merits of IPCC reports. Merely to show that a lot of what passes for skepticism of those reports and the data they summarize is less about real science or policy, and more about ingrained, illogical belief and knee-jerk anti-environmentalism.
No, you have that backwards. It's knee-jerk environmentalism.

[Wild Cobra]

Is 1 degree inconsequential?

If the temperature were continue to shift 1 degree warmer over the next 3 years, what would the consequences be?
But it won't. There are cycles in nature.

[LnGrrrR]

But it won't. There are cycles in nature.

So, just to ask, if it DID continue to shift warmer, at what point would it have some consequences? How many degrees?

[LnGrrrR]

Obviously a rate of (1 degree)/(3 years) would be much worse than a rate of (1 degree)/(100 years).

Ahhh sorry. I meant to say 1 degree each century. Thanks for calling me on that.


No such trends have continued unabated in Earth's history. That's also why I don't believe in "tipping points".

Why point out that 1 degree is inconsequential then? If you think it's going to shift back, would it matter if it were 1 degree or 5?

[RandomGuy]

Why point out that 1 degree is inconsequential then? If you think it's going to shift back, would it matter if it were 1 degree or 5?

Beware the fallacy of straight-line thinking.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/Historical-Emissions.preview.JPG

I crunched the numbers in the graph, and examined the period 1906 to 2004, then 50% of all the CO2 emissions from that period took place in the period 1981-2004, approximately. The last 23 years emitted as much CO2 as the first 75 years.

Oddly enough, most of the changes seen here take place after 1981 or so.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/gw/global_surface_temps.png

This is the nature of exponential growth. CO2 emissions globally continue to grow by a percentage each year, roughly commesurate with global economic growth.

If one posits a 2.5% growth in emissions for the period 2004 to 2030, then that 24 year period sees emissions equal to the entire 98 years that preceded it.

If we are indeed having an effect, then we would expect that effect to be more pronounced in the next 24 years than it has been in the last 100.

Given that, all of these effects seem to be pretty likely to accelerate along with emissions.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/gw/sun-energy-variation.jpg

Wild Cobra will have to work harder and harder to massage his figures to show that the sun is responsible for these effects, as the sun continues its pretty predictable short-term cycles.

Again, assuming that CO2 is one of the primary drivers of the observed warming trend.

[DarrinS]

Beware the fallacy of straight-line thinking.


...


This is the nature of exponential growth. CO2 emissions globally continue to grow by a percentage each year, roughly commesurate with global economic growth.

If one posits a 2.5% growth in emissions for the period 2004 to 2030, then that 24 year period sees emissions equal to the entire 98 years that preceded it.

If we are indeed having an effect, then we would expect that effect to be more pronounced in the next 24 years than it has been in the last 100.

Given that, all of these effects seem to be pretty likely to accelerate along with emissions.

...

Again, assuming that CO2 is one of the primary drivers of the observed warming trend.



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/


Except that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is logarithmic.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/co2_modtrans_img1.png?w=510&h=312

[MannyIsGod]

Feedbacks.

[DarrinS]

Feedbacks.

All positive? Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but do clouds also reflect sunlight?

[MannyIsGod]

Oh shit, you responded directly to something I posted? Was it because it was only one word?

I never said they were all positive. No need to move the goalposts. CO2 also isn't the only greenhouse gas.

More than one word, so I'm curious to see if you respond to this as well.

[RandomGuy]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/


Except that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is logarithmic.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/co2_modtrans_img1.png?w=510&h=312

Oddly enough, so is exponential growth.

Log1.025(2)=28.1 This was, essentially, the log I used to determine how long it takes to double CO2 emissions.

Your skeptical meteorologist is free to publish his blog posts as article in peer reviewed journals. He should get cracking, so actual scientists can evaluate his claims. I sincerely hope he does.

[RandomGuy]

Science must end climate confusion
VIEWPOINT
Richard Betts
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8451756.stm
Climate scientists need to take more responsibility about how their work is presented to the public, suggests the Met Office's Richard Betts. In this week's Green Room, he says it is vital to prevent climate science being misunderstood or misused.

Recently, I gave a talk on climate change in my local village hall in Devon, and not surprisingly I was given a hard time.

In fact, it started two days before that. Cut off from work by the snow (which, incidentally, had been forecast with almost pinpoint accuracy), I was out with the kids and being teased by the other dads.

"Where's all this global warming you're always on about, ha ha!"

The usual stuff, leading to the usual somewhat nerdy discussion on the difference between weather and climate, which was then cut short when one of the children crashed their sledge and asked if we had got that on video to send to a TV show such as You've Been Framed.

Of course, we are seeing the same comments in some parts of the press and on Twitter, from those who jump on any bit of cold weather to say it proves that global warming is not happening and we're all a bunch of idiots (or worse).

No matter how many times we say that "global warming" means a rise of average temperature across the world, decade by decade, and not every year being consistently warmer than the last in every place on Earth, there are still those that get this mixed up.

Warming world

Yes, we have had the coldest December in the UK for 14 years and now we are having a big freeze in early January; but the UK covers less than half of one thousandth of the Earth's surface.


Climate data shows that human activities are warming the world


Journey through climate history
Last year was actually the fifth warmest year on record as far as global temperatures were concerned.

The four warmest years were, in ascending order, 2002, 2003, 2005 and 1998. The last decade was the warmest on record, followed by the 1990s and then the 1980s, so the world is definitely warming up.

To be fair, people often make the same mistake but in the other direction, and link every heatwave, major flood, drought and famine to global warming.

Of course, we know that these things happen anyway, even without climate change - they may happen more often under a warmer climate, but it is wrong to blame climate change for every single event.

Climate scientists know this, but still there are people outside of climate science who will claim or imply such things if it helps make the news or generate support for their political or business agenda.

Mixed messages

Climate "sceptics" accuse climate scientists of exaggerating the evidence for human-caused climate change in order to secure their own funding; but actually I think that any vested interests in talking up the problem lie elsewhere.


Individual natural disasters are not evidence of climate change
The focus on climate change is now so huge that everybody seems to need to have some link to climate change if they are to attract attention and funding.

Hence the increasing tendency to link everything to climate change - whether scientifically proven or not.

The question is: do climate scientists do enough to counter this? Or are we guilty of turning a blind eye to these things because we think they are on "our side" against the climate sceptics?

It's easy to blame the media and I don't intend to make generalisations here, but I have quite literally had journalists phone me up during an unusually warm spell of weather and ask "is this a result of global warming?"

When I say "no, not really, it is just weather", they've thanked me very much and then phoned somebody else, and kept trying until they got someone to say yes it was.

Talking up of the problem then gives easy ammunition to those who wish to discredit the science.

They do not care whether the wrong information came from the scientists or from a second-hand source, they just say (quite rightly) that it's wrong and therefore why should they trust other parts of the science?

Climate scientists need to take more responsibility for the communication of their work to avoid this kind of thing.

Even if scientists themselves are not blaming everything on climate change, it still reflects badly on us if others do this.

We cannot simply say it is everyone else's fault; we need to be very clear about what can be used as evidence for or against climate change.

Long-term, large-scale trends and the overall statistics of extreme weather events can and should be part of this evidence base. Individual weather events, from heatwaves to big freezes, cannot be used either to prove or disprove climate change.

If we do not help the media, NGOs and the public to understand this, we have done nothing to stop them getting it wrong.

If our science is misunderstood and misused, and then turned against us, it really will be a case of We've Been Framed.
-------------------------------------------


This is what an actual scientist says his theory is.

One common tool creationists use in framing the creation/evolution debate is to distort what scientists are actually saying. This happens time and again.

This tactic is in full force when "look how cold it is" articles get used to "disprove" the theory of CO2 caused warming.

[DarrinS]

Oddly enough, so is exponential growth.

Log1.025(2)=28.1 This was, essentially, the log I used to determine how long it takes to double CO2 emissions.

Your skeptical meteorologist is free to publish his blog posts as article in peer reviewed journals. He should get cracking, so actual scientists can evaluate his claims. I sincerely hope he does.


"Real" climate scientists have their blogs too.

See http://www.realclimate.org/

So, no need to put something down because it is a blog.

[DarrinS]

No matter how many times we say that "global warming" means a rise of average temperature across the world, decade by decade, and not every year being consistently warmer than the last in every place on Earth, there are still those that get this mixed up.




Except for the last decade.


Or the period from 1940 to 1970.

[DarrinS]

Oh shit, you responded directly to something I posted? Was it because it was only one word?

I never said they were all positive. No need to move the goalposts. CO2 also isn't the only greenhouse gas.

More than one word, so I'm curious to see if you respond to this as well.


Since you said practically nothing, my response is .

[MannyIsGod]

I'm shocked.

[RandomGuy]

"Real" climate scientists have their blogs too.

See http://www.realclimate.org/

So, no need to put something down because it is a blog.

There is every need to put it down because it is a blog, as opposed to peer-reviewed science.

If the guy actually does a study of data, and puts forth an idea in a scientific journal, then more power to him.

That way someone far more qualified than you or I can subject it to some sort of review more rigorous than a spellcheck.

Blogs aren't even subject to that. :lol

[DarrinS]

There is every need to put it down because it is a blog, as opposed to peer-reviewed science.

If the guy actually does a study of data, and puts forth an idea in a scientific journal, then more power to him.

That way someone far more qualified than you or I can subject it to some sort of review more rigorous than a spellcheck.

Blogs aren't even subject to that. :lol



Guy with a blog and peer-reviewed research. This guy basically destroyed the "hockey stick" reconstruction.

http://climateaudit.org/



EDIT> I can't make this shit up. This ad was actually on this guy's website:

Ads by Google

Official Climate Website
Al Gore Needs Your Help to Repower America. Learn More!
RepowerAmerica.org

[DarrinS]

By the way, I have published articles in peer-reviewed journals. It's not that difficult to do.

[temujin]

By the way, I have published articles in peer-reviewed journals. It's not that difficult to do.

I read your nice article in the ATOM.

"American Textbook of Office Measurements."

[temujin]

So we shifted from WHETHER global warming happens at all,

to HOW MUCH global warming.

In about 2 pages we'll get to what causes it.

[RandomGuy]

By the way, I have published articles in peer-reviewed journals. It's not that difficult to do.

That warming skeptics have published so few papers in peer-reviewed journals makes this a particularly damning statement for them, doesn't it?

Either it is all one giant conspiracy in which good science is surpressed, or the skeptical science is pretty shitty, or the skeptics are either lazy or incompetant.

Have I missed a possibility?

[RandomGuy]

That warming skeptics have published so few papers in peer-reviewed journals makes this a particularly damning statement for them, doesn't it?

Either it is all one giant conspiracy in which good science is surpressed, or the skeptical science is pretty shitty, or the skeptics are either lazy or incompetant.

Have I missed a possibility?

Perhaps skeptics are just getting warmed up?






warm.. HA!

[DarrinS]

That warming skeptics have published so few papers in peer-reviewed journals makes this a particularly damning statement for them, doesn't it?

Either it is all one giant conspiracy in which good science is surpressed, or the skeptical science is pretty shitty, or the skeptics are either lazy or incompetant.

Have I missed a possibility?







From: Phil Jones <[email protected]>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <[email protected]>
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004


blah blah blah

...

I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil






By the way RG, do you think it is valid for experts in mathematics, statistics, computer modeling, etc. to challenge the use of these tools by "climate scientists"? I can tell you first hand that Michael Mann (a.k.a. Hockey Stick boy) is a shitty computer programmer.

[DarrinS]

So we shifted from WHETHER global warming happens at all,

to HOW MUCH global warming.

In about 2 pages we'll get to what causes it.



As I've already pointed out, the amount of "unprecedented warming in the last century" is on the order of measurement noise.

[DarrinS]

I read your nice article in the ATOM.

"American Textbook of Office Measurements."


Actually, I am a mechanical engineer and computer modeler. No offense taken by your ignorance.

[Wild Cobra]

So, just to ask, if it DID continue to shift warmer, at what point would it have some consequences? How many degrees?
That I don't know. However, the slow shift in the earth eccentricity over the next 26,000 years will provide more warming than we could ever try to cool.

We simply cannot compete with nature.

[Wild Cobra]

Ahhh sorry. I meant to say 1 degree each century. Thanks for calling me on that.



Why point out that 1 degree is inconsequential then? If you think it's going to shift back, would it matter if it were 1 degree or 5?
Maybe because according to paleontological records, we are still about 2C lower than the highest temperature.

[Wild Cobra]

Wild Cobra will have to work harder and harder to massage his figures to show that the sun is responsible for these effects, as the sun continues its pretty predictable short-term cycles.

Maybe you need to understand what "lag" is. What the data suggest to me is that only about half the solar effect is seen by 70 years, and the remaining half takes a few hundred.

[DarrinS]

If the global catastophists didn't want to tax energy during a worldwide economic slump, I could care less what they believe.

It's just more hypochondria of the western world. I heard the same shit growing up the 70's. Same shit, different environmental boogeyman.

[Wild Cobra]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/


Except that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is logarithmic.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/co2_modtrans_img1.png?w=510&h=312
Retty similar to the work I did:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/SeriesGCO2slope2.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

Feedbacks.

Agreed, feedback has to be factored in to see claim CO2 as high as it is. Feedback from solar warming increasing the humidity.'

Oh... Something extremely important...

The greenhouse effect is a feedback of the solar energy. So you are talking about a feedback on a feedback...

[Wild Cobra]

Oddly enough, so is exponential growth.

Log1.025(2)=28.1 This was, essentially, the log I used to determine how long it takes to double CO2 emissions.

Your skeptical meteorologist is free to publish his blog posts as article in peer reviewed journals. He should get cracking, so actual scientists can evaluate his claims. I sincerely hope he does.
LOL...

That was the standard model accepted by climatologist.

You should learn what you speak of. The article simply used their own method against them.

[Wild Cobra]

Science must end climate confusion
VIEWPOINT
Richard Betts

<snip>

LOL...

I agree to this extent... They must start showing us the data and methodology, and stop the confusing lies.

[Wild Cobra]

even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !By the way RG, do you think it is valid for experts in mathematics, statistics, computer modeling, etc. to challenge the use of these tools by "climate scientists"? I can tell you first hand that Michael Mann (a.k.a. Hockey Stick boy) is a shitty computer programmer.
And they have redefined what peer review is, that's why their material is not trustworthy.

[RandomGuy]

Retty similar to the work I did:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/SeriesGCO2slope2.jpg

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/gw/net-consumer-and-business-lg.gif

[RandomGuy]

If the global catastophists didn't want to tax energy during a worldwide economic slump, I could care less what they believe.

It's just more hypochondria of the western world. I heard the same shit growing up the 70's. Same shit, different environmental boogeyman.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/gw/net-consumer-and-business-lg.gif

[DarrinS]

Climate change laws are doing wonders for California's economy.


Nice map though.

[RandomGuy]

Climate change laws are doing wonders for California's economy.


:spin

Are you working on your Fox "news" talking point merit badge or something?

There have been studies concerning the impact of those policies that show both losses and gains. Both seem to be a bit flawed and political.

The truth is likely a bit more complicated than your soundbite might suggest, party line aside.

Speaking of aside, AGW or not, we will be faced with reducing our carbon emissions anyways, here is an interesting article I dug up concerning that.

[RandomGuy]

Harder, better, faster, stronger

BILL MCKIBBEN noted last month that the political system is not generating results that are in line with what climate scientists are saying about the rapidity of global warming. And that's true. People have a pretty limited ability to assimilate information and incorporate it into a social consensus, and global economic growth is altering the planet a lot faster than we're altering our politics. Something similar apparently happened on Easter Island a while back.

But on a brighter note, there's something else that's changing a lot faster than people are capable of assimilating: the science and technology of how to slow global warming. People just don't seem to realise how easy it would be to dramatically reduce carbon emissions. Two f'rinstances:

Dave Leonhardt reports in today's New York Times on the Obama administration's growing enthusiasm for a "cash-for-caulkers" programme to subsidise home weatherisation. Two versions of the idea are being promoted by John Doerr, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist, and Bill Clinton. The Doerr plan would spend $23 billion over two years to subsidise half the cost to homeowners of home weatherisation, which generally costs $2,000 to $4,000 per home. The Clinton plan would use money from the stimulus bill that hasn't been spent yet, and covers commercial buildings as well as homes. Weatherisation puts unemployed construction contractors to work, and generally pays for itself within a decade in lower energy costs. More important, buildings generate more CO2 than the transportation sector does.

A McKinsey report in July concluded America could spend $520 billion on improving buildings' energy efficiency through 2020, reap $1.2 trillion in energy savings, and reduce CO2 emissions by 1.1 gigatonnes per year—the equivalent of taking every car and light truck off America's roads.
If weatherising buildings saves money, why aren't people already doing it? The McKinsey report explains that extremely well:


Energy efficiency measures typically require a substantial upfront investment in exchange for savings that accrue over the lifetime of the deployed measures. Additionally, efficiency potential is highly fragmented, spread across more than 100 million locations and billions of devices used in residential, commercial, and industrial settings... Finally, measuring and verifying energy not consumed is by its nature difficult.

So there you go: lots of potential for saving energy, if you can organise people with the right incentives. Which brings us to our second easier-than-people-realise global-warming fighter: dispersed generation of electricity from solar photovoltaic panels. Todd Woody writes at Grist.org that thin-film solar panels have evolved so fast and dropped so rapidly in price that industry analysts like Black & Veatch are having to rewrite their reports.

In short, solar panel prices have plummeted so much as to make viable the prospect of generating gigawatts of electricity from rooftops and photovoltaic farms built near cities.
“This has pretty significant implications in terms of transmission planning,” Ryan Pletka, Black & Veatch’s renewable energy project manager, told me last week. “What we thought would happen in a five-year time frame has happened in one year.”

California has mandated 60,000 gigawatt hours of renewable-energy electric generation by 2020. Originally, "distributed generation" (ie, photovoltaic cells on homeowners' and businesses' roofs and buildings) wasn't supposed to play much of a role in that goal; instead the state relied on huge new solar projects out in the desert, which in turn required large transmission projects to bring the electricity to cities. But with the drop in price for thin-film solar panels, it may now be cheaper and faster to pay urban homeowners and businesses to deploy solar panels and feed their electricity into the grid than to build giant projects far from cities. Just last year, Black & Veatch estimated distributed generation could meet just 2,000 megawatt hours; Mr Pletka now estimates it could contribute 40,000 gigawatt hours, or two-thirds of the total demand.

So, yeah, things are moving too fast, and we can't keep up. But some of the things that are moving too fast to keep up with are going in the right direction.

(2009)
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/11/harder_better_faster_stronger

[MannyIsGod]

I've been begging for localized photovoltiac to be more of an option. That shit is so logical.

[Yonivore]

More proof that Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is utter bullshit...

The high stakes of melting Himalayan glaciers (http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-05/tech/himalayas.glacier.conflict_1_glaciers-rivers-sutlej?_s=PM:TECH)


The glaciers in the Himalayas are receding quicker than those in other parts of the world and could disappear altogether by 2035 according [MannyIsGod's almighty] 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.

Just two years after that article and four years after the report, Mother Earth debunks the IPCC...

Himalayan glaciers not melting because of climate change, report finds (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8284223/Himalayan-glaciers-not-melting-because-of-climate-change-report-finds.html)


Himalayan glaciers are actually advancing rather than retreating, claims the first major study since a controversial UN report said they would be melted within quarter of a century.


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01812/Karakoram-glacier_1812351c.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

More proof that Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is utter bullshit...

The high stakes of melting Himalayan glaciers (http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-05/tech/himalayas.glacier.conflict_1_glaciers-rivers-sutlej?_s=PM:TECH)



Just two years after that article and four years after the report, Mother Earth debunks the IPCC...

Himalayan glaciers not melting because of climate change, report finds (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8284223/Himalayan-glaciers-not-melting-because-of-climate-change-report-finds.html)




http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01812/Karakoram-glacier_1812351c.jpg
I think you're wasting your time. the true believers aren't interested in facts.

[DarrinS]

Just two years after that article and four years after the report, Mother Earth debunks the IPCC...

Himalayan glaciers not melting because of climate change, report finds (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8284223/Himalayan-glaciers-not-melting-because-of-climate-change-report-finds.html)




Oops. A peer-reviewed study by non-pseudoscientists. What are we to make of this information?

[RandomGuy]

More proof that Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is utter bullshit...

The high stakes of melting Himalayan glaciers (http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-05/tech/himalayas.glacier.conflict_1_glaciers-rivers-sutlej?_s=PM:TECH)



Just two years after that article and four years after the report, Mother Earth debunks the IPCC...

Himalayan glaciers not melting because of climate change, report finds (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8284223/Himalayan-glaciers-not-melting-because-of-climate-change-report-finds.html)




http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01812/Karakoram-glacier_1812351c.jpg

That is indeed a rather glaring fuck-up on the part of the IPCC.


Dr Pachauri, head of the Nobel prize-winning UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has remained silent on the matter since he was forced to admit his report's claim that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was an error and had not been sourced from a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It came from a World Wildlife Fund report.

It also highlights and supports the main assertion of the OP.

The main impetus of climate change skepticism is not a concern about the science, it is purely ideological, and as such tends to be dogmatic.

The fact that no one professing to be skeptical of man-made climate change/warming has admitted:

1) There is data that suggests that recent spikes in CO2 concentration in our atmosphere is warming the planet,
2) there is data that suggests that human activity is the cause of this increase in CO2, and
3) there is data that suggests that this warming can have some very profoundly negative consequences for our civilization.

... says volumes.

To that end I will readily accede:

1) There is data that suggests recent spikes in CO2 concentration is having no effect on the overall global temperatures.
2) There may be some data that suggests humans are not responsible for recent CO2 spikes (I haven't seen any yet, but allow for the possibility it exists)
3) There is data that suggests warming might have some good consequences.
4) The scientists studying this stuff WILL get things wrong on occasion.

Any real scientist would say essentially the same. One has to allow for the possibility that they are wrong. The IPCC takes some pains to admit there is a lot they *don't* know, especially about how the system of our earths climate interacts.

In this thread I have been pretty much unable to get honest, straight answers from anybody who professes to be a skeptic of man-made climate change.

The fact that one side admits they *might* be wrong, and the other side *won't* pretty much shows to anybody with common sense who is being honest.

[RandomGuy]

I've been begging for localized photovoltiac to be more of an option. That shit is so logical.

It is, indeed.

PV costs are coming down, oddly enough because China has pushed renewable tech, and incubated its own PV industries.

Shocker.

As fossil fuels get closer their mathmatically certain depletion, the countries and areas with mature renewable energy sectors will benefit most.

I don't think that will be the US at this point. We will end up being an "also ran", which is sad because the need for renewables is so obvious and predictable, AGW aside.

That is, for me, the ultimate irony. Regardless of whether CO2 is warming the planet overall, we would still benefit economically from reducing our emissions, which is something else skeptics say we shouldn't do.

[DarrinS]

That is indeed a rather glaring fuck-up on the part of the IPCC.



It also highlights and supports the main assertion of the OP.

The main impetus of climate change skepticism is not a concern about the science, it is purely ideological, and as such tends to be dogmatic.

The fact that no one professing to be skeptical of man-made climate change/warming has admitted:

1) There is data that suggests that recent spikes in CO2 concentration in our atmosphere is warming the planet,
2) there is data that suggests that human activity is the cause of this increase in CO2, and
3) there is data that suggests that this warming can have some very profoundly negative consequences for our civilization.

... says volumes.

To that end I will readily accede:

1) There is data that suggests recent spikes in CO2 concentration is having no effect on the overall global temperatures.
2) There may be some data that suggests humans are not responsible for recent CO2 spikes (I haven't seen any yet, but allow for the possibility it exists)
3) There is data that suggests warming might have some good consequences.
4) The scientists studying this stuff WILL get things wrong on occasion.

Any real scientist would say essentially the same. One has to allow for the possibility that they are wrong. The IPCC takes some pains to admit there is a lot they *don't* know, especially about how the system of our earths climate interacts.

In this thread I have been pretty much unable to get honest, straight answers from anybody who professes to be a skeptic of man-made climate change.

The fact that one side admits they *might* be wrong, and the other side *won't* pretty much shows to anybody with common sense who is being honest.




So, you're saying there is a good case for skepticism. No need for this thread then and no need for the term "deniers" or "pseudoscience".

/thread

[RandomGuy]

So, you're saying there is a good case for skepticism. No need for this thread then and no need for the term "deniers" or "pseudoscience".

/thread

Not at all.

I said "there is data".

From what I understand the data pretty much overwhelmingly shows CO2 to be the main cause of warming trends.

Taking what data there is, blowing it far out of proportion in terms of how much weight it should be given, and failing to acknowledge the shortcomings of that are quite the hallmarks of pseudoscience.

Nice try at spin though. THAT kind of intellectual dishonesty is the kind of thing that proves the premise of the OP.

/thread.

[MannyIsGod]

LOL Darrin finds a study that agrees with him and shows that the IPCC might have been wrong in an instance but ignores the thousands that don't agree with him. Amazing.

[DarrinS]

LOL Darrin finds a study that agrees with him and shows that the IPCC might have been wrong in an instance but ignores the thousands that don't agree with him. Amazing.

lol -- A study

[DarrinS]

How does CO2 correlate with tempreature vs total solar irradiance?

Go check and get back to me.

[DarrinS]

Oh, here's a peer-revied study

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/Soon05-SolarArcticTempGRLfinal.pdf

[DarrinS]

From what I understand the data pretty much overwhelmingly shows CO2 to be the main cause of warming trends.




It's okay RG, I used to believe that too.

[DarrinS]

Maybe the "real" climate science just needs better marketing.


:lmao


Britons going cold on global warming: Number of climate change sceptics doubles in four years


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1351217/Climate-change-sceptics-double-4-years-Britain-goes-cold-global-warming.html

[RandomGuy]

Oh, here's a peer-revied study

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/Soon05-SolarArcticTempGRLfinal.pdf

Good. As I said, I am sure there are some out there like this. I would be surprised if there wasn't.

By the by, did you actually notice the blurb at the end...?


This scientific research was supported by generous grants from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, American Petroleum Institute, and Exxon-Mobil Corporation.

Or did you choose to leave that rather pertinent bit out?

[TeyshaBlue]

Good. As I said, I am sure there are some out there like this. I would be surprised if there wasn't.

By the by, did you actually notice the blurb at the end...?



Or did you choose to leave that rather pertinent bit out?

lol..they also fund NPR.

[RandomGuy]

lol..they also fund NPR.

Indeed they do.

I cannot logically dismiss any such scientific papers simply because they are funded by trillion dollar industries, and just happen to confirm how blameless those industries might be for a certain potential problem.

I can however, ask to see studies backing those up from more independent sources.

Time will tell though. Given that the next 24 years or so will see CO2 emissions equal to the last century or so, I can expect the evidence for/against CO2 as a warming factor to get much more stark.

All I really need to do is wait to see who is right. We live in the test tube.

We don't need certain knowledge however, to take some prudent risk-avoiding steps, while we wait to firm up our knowledge of the processes and overall system, as I have pointed out.

Such a conservative approach though, is eschewed by the people who would liberally accept risks that I do not. ;)

[TeyshaBlue]

lol...it's almost Pavlovian...when I read Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, I immediately thought of NPR.:lol

[MannyIsGod]

You can certainly find studies that are at odds with aspects of AGW theory. Thats nothing new, and nothing to be unexpected. My point from earlier still stands, Darrin. You're cherry picking to find whatever suits your conformation bias. It is what it is.

Also, your cherry picking is fucking horrible. The author of the peer reviewed paper you linked above has been discredited in the peer review process in several scientific journals. Feel free to do some research on him and his research.

Furthermore, when temperature goes up, so does CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. If you want to know why this isn't the case at the moment, you can look at the past rises in temp and tell me what the time frame was for CO2 rises and whether or not we currently fit into that pattern.

[RandomGuy]

You can certainly find studies that are at odds with aspects of AGW theory. Thats nothing new, and nothing to be unexpected. My point from earlier still stands, Darrin. You're cherry picking to find whatever suits your conformation bias. It is what it is.

Also, your cherry picking is fucking horrible. The author of the peer reviewed paper you linked above has been discredited in the peer review process in several scientific journals. Feel free to do some research on him and his research.

Furthermore, when temperature goes up, so does CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. If you want to know why this isn't the case at the moment, you can look at the past rises in temp and tell me what the time frame was for CO2 rises and whether or not we currently fit into that pattern.

Willie Soon... sounds like a knock knock joke.

Knock knock..

who's there?

Willie Soon

Willie Soon who?

Willie Soon be writing scientific papers?

FWIW, the scientific critique of Darrin's given article. (http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2003/prrl0319.html)

Seems the evidence Soon used was less suited to temperature, and more suited to determining moisture/drought.


First, in using proxy records to draw inferences about past climate, it is essential to assess their actual sensitivity to temperature variability. In particular, the authors say, Soon and Baliunas misuse proxy data reflective of changes in moisture or drought, rather than temperature, in their analysis.

Astonishing what the peer review process actually does. :wow

[DarrinS]

http://www.e-publications.org/ims/submission/index.php/AOAS/user/submissionFile/6695?confirm=63ebfddf

[MannyIsGod]

Thats not the 2006 paper Darrin linked, RG.

[DarrinS]

from RG's prev post




7 July 2003
AGU Release No. 03-19
For Immediate Release
Contact: Peter Weiss
+1 (202) 777-7507
[email protected]


Leading Climate Scientists Reaffirm View that Late 20th Century Warming Was Unusual and Resulted From Human Activity




Read this. It's a very good paper and NOT funded by evil capitalist overlords.


http://www.e-publications.org/ims/submission/index.php/AOAS/user/submissionFile/6695?confirm=63ebfddf

[RandomGuy]

Thats not the 2006 paper Darrin linked, RG.

Ah.. fair enough.

[RandomGuy]

from RG's prev post




Read this. It's a very good paper and NOT funded by evil capitalist overlords.

That is a good one, IMO.


While our results agree with the climate scientists findings in some
respects, our methods of estimating model uncertainty and accuracy are in
sharp disagreement.


On the one hand, we conclude unequivocally that the evidence for a
”long-handled” hockey stick (where the shaft of the hockey stick extends
to the year 1000 AD) is lacking in the data. The fundamental problem is
that there is a limited amount of proxy data which dates back to 1000 AD;
what is available is weakly predictive of global annual temperature.


Nevertheless, the temperatures
of the last few decades have been relatively warm compared to many of the
thousand year temperature curves sampled from the posterior distribution
of our model.

The proxies for estimating past temperatures are only weakly predictive.

I can accept that rather unsurprising conclusion.

Even so, the authors point out something that occurred to me in my reading:


Nonetheless, paleoclimatoligical reconstructions constitute only
one source of evidence in the AGW debate.

Given the increasing amount of modern satellite and measuring station data, we don't quite have to rely on such reconstructions to determine the issue one way or the other.

Lastly:

Why did you not lead with links like this, and instead rely on ad hominems, and strawmen logical fallacies?

[RandomGuy]

from RG's prev post

Leading Climate Scientists Reaffirm View that Late 20th Century Warming Was Unusual and Resulted From Human Activity


Read this[other thing that I think rebuts that] It's a very good paper and NOT funded by evil capitalist overlords.


the last few decades have been relatively warm compared to many of the thousand year temperature curves sampled from the posterior distribution of our model.

Not sure you noted that bit, but I think we can all agree it is getting a bit warmer at this point, yes?