a cursory glance at the data presented here shows numerous past instances of similar if not steeper gradients in both directions. On what grounds do you claim current trends were unprecedented?
sluggaslamoo,
if you really want to draw creationism into this discussion, please ask yourself which side of that debate ignores evidence contrary to their theory while relying solely on their 'holy scriptures', then ask yourself which side of this debate exhibits comparable behavior.
Hint: Computer models, if treated with only enough reverence, qualify as 'holy scriptures', and real world data is evidence.
Acrofales,
On February 07 2012 19:42 Acrofales wrote: Before rehashing bullshit from 10 pages back, you could at least have checked...
On February 09 2012 02:20 shuurai wrote: EmperorKira,
a cursory glance at the data presented here shows numerous past instances of similar if not steeper gradients in both directions. On what grounds do you claim current trends were unprecedented?
sluggaslamoo,
if you really want to draw creationism into this discussion, please ask yourself which side of that debate ignores evidence contrary to their theory while relying solely on their 'holy scriptures', then ask yourself which side of this debate exhibits comparable behavior.
Hint: Computer models, if treated with only enough reverence, qualify as 'holy scriptures', and real world data is evidence.
The discussion afterwards pretty much destroys the entire argument.
I'm sure that in your perception, the argument was indeed 'destroyed'. Yet for anyone looking straight past the ad hominem, it wasn't.
Fair enough. Go ahead, if you want to insist on believing reports in politically biased magazines, written by rather dubious characters, rather than, I dunno, actual science. I am sorry for interrupting your litany.
EDIT: for the record, it's not an ad hominem. That piece is a load of donkey shit interlaced with bogus statements and the only reason people give it any credibility is because it is signed by 16 "scientists". Showing that those scientists do not know jack about climate science thus removes the credibility of the piece. If your argument for being believed is an appeal to authority, then you cannot cry "boohoo ad hominem" when people discredit that authority.
a cursory glance at the data presented here shows numerous past instances of similar if not steeper gradients in both directions. On what grounds do you claim current trends were unprecedented?
Well, the data shown is only up to the start of the 1900s.
This gives a nicer graph of the temperature in the past 2000 years but its less about the temperature and more about CO2 levels. Its a proven fact that higher CO2 leads to higher temperature. the fact is, the huge amount of co2 put into the atmoshpere still hasn't been felt to the fullest. Temperature lags behind CO2. As for the unprecedentedness, take a look at this graph of co2 levels over the last 400K years:
Further links, some papers, some news: [url=http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm[/url] [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8299426.stm]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8299426.stm[/url] [url=http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1704.full.pdf]http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1704.full.pdf[/url] [url=http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/Full/2007/06-07-07/Item%2010b.pdf]http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/Full/2007/06-07-07/Item%2010b.pdf[/url] Really, the best thing to read is the IPCC report, its pretty comprehensive.
the graph in your first link (btw, you should remember to close your url tags), albeit certainly "nicer" in supporting your point than the raw ice core data, is one of much contention. It is the infamous "hockey stick" by Michael E, Mann, very prominently featured in the IPCC's 2001 TAR (Third Assessment Report). Mann is in fact being prosecuted for fraud because of it, among other things, and it gave birth to the humorous phrase "Mann made global warming".
Why, you ask?
If you compare the graph to the ones I posted, you will see that around 1000 AD, there is a temperature peak dwarfing current levels. As this makes for a highly inconvenient context for claiming unprecedented warming, Mann decided to simply erase it. A canadian skeptic, Ross McKitrick, actually fed random numbers into Mann's 'model' and whaddayaknow? A hockey stick emerged!
Well, the data shown is only up to the start of the 1900s.
Yes, but one can follow it up with the instrumental records available from there. Doesn't result in any particularly alarming picture.
Really, the best thing to read is the IPCC report, its pretty comprehensive.
A leading german environmentalist, Fritz Vahrenholt, was asked to review a passage of theirs a while ago, came across innumerable errors, and began to wonder if the rest of the reports were equally shoddy. After some rumination, he recently published a book severely criticizing the IPCC's science. Maybe it's not quite as comprehensive as you believe it to be, after all? Its chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, a railroad engineer for those of you constantly asking for "climate science" credentials, is actually better known for writing sleazy novels -- incidentally starring an aging climate scientist -- than scientific papers. But, admittedly, that -- being ad hominem -- should not reflect on his competence.
Its a proven fact that higher CO2 leads to higher temperature.
Quite to the contrary, it's a proven fact that in the past, CO2 levels have trailed temperature with a significant lag. This is explained by CO2 going in (cooling) and out (warming) of solution in the oceans. If the positive feedback posited by the AGW theory was real, any single warming phase should thus have propelled the system right into irreversible runaway warming, which it obviously did not. Also, paleoclimatic CO2 levels were many times higher than today's (Cambrian period 530 million years ago had ~7000 ppm compared to today's ~400, i.e. factor 17.5), without any of the supposedly directly correlated temperature increase. How does that fit the bill of the carbocentric models? Simple: it doesn't!
Not to forget the last decade, which saw unabated emissions of CO2 without any correlating temperature increase. Faced with this dilemma, the AGW crowd are now trying to sell the idea that, in accordance to their theory, there actually was a temperature increase, but it's hiding deep within the ocean. And if you're going to believe that, I have a nice bridge to sell to you!
On February 09 2012 04:05 shuurai wrote: EmperorKira,
the graph in your first link (btw, you should remember to close your url tags), albeit certainly "nicer" in supporting your point than the raw ice core data, is one of much contention. It is the infamous "hockey stick" by Michael E, Mann, very prominently featured in the IPCC's 2001 TAR (Third Assessment Report). Mann is in fact being prosecuted for fraud because of it, among other things, and it gave birth to the humorous phrase "Mann made global warming".
Why, you ask?
If you compare the graph to the ones I posted, you will see that around 1000 AD, there is a temperature peak dwarfing current levels. As this makes for a highly inconvenient context for claiming unprecedented warming, Mann decided to simply erase it. A canadian skeptic, Ross McKitrick, actually fed random numbers into Mann's 'model' and whaddayaknow? A hockey stick emerged!
Really, the best thing to read is the IPCC report, its pretty comprehensive.
A leading german environmentalist, Fritz Vahrenholt, was asked to review a passage of theirs a while ago, came across innumerable errors, and began to wonder if the rest of the reports were equally shoddy. After some rumination, he recently published a book severely criticizing the IPCC's science. Maybe it's not quite as comprehensive as you believe it to be, after all? Its chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, a railroad engineer for those of you constantly asking for "climate science" credentials, is actually better known for writing sleazy novels -- incidentally starring an aging climate scientist -- than scientific papers. But, admittedly, that -- being ad hominem -- should not reflect on his competence.
Its a proven fact that higher CO2 leads to higher temperature.
Quite to the contrary, it's a proven fact that in the past, CO2 levels have trailed temperature with a significant lag. This is explained by CO2 going in (cooling) and out (warming) of solution in the oceans. If the positive feedback posited by the AGW theory was real, any single warming phase should thus have propelled the system right into irreversible runaway warming, which it obviously did not. Also, paleoclimatic CO2 levels were many times higher than today's (Cambrian period 530 million years ago had ~7000 ppm compared to today's ~400, i.e. factor 17.5), without any of the supposedly directly correlated temperature increase. How does that fit the bill of the carbocentric models? Simple: it doesn't!
Not to forget the last decade, which saw unabated emissions of CO2 without any correlating temperature increase. Faced with this dilemma, the AGW crowd are now trying to sell the idea that, in accordance to their theory, there actually was a temperature increase, but it's hiding deep within the ocean. And if you're going to believe that, I have a nice bridge to sell to you!
So you opt to just ignore anything anyone said for the last 10 pages? What is your motive? Why do you post?
I mean if you don't like looking at facts cool, but at least don't pretend you do.
1. Whoa Fritz Vahrenholt, a leading german environmentalist. Apparently any environmentalist who questions climate change in a sensationalist newspaper, qualifies as a leading environmentalist. He has a doctorate in chemistry. Would I consult a dentist about my cancer?
I don't really care what the IPCC has to say about things, but if you could provide evidence that there are many academic papers saying the same thing sure I will believe you. Not that I care that much. Much like I don't listen to a Murdoch newspaper when he talks about climate change.
2. Where is your evidence? As it has been said one million times in this thread, the earth is warming.
Where is my evidence? oh i dunno, the raw 250mg dataset retrieved from 39,390 unique stations that shows that the earth is warming. A project funded by a company that would gain a lot from proving that AGW doesn't exist, run by a professor in climate science that had a negative view on the current methodology and wanted to run an independent study, that still showed the earth was warming.
The stations did show that the earth was warming faster in the ocean than on land. So what? It is merely an observation, nothing else, the earth is still warming.
On February 09 2012 02:17 Crushinator wrote: I am skeptical by nature, and have been skeptical about man made global warming in the past. I have sought some information about it, however, and I am fairly confident that man made global warming is accurate. That is, man has been a significant factor in the recent warming period. But while gathering information there was one thing that bugged me. Please forgive me, because I'm sure this is realy simplistic:
Even if it is all true, why should we not just accept that its going to get a bit warmer? It seems to me that cutting down on CO2 at all, or enough to have a significant effect, is going to be an impossible task for various political, economic and demographic reasons. Would it not be better to simply prepare for a warmer future rather than to attempt to prevent the inevitable?
Presumably the temperature will not rise to unlivable conditions, and will just reach some equilibrium higher than what it is now. We would have to move away from current coastal regions maybe build some dykes and what not, probably abandon some islands, but that doesn't seem that troublesome to me. Forgive the jest, but to me it isn't such a big deal that polar bears are going to be getting a bit hot. Also, why do I never hear anyone speak of potential positive effects of a warmer climate? Am I not looking hard enough? In short, why should I care? If someone could point out why I am an idiot for thinking this way, that would be lovely.
Worse natural disasters, more natural disasters. Our record drought has been a huge hit to our agricultural industry, our recent bushfires have ruined the livelihood of many they have been the worst on record, we also had a record cyclone hit Australia recently, and the place has been flooded up to the roofs of houses 3 times in 2 years.
If worst comes to worst, the great ocean belt may stop working and Europe will go into an ice age. Yes will can live with it, but why not do something about it. The irony is many compare economy vs climate change, when currently our economy is already suffering due to climate change and will suffer more.
You may think I'm painting a picture of doom and gloom, but if its already happening so I don't really know what to say. I'm not gonna be like, hey if you install solar panels you are more likely to have a happier life or something stupid like that.
it seems that you are well convinced of your hypothesis that all hundreds of 'regular' climate scientists are much more stupid than you are and follow some weird conspiracy (that does not make sense in anyway from a motivation point of view) while the people you quote as for example a highlevel employee of RWE, the second-biggest CO2 emitter in Germany, do it for their righteousness. I have been civil throughout this thread to most posters, but your attitude is hypocritic and nonsensical and is seriously compromising the idea behind this thread..
you take snippets of theory as godgiven and pretend we dont discuss them in the community. thats simply bullshit. most if not all of your standard sceptic arguments (it is not by change that you will find an answer to each and every point you make on websites like scepticalscience; these points have been made a billion times and have been contradicted left and right) is explicitly discussed within the IPCC and the climate science community. I seriously doubt that you have read AR4 (or understood°). And if you did, what you write must either be bad intent or just trolling.
But for the record / others:
a) yes, Mann's first reconstruction had some errors, no, nobody has ever shown that this statistical errors were significant. all published reconstructions show the same signal, 20c is warmer then the last 1k years and the warming rate is unprecedented. There are reconstructions for global SATs (mann is NH only), there are new ones by climate sceptical physicists that resulted in the exactly same result : earth is warming. So stop beating this very dead horse, please.
b) carbon leads temperature: again, you either refuse to understand simple science (Bachelor level) or you just want to blatantly lie to people: every climate scientist starting from BA level knows that the glacial - interglaical cycles were initialised by temperature anomalies due to orbital changes. those temperature anomalies were enhanced by an ocean - carbon feedback that led to more co2 in the atmosphere, which in turn (this is ridicously easy and basic physics, radiative transfer models anyone?) lead to warmer atmosphere. this has been discussed a billion time in this thread, please refrain from repeating things that are simply wrong. No climate scientist ever disputed your facts, you just fail to put them into context.
c) computer models are anything but holy scripture, please stop embarassing yourself. do you know the Isaac NEwton Institute for MAthematics in Cambridge? The Pure and Applied MAthematics Institute in Los Angeles? The insitute for applied science in Jerusalem? These are just a few institutions which are NON climate science institutions which have hosted big workshops to analyse climate model uncertainties in the past years. Scientists discuss, talk, they will find problems and might find solutions. We are not part of a big conspiracy, even if this does not fit into your worldview °
d) the ipcc AR5 will have 4 chapters on model results, 9 on data and process understanding. so, even if are the smartest person on the world and you can prove that everything that is within contemporary GCMs is wrong, this will not invalidate anything concerning paleo evidence, 20c detection and process understanding.
e)the supposed conspiracy theory to prevent the truth to be told: If I would be able to write a paper that would show that the Climate problem is bogus and that 20c warming can be explained by a process that is unrelated to anthropogenic CO", I would probably get the physics nobel prize and would be the most famous scientist on this planet. Do you really think this could be prevented in an open world with hundreds of new climate science related PhDs each year? REally? You seriously have no idea of how science works °J°
So, to conclude: please stop embarassing your self and stop annoying most readers of this thread;your points have been made a billion times and there are responses and discussion for most in the OP or in scepticalscience. If you have any more questions please contact me via PM and dont spam / revive this thread with the clear agenda to destroy the civil discussion that was going on before you joined the thread.
btw, a question to moderators / old time TL lurkers:
I dont have the time nor motivation to follow-up a single person who refuses to read earlier posts like shuurai. I also dont like this thread to become an uncontested playing field for denialist propaganda; that would invalidate a lot of work that myself and a lot of others put into this thread °J°
is it possible to just close the thread at one point? I enjoyed most of the discussion and a lot of good questions and problem have already been raised and people could still PM questions that could be put up in the OP.
so if anyone knows how to achieve such a thing, please pm me
On February 09 2012 02:17 Crushinator wrote: I am skeptical by nature, and have been skeptical about man made global warming in the past. I have sought some information about it, however, and I am fairly confident that man made global warming is accurate. That is, man has been a significant factor in the recent warming period. But while gathering information there was one thing that bugged me. Please forgive me, because I'm sure this is realy simplistic:
Even if it is all true, why should we not just accept that its going to get a bit warmer? It seems to me that cutting down on CO2 at all, or enough to have a significant effect, is going to be an impossible task for various political, economic and demographic reasons. Would it not be better to simply prepare for a warmer future rather than to attempt to prevent the inevitable?
Presumably the temperature will not rise to unlivable conditions, and will just reach some equilibrium higher than what it is now. We would have to move away from current coastal regions maybe build some dykes and what not, probably abandon some islands, but that doesn't seem that troublesome to me. Forgive the jest, but to me it isn't such a big deal that polar bears are going to be getting a bit hot. Also, why do I never hear anyone speak of potential positive effects of a warmer climate? Am I not looking hard enough? In short, why should I care? If someone could point out why I am an idiot for thinking this way, that would be lovely.
dear crushinator,
its good questiond and something that is worth to be discussed on a political level.
you cannot get a scientific answer to what level of sea level rise or temperature change or biosphere capacity or ocean acidification (you get the point °) is acceptable. scientists can only supply a best guess of what will happen if we continue a certain path of global emissions. I believe that the science that analyzes the costs and dangers of near-term climate change is still very young. I would not believe single numbers that have been brought forward as to how much cc will cost in global GDP in 2100.
I still believe, that there is the danger of overextending Earths ability to cope with the demands a 9 billion population will put upon Earth very soon. I for example (its just IMHO°)would rank the dangers as follows:
- precipitation changes ( we just do not understand precipitation well enough to do a good forecast, so I fear we might get surprised in one way or the other) - sea level rise (longterm): a lot of people live close to the seas! - ocean acidification: again, its more caution than knowledge, we just dont know what will happen with the food chain in the oceans if the acidify the ocean to much.
temperature changes directly are probablz the lest dangerous consequence of climate change, people can adapt to temperature quite good, as can be seen by people living in alaska and kenia
On February 09 2012 08:49 dabbeljuh wrote: dear shuurai, + Show Spoiler +
it seems that you are well convinced of your hypothesis that all hundreds of 'regular' climate scientists are much more stupid than you are and follow some weird conspiracy (that does not make sense in anyway from a motivation point of view) while the people you quote as for example a highlevel employee of RWE, the second-biggest CO2 emitter in Germany, do it for their righteousness. I have been civil throughout this thread to most posters, but your attitude is hypocritic and nonsensical and is seriously compromising the idea behind this thread..
you take snippets of theory as godgiven and pretend we dont discuss them in the community. thats simply bullshit. most if not all of your standard sceptic arguments (it is not by change that you will find an answer to each and every point you make on websites like scepticalscience; these points have been made a billion times and have been contradicted left and right) is explicitly discussed within the IPCC and the climate science community. I seriously doubt that you have read AR4 (or understood°). And if you did, what you write must either be bad intent or just trolling.
But for the record / others:
a) yes, Mann's first reconstruction had some errors, no, nobody has ever shown that this statistical errors were significant. all published reconstructions show the same signal, 20c is warmer then the last 1k years and the warming rate is unprecedented. There are reconstructions for global SATs (mann is NH only), there are new ones by climate sceptical physicists that resulted in the exactly same result : earth is warming. So stop beating this very dead horse, please.
b) carbon leads temperature: again, you either refuse to understand simple science (Bachelor level) or you just want to blatantly lie to people: every climate scientist starting from BA level knows that the glacial - interglaical cycles were initialised by temperature anomalies due to orbital changes. those temperature anomalies were enhanced by an ocean - carbon feedback that led to more co2 in the atmosphere, which in turn (this is ridicously easy and basic physics, radiative transfer models anyone?) lead to warmer atmosphere. this has been discussed a billion time in this thread, please refrain from repeating things that are simply wrong. No climate scientist ever disputed your facts, you just fail to put them into context.
c) computer models are anything but holy scripture, please stop embarassing yourself. do you know the Isaac NEwton Institute for MAthematics in Cambridge? The Pure and Applied MAthematics Institute in Los Angeles? The insitute for applied science in Jerusalem? These are just a few institutions which are NON climate science institutions which have hosted big workshops to analyse climate model uncertainties in the past years. Scientists discuss, talk, they will find problems and might find solutions. We are not part of a big conspiracy, even if this does not fit into your worldview °
d) the ipcc AR5 will have 4 chapters on model results, 9 on data and process understanding. so, even if are the smartest person on the world and you can prove that everything that is within contemporary GCMs is wrong, this will not invalidate anything concerning paleo evidence, 20c detection and process understanding.
e)the supposed conspiracy theory to prevent the truth to be told: If I would be able to write a paper that would show that the Climate problem is bogus and that 20c warming can be explained by a process that is unrelated to anthropogenic CO", I would probably get the physics nobel prize and would be the most famous scientist on this planet. Do you really think this could be prevented in an open world with hundreds of new climate science related PhDs each year? REally? You seriously have no idea of how science works °J°
So, to conclude: please stop embarassing your self and stop annoying most readers of this thread;your points have been made a billion times and there are responses and discussion for most in the OP or in scepticalscience. If you have any more questions please contact me via PM and dont spam / revive this thread with the clear agenda to destroy the civil discussion that was going on before you joined the thread.
Thanks a lot and peace out
W
A lot of the same rhetoric is thrown back and forth so I propose a more political question, considering this is a highly funded science now. Shouldn't the money being thrown at changing CO2 production be better invested? Not all skeptics are oil barons and not all supporters of AGW are hippies, but I think expecting developing countries to stop industrializing is short sighted and hegemonic.
At a time when alternative energy is inefficient and expensive (I realize its getting cheaper but that's at a very small scale), how do we, the West, have the decency to tell the Third World not to use coal reserves, when it's cheap and plentiful?
I don't support every "liberal" argument regarding "the West" vs. the "Third World", but in the context of industrialization, I can't help but support the argument organization like the WTO and the IPCC are keeping the poorer countries poor.
if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. AGW ACC is a controversial topic; starting a thread about it expecting everyone to subscribe to your opinion (and if I wasn't aiming for civility I might say "warmist propaganda") will likely lead to disillusionment.
How did I 'destroy the civil discourse', and how do you know I'm 'annoying most readers of this thread'? As long as you don't present evidence, your claims remain mere conjecture -- much like the axioms of your chosen field of work, I'm afraid.
By the way, 99% of fortune tellers agree that fortune telling is real. Not believing them, alleging they were all "in" on some weird conspiracy makes absolutely no sense from a 'motivation point of view'. I hope you can see what I did there.
Which, as far as I'm concerned, concludes this non discussion. I made my points, and you made yours -- time will tell who was off the mark. In fact, it's already busy doing just that.
Obviously its impossible for me to know if you answered this earlier, but maybe you did.
What events could occur that would "disprove" the AGW theory. Basically, what is the Higgs-Boson test (Standard model goes out the window if they can't find it) for AGW?
In other words, is this even a science, or is it more an art?
On February 09 2012 10:11 cLutZ wrote: Obviously its impossible for me to know if you answered this earlier, but maybe you did.
What events could occur that would "disprove" the AGW theory. Basically, what is the Higgs-Boson test (Standard model goes out the window if they can't find it) for AGW?
In other words, is this even a science, or is it more an art?
Many skeptics agree it's an art, in that the computer models skew the data without putting it in the right context.
This thread and the OP is losing value more and more post by post and I thought it had little value to start. Climate science is supposedly the process of knowledge advancement surrounding the current body of knowledge riddled with unknowns and uncertainties. So what the hell is a "skeptical" or a "denialist" argument? Is "Classical Climate Science" supposed to have some kind of canon that should not be challenged, or must not be challenged if the use of "denialist" is acceptable. Is that heretical? In that case, your view would be a mockery of science.
Arguing against laymen on the core science is competing against overmatched competition. The best thing, the world demands from academics is good scientific process, openness of methodology and data, and even-handed interpretation of data. If the process of science is not upheld, the results are worthless. I don't understand how you expect not to be fighting on the defensive. In addition, acting as advocate reduces the effectiveness of science. It drops a hint of trying to trick people via selective analytic procedures.
Also, this is ignorance of common medical knowledge.
And global temperature rising/carbon emissions. Many more people die in impoverished countries from being too cold rather than being too hot.
I simply dont have the numbers to conclusivelz answer that. In europe the number of deaths due to hot spells is higher than the toll for cold winters, it might be different in poor countries but I doubt that because they tend to be warmer anyway.
Cold-related deaths are far more numerous than heat-related deaths in the United States, Europe, and almost all countries outside the tropics, and almost all of them are due to common illnesses that are increased by cold. In fact, any sort of temperature change to milder winters should be welcomed as well as lengthening growing periods. A change towards cold might be disastrous. If it's going to get warmer, it will be change in precipitation and sea levels that matter.
On February 09 2012 08:49 dabbeljuh wrote: dear shuurai, + Show Spoiler +
it seems that you are well convinced of your hypothesis that all hundreds of 'regular' climate scientists are much more stupid than you are and follow some weird conspiracy (that does not make sense in anyway from a motivation point of view) while the people you quote as for example a highlevel employee of RWE, the second-biggest CO2 emitter in Germany, do it for their righteousness. I have been civil throughout this thread to most posters, but your attitude is hypocritic and nonsensical and is seriously compromising the idea behind this thread..
you take snippets of theory as godgiven and pretend we dont discuss them in the community. thats simply bullshit. most if not all of your standard sceptic arguments (it is not by change that you will find an answer to each and every point you make on websites like scepticalscience; these points have been made a billion times and have been contradicted left and right) is explicitly discussed within the IPCC and the climate science community. I seriously doubt that you have read AR4 (or understood°). And if you did, what you write must either be bad intent or just trolling.
But for the record / others:
a) yes, Mann's first reconstruction had some errors, no, nobody has ever shown that this statistical errors were significant. all published reconstructions show the same signal, 20c is warmer then the last 1k years and the warming rate is unprecedented. There are reconstructions for global SATs (mann is NH only), there are new ones by climate sceptical physicists that resulted in the exactly same result : earth is warming. So stop beating this very dead horse, please.
b) carbon leads temperature: again, you either refuse to understand simple science (Bachelor level) or you just want to blatantly lie to people: every climate scientist starting from BA level knows that the glacial - interglaical cycles were initialised by temperature anomalies due to orbital changes. those temperature anomalies were enhanced by an ocean - carbon feedback that led to more co2 in the atmosphere, which in turn (this is ridicously easy and basic physics, radiative transfer models anyone?) lead to warmer atmosphere. this has been discussed a billion time in this thread, please refrain from repeating things that are simply wrong. No climate scientist ever disputed your facts, you just fail to put them into context.
c) computer models are anything but holy scripture, please stop embarassing yourself. do you know the Isaac NEwton Institute for MAthematics in Cambridge? The Pure and Applied MAthematics Institute in Los Angeles? The insitute for applied science in Jerusalem? These are just a few institutions which are NON climate science institutions which have hosted big workshops to analyse climate model uncertainties in the past years. Scientists discuss, talk, they will find problems and might find solutions. We are not part of a big conspiracy, even if this does not fit into your worldview °
d) the ipcc AR5 will have 4 chapters on model results, 9 on data and process understanding. so, even if are the smartest person on the world and you can prove that everything that is within contemporary GCMs is wrong, this will not invalidate anything concerning paleo evidence, 20c detection and process understanding.
e)the supposed conspiracy theory to prevent the truth to be told: If I would be able to write a paper that would show that the Climate problem is bogus and that 20c warming can be explained by a process that is unrelated to anthropogenic CO", I would probably get the physics nobel prize and would be the most famous scientist on this planet. Do you really think this could be prevented in an open world with hundreds of new climate science related PhDs each year? REally? You seriously have no idea of how science works °J°
So, to conclude: please stop embarassing your self and stop annoying most readers of this thread;your points have been made a billion times and there are responses and discussion for most in the OP or in scepticalscience. If you have any more questions please contact me via PM and dont spam / revive this thread with the clear agenda to destroy the civil discussion that was going on before you joined the thread.
Thanks a lot and peace out
W
A lot of the same rhetoric is thrown back and forth so I propose a more political question, considering this is a highly funded science now. Shouldn't the money being thrown at changing CO2 production be better invested? Not all skeptics are oil barons and not all supporters of AGW are hippies, but I think expecting developing countries to stop industrializing is short sighted and hegemonic.
At a time when alternative energy is inefficient and expensive (I realize its getting cheaper but that's at a very small scale), how do we, the West, have the decency to tell the Third World not to use coal reserves, when it's cheap and plentiful?
I don't support every "liberal" argument regarding "the West" vs. the "Third World", but in the context of industrialization, I can't help but support the argument organization like the WTO and the IPCC are keeping the poorer countries poor.
Except that is a political argument that was created by the western politicians themselves!
The US/Aus/UK all saying "we will not stop polluting unless 3rd world countries will follow suit" is extremely negligent!
A lot of European countries have at least made some nation-wide efforts already, they are not making up (as stupid) excuses like the US is.
On February 09 2012 09:21 shuurai wrote: dabbeljuh,
if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. AGW ACC is a controversial topic; starting a thread about it expecting everyone to subscribe to your opinion (and if I wasn't aiming for civility I might say "warmist propaganda") will likely lead to disillusionment.
How did I 'destroy the civil discourse', and how do you know I'm 'annoying most readers of this thread'? As long as you don't present evidence, your claims remain mere conjecture -- much like the axioms of your chosen field of work, I'm afraid.
By the way, 99% of fortune tellers agree that fortune telling is real. Not believing them, alleging they were all "in" on some weird conspiracy makes absolutely no sense from a 'motivation point of view'. I hope you can see what I did there.
Which, as far as I'm concerned, concludes this non discussion. I made my points, and you made yours -- time will tell who was off the mark. In fact, it's already busy doing just that.
No dude, this isn't a competition, if you have to increase the heat, get out of the discussion. This wasn't a discussion, because you're not even reading what other people write, and simply throwing in red herrings.
Do you really think that 97% of all the climate scientists around the globe who have been trained into being sceptical of their own and each others data are in on some big secret? LOL. They are working their hardest on disproving each other.
There has only been one good source posted in this whole 10 pages against, and that was a professor who talked about climate gate and the dodgy graph. Guess what, he did his own independent study and you can find out all about it. What does it say? The earth is still warming. Go grab the data, and create the graph yourself.
Oh wait you'd rather not put in the effort to actually look at the facts, but rather just listen to a douchebag on a commercial newpaper.
I wonder how many red-herrings are you going to post before you are satisfied?
Also
AGW ACC is a controversial topic
Things like this just show you have no idea what you are talking about.
On February 09 2012 10:11 cLutZ wrote: Obviously its impossible for me to know if you answered this earlier, but maybe you did.
What events could occur that would "disprove" the AGW theory. Basically, what is the Higgs-Boson test (Standard model goes out the window if they can't find it) for AGW?
In other words, is this even a science, or is it more an art?
Many skeptics agree it's an art, in that the computer models skew the data without putting it in the right context.
There is 250mgs of raw data from 30,000+ temperature reading stations around the world. Its freely available and you are free to create your own "computer model", aka, a graph from it. And form your own opinion about it. Go ahead.
On February 09 2012 10:20 TanGeng wrote: This thread and the OP is losing value more and more post by post and I thought it had little value to start. Climate science is supposedly the process of knowledge advancement surrounding the current body of knowledge riddled with unknowns and uncertainties. So what the hell is a "skeptical" or a "denialist" argument? Is "Classical Climate Science" supposed to have some kind of canon that should not be challenged, or must not be challenged if the use of "denialist" is acceptable. Is that heretical? In that case, your view would be a mockery of science.
Arguing against laymen on the core science is competing against overmatched competition. The best thing, the world demands from academics is good scientific process, openness of methodology and data, and even-handed interpretation of data. If the process of science is not upheld, the results are worthless. I don't understand how you expect not to be fighting on the defensive. In addition, acting as advocate reduces the effectiveness of science. It drops a hint of trying to trick people via selective analytic procedures.
Also, this is ignorance of common medical knowledge.
And global temperature rising/carbon emissions. Many more people die in impoverished countries from being too cold rather than being too hot.
I simply dont have the numbers to conclusivelz answer that. In europe the number of deaths due to hot spells is higher than the toll for cold winters, it might be different in poor countries but I doubt that because they tend to be warmer anyway.
Cold-related deaths are far more numerous than heat-related deaths in the United States, Europe, and almost all countries outside the tropics, and almost all of them are due to common illnesses that are increased by cold. In fact, any sort of temperature change to milder winters should be welcomed as well as lengthening growing periods. A change towards cold might be disastrous. If it's going to get warmer, it will be change in precipitation and sea levels that matter.
I'm not gonna debate about deaths and whether warmer or colder is better, I don't really know and I'm not going to pretend either.
However, global warming is about the earth land and ocean temps warming as a whole. According to the data posted by (berkeleyearth.org) 2/3rds of the earth is warming, while 1/3 is cooling, with the net temperature increase being quite positive.
Climate change is a side effect of global warming. Cold places may get much colder and hotter places much hotter, we may have bigger droughts in drought prone areas, and bigger floods in flood prone areas (as is happening on record in Aus right now). In simple terms we may (and are having) have bigger natural disasters like hurricanes/bushfires/floods/blizzards caused by the bigger extremities in temperature.
I'm sorry, but I fail to identify a single avenue for discussion in your posting(s). You flung a lot of baseless accusations in my general direction, most of which match your demeanor much better than mine.
You also seem to have trouble parsing common sayings, figuring out whether a post was addressed to you, distinguishing 'graphs' from 'models', and denominating data volumes. "250 mgs", seriously? Are those milligrams, or what?
Please, leave me alone. And let's just agree to disagree.
On February 09 2012 10:11 cLutZ wrote: Obviously its impossible for me to know if you answered this earlier, but maybe you did.
What events could occur that would "disprove" the AGW theory. Basically, what is the Higgs-Boson test (Standard model goes out the window if they can't find it) for AGW?
In other words, is this even a science, or is it more an art?
Many skeptics agree it's an art, in that the computer models skew the data without putting it in the right context.
Oh look, it's Roy Spencer again the guy who had flawed data his own colleagues warned him about in his inititial research, and then finally changed it after years of outcry from the scientific community.
I also forgot he was the intelligent design guy too, very cute. An evolution denialist and global warming denialist all in one....
EPT
