The global warming thread. Is it for real?

[skookerasbil]

My God these climate crusaders are the most predictable boring mother fuckers walking.......week after week, month after month and year after year, the same stale old flim flam. What draws people to such obscene levels of meh? And heres the thing that is most mind blowing.......they do this shit in perpetual manner AND SOLVE FUCKING NOTHING!!! Its like.....hmmm......Ive banged my head against this wall thousands of times now......maybe this one last time and I'll break through. Its fucking fascinating.......they've accomplished exactly ZERO in the real world with their shit. Youve heard of psycho-babble? This is science-babble.


I guess I shouldnt complain.......dont know what I'd do without these freaks in my internet world. Would certainly be a world with far less laughs, thats for sure!!!!

 

[Saigon]

There's a lot of debate regarding global warming.

Not among those who have the education, understanding and experience within the relevant fields of knowledge for the question you ask.

For the purposes of this thread I would only like to debate whether the Earth is actually warming or not.

It is not genuinely debatable. It is possible to discuss some of the details and how those details will play out given various public policy choices that we make from here on out, but whether or not the climate is warming, and the primary reasons for it warming, are simply observational facts not something that can be rationally and logically disputed.

Exactly, and very well said.

I'm glad to see there is discussion, but as anyone can see from these threads, that debate is largely now limited to people with poor literacy and extreme right-wing views.

Skooks is a perfect example of where Climate Denial is at.

 

[percysunshine]

There's a lot of debate regarding global warming.

Not among those who have the education, understanding and experience within the relevant fields of knowledge for the question you ask.

For the purposes of this thread I would only like to debate whether the Earth is actually warming or not.

It is not genuinely debatable. It is possible to discuss some of the details and how those details will play out given various public policy choices that we make from here on out, but whether or not the climate is warming, and the primary reasons for it warming, are simply observational facts not something that can be rationally and logically disputed.

I disagree. When two different measurements or measurement methodologies give different results, the discrepancies need to be resolved. It is the essence of scientific debate. Further debate arises when said empirical data is used, in one for or another, as a basis for mathematical modeling of non-linear physical systems, like the thermal properties of the atmosphere.

 

[Wroberson]

I can't help you here, but the short term trend is for more cooling. I'm not going to go into HDD's and CDD's as I have something more important to me to discuss in a different thread. All I can say is that this May had 224 HDD. 2012 May had 126 HDD and May 2011 had 292 HDD, but the 1st 5 months of 2013 HDD total is higher than both 2011 and 2012.

For petro, all I can suggest is that the Meteor of Russia brought in and created a lot of atmospheric ice. The Solar Cycle is at max causing some of the ice to melt and fall as rain. I expect the trend to continue. The reason it will continue is due to a volcano eruption in Alaska. Soon there will be too must dust pollution in the atmosphere and each particle will be unable to collect enough water to fall as rain. This will create a mirror and reflect sunlight and heat back into space before it reaches the ground. On top of this, solar max is ending and the low output according to NOAA should decrease as we begin our trek to solar min.

If you want more on why I believe this cooling trend will continue and eventually get worse for 2014, you'll need to learn more about comet ISON this November and again in January. The short on this is in November ISON passes through Earth's plane of orbit around the Sun and in January, we pass through the debris field of ice left by ISON as we continue our orbit around the Sun.

Man may play a part in global warming, but there are bigger more powerful nasties that cause total disruption.

 

[Saigon]

I disagree. When two different measurements or measurement methodologies give different results, the discrepancies need to be resolved. It is the essence of scientific debate. Further debate arises when said empirical data is used, in one for or another, as a basis for mathematical modeling of non-linear physical systems, like the thermal properties of the atmosphere.

Absolutely - I doubt anyone will disagree with that.

But to me it is a bit like the police investigating a murder in that they can use evidence to identitfy the murderer and murder weapon, without necessarily being able to dot every 'i' or cross every 't'.

We definitely need to understand more about thr heating of oceans, in particular.

But I don't personally feel that the link between CO2 and temperature can be considered theoretical or debatable at his point.

 

[SSDD]

But I don't personally feel that the link between CO2 and temperature can be considered theoretical or debatable at his point.

That is a completely stupid statement considering the fact that there has been no warming for going on 20 years now in spite of record increases in atmospheric CO2. That fact not only makes the idea debatable, it seriously calls the hypotheisis into question. How many years of flatline or cooling must happen before you give up the idea that CO2 is the control knob? The experts said 10, then they said 15. 15 has come and gone. How many now? CO2 follows temperature around...it doesn't lead.

 

[Old Rocks]

But I don't personally feel that the link between CO2 and temperature can be considered theoretical or debatable at his point.

That is a completely stupid statement considering the fact that there has been no warming for going on 20 years now in spite of record increases in atmospheric CO2. That fact not only makes the idea debatable, it seriously calls the hypotheisis into question. How many years of flatline or cooling must happen before you give up the idea that CO2 is the control knob? The experts said 10, then they said 15. 15 has come and gone. How many now? CO2 follows temperature around...it doesn't lead.

You are completely full of shit. The temperature took a big jump in 1998. That was 15 years ago. Right now, at the outset of a La Nina, May was +0.7 C. That is the highest point that the running mean reached prior to the 1998 runup.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2013_v5.5.png

If you run a line across the tops of the running means, excluding the 1998 Super El Nino, and across the bottoms of the runing means, excluding Pinitubo, you will get two lines of very similiar slope, for a 34 year period. And that slope is and will continue to be up.

 

[Saigon]

CO2 follows temperature around...it doesn't lead.

Overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occurs after the atmospheric CO2 increase.

Figure 3: The global proxy temperature stack (blue) as deviations from the early Holocene (11.5–6.5 kyr ago) mean, an Antarctic ice-core composite temperature record (red), and atmospheric CO2 concentration (yellow dots). The Holocene, Younger Dryas (YD), Bølling–Allerød (B–A), Oldest Dryas (OD) and Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) intervals are indicated. Error bars, 1-sigma; p.p.m.v. = parts per million by volume. Shakun et al. Figure 2a.

 

[Oddball]

correlation ≠ causation

 

[SSDD]

You are completely full of shit. The temperature took a big jump in 1998. That was 15 years ago. Right now, at the outset of a La Nina, May was +0.7 C. That is the highest point that the running mean reached prior to the 1998 runup.

Denial...even when warmest experts acknowledge the half in warming. Ride that crazy train right to the end of the tracks and off the cliff.

 

[SSDD]

correlation ≠ causation

They just can't grasp the fact that CO2 follows temperature around. Not the other way around. No worries though. The AGW crazy train is rubbing out of track mort quickly every day

 

[percysunshine]

I disagree. When two different measurements or measurement methodologies give different results, the discrepancies need to be resolved. It is the essence of scientific debate. Further debate arises when said empirical data is used, in one for or another, as a basis for mathematical modeling of non-linear physical systems, like the thermal properties of the atmosphere.

Absolutely - I doubt anyone will disagree with that.

But to me it is a bit like the police investigating a murder in that they can use evidence to identitfy the murderer and murder weapon, without necessarily being able to dot every 'i' or cross every 't'.

We definitely need to understand more about thr heating of oceans, in particular.

But I don't personally feel that the link between CO2 and temperature can be considered theoretical or debatable at his point.

That is the 'modeling' part of my comment. It is entirely debatable that using a simple one or two linear parameter lab experiment is an appropriate basis for modeling a complex non-linear global circulation system.

I might also point out that it is debatable whether or not your legal system 'preponderance of evidence' metaphor is the best one to refer to. We start wandering into the subject of mathematical probabilities with the consequences of policies, and drift away from the science. My preferred method for pure empirical science based subjects is to use the Kent scale;


Kent’s Words of Estimative Probability[2]

Certain 100% Give or take 0%

The General Area of Possibility
Almost Certain 93%; Give or take about 6%
Probable 75%; Give or take about 12%
Chances About Even 50%; Give or take about 10%
Probably Not 30%; Give or take about 10%
Almost Certainly Not 7%; Give or take about 5%

Impossible 0; Give or take 0%

Link:
Words of estimative probability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Medicine tends to use a coarser version of this type of information analysis, and the legal system-yet another. When it comes to the policy side, the actuarial insurance model is an excellent tool for objectively combining the risks with cost/benefit. We get to ask ourselves how do the benefits of a policy, and the associated cost, compare with similar situtions we face. When I get on an airplane, do I insist on a 0% probability of crashing? (The cost being infinite) And how do these already arrived at decisions and policies relate to the new policy in question.

Anyway, that is where I stand on the subject.

 

[PMZ]

correlation ≠ causation

They just can't grasp the fact that CO2 follows temperature around. Not the other way around. No worries though. The AGW crazy train is rubbing out of track mort quickly every day

Apparently the concept of greenhouse gasses eludes you. No worries, mate. We've left you behind.

 

[Oddball]

correlation ≠ causation

They just can't grasp the fact that CO2 follows temperature around. Not the other way around. No worries though. The AGW crazy train is rubbing out of track mort quickly every day

Apparently the concept of greenhouse gasses eludes you. No worries, mate. We've left you behind.

Apparently, the concept of an infinitely diverse, flexible and dynamic ecosystem eludes you.

No worries, mate...Malthus, Galbraith and Ehrlich proved out to be dead wrong too...You won't be without company.

 

[CultureCitizen]

They just can't grasp the fact that CO2 follows temperature around. Not the other way around. No worries though. The AGW crazy train is rubbing out of track mort quickly every day

Apparently the concept of greenhouse gasses eludes you. No worries, mate. We've left you behind.

Apparently, the concept of an infinitely diverse, flexible and dynamic ecosystem eludes you.

No worries, mate...Malthus, Galbraith and Ehrlich proved out to be dead wrong too...You won't be without company.

Sory , but Malthus was not wrong ... you can clearly see what happens when you outgrow your resources is a civilizational collapse. It happened in Easter Island, it happend to the Vikings in Greenland and it happened to the Mayans.

 

[PMZ]

They just can't grasp the fact that CO2 follows temperature around. Not the other way around. No worries though. The AGW crazy train is rubbing out of track mort quickly every day

Apparently the concept of greenhouse gasses eludes you. No worries, mate. We've left you behind.

Apparently, the concept of an infinitely diverse, flexible and dynamic ecosystem eludes you.

No worries, mate...Malthus, Galbraith and Ehrlich proved out to be dead wrong too...You won't be without company.

You aren't the first, nor the last, to feel entitled to the truth that you'd prefer. It's a common human ailment. As you sit on the sidelines cheering for your home team, keep in mind though that the universe does not at all care what you personally want. The universe made you the speck that you are and the environment that you are a spec within.

Life always adapts. Specks sometimes. Your personal decision on that is irrelevant to the outcome. Scientists are learning and doers are doing and mankind has moved on without you.

Some, like you, on the sidelines, will be booing with you. Fewer every game. Then none. Typically takes a few decades.

 

[Trakar]

There's a lot of debate regarding global warming.

Not among those who have the education, understanding and experience within the relevant fields of knowledge for the question you ask.

For the purposes of this thread I would only like to debate whether the Earth is actually warming or not.

It is not genuinely debatable. It is possible to discuss some of the details and how those details will play out given various public policy choices that we make from here on out, but whether or not the climate is warming, and the primary reasons for it warming, are simply observational facts not something that can be rationally and logically disputed.

I disagree. When two different measurements or measurement methodologies give different results, the discrepancies need to be resolved. It is the essence of scientific debate. Further debate arises when said empirical data is used, in one for or another, as a basis for mathematical modeling of non-linear physical systems, like the thermal properties of the atmosphere.

Largely irrelevant to the nearly 200 year old basics of AGW, which are built upon fundamental atmospheric radiative transfer physics and identification and sourcing of atmospheric carbon.

More to your point, however, I am not aware of any debatable, significant discrepancy in measurement methodology for any major AGW finding or proposal, at the least, nothing that would rise to the level of calling any of the basic precepts of AGW or climate science in general into question. If you believe that you have compelling evidence of such, please cite and reference that evidence.

 

[Oddball]

Apparently the concept of greenhouse gasses eludes you. No worries, mate. We've left you behind.

Apparently, the concept of an infinitely diverse, flexible and dynamic ecosystem eludes you.

No worries, mate...Malthus, Galbraith and Ehrlich proved out to be dead wrong too...You won't be without company.

You aren't the first, nor the last, to feel entitled to the truth that you'd prefer. It's a common human ailment. As you sit on the sidelines cheering for your home team, keep in mind though that the universe does not at all care what you personally want. The universe made you the speck that you are and the environment that you are a spec within.

Life always adapts. Specks sometimes. Your personal decision on that is irrelevant to the outcome. Scientists are learning and doers are doing and mankind has moved on without you.

Some, like you, on the sidelines, will be booing with you. Fewer every game. Then none. Typically takes a few decades.

Not cheering for any home team...I'm going with the facts.....They're stubborn things.

Fact remains that almost all of history's doom-and-gloomers, most claiming "inarguable facts" to be on their side, have ended up being wrong.

Interesting, though, that you should mention that life adapts, yet somehow, by implication, the entire planet's ecosystem cannot.

Oh, and there are fewer and fewer booing and more and more laughing out loud.....We're laughing at you, not with you.

 

[Oddball]

Apparently the concept of greenhouse gasses eludes you. No worries, mate. We've left you behind.

Apparently, the concept of an infinitely diverse, flexible and dynamic ecosystem eludes you.

No worries, mate...Malthus, Galbraith and Ehrlich proved out to be dead wrong too...You won't be without company.

Sory , but Malthus was not wrong ... you can clearly see what happens when you outgrow your resources is a civilizational collapse. It happened in Easter Island, it happend to the Vikings in Greenland and it happened to the Mayans.

Right...Maulthus wasn't wrong.

What date was it that the world population outstripped its ability to feed itself again?...I forget.

 

[percysunshine]

Not among those who have the education, understanding and experience within the relevant fields of knowledge for the question you ask.



It is not genuinely debatable. It is possible to discuss some of the details and how those details will play out given various public policy choices that we make from here on out, but whether or not the climate is warming, and the primary reasons for it warming, are simply observational facts not something that can be rationally and logically disputed.

I disagree. When two different measurements or measurement methodologies give different results, the discrepancies need to be resolved. It is the essence of scientific debate. Further debate arises when said empirical data is used, in one for or another, as a basis for mathematical modeling of non-linear physical systems, like the thermal properties of the atmosphere.

Largely irrelevant to the nearly 200 year old basics of AGW, which are built upon fundamental atmospheric radiative transfer physics and identification and sourcing of atmospheric carbon.

More to your point, however, I am not aware of any debatable, significant discrepancy in measurement methodology for any major AGW finding or proposal, at the least, nothing that would rise to the level of calling any of the basic precepts of AGW or climate science in general into question. If you believe that you have compelling evidence of such, please cite and reference that evidence.

Climate Audit