Understanding the Global Warming Debate

[IanC]

the problem with pro-AGW science is that it is too often influenced by the scientists looking for evidence to support their preformed conclusions rather than examining the evidence and then making conclusions that fit the overall conditions.

things like the hockey stick graph go against written history that was put down by people with no interest in this debate. just because Michael Mann found an obscure and incorrect mathematical method that twisted the equivical evidence of proxy data into his preferred history, that does not mean we should ignore the other interpretations produced by more standard methodologies that are buttressed by writen history.

a more recent problem is the troubling revisions being done to the temperature histories. I had hoped that the BEST dataset was going to straighten things out but instead they seem to have added yet another methodology to twist things around. the method of chopping up the data and excluding outlying points has been used to mold the shape of the graphs, often at the expense of reality.

got changed to

this has happened in just the last few months. the temp record doesnt match up with the reality of what happened!! Iceland suffered hardship and decreased production when the temps dipped so they know it really happened but GHCN and GISS have cut and homogenized it out of existence.

 

[westwall]

Global warming is one of my favorite political debates to just sit back and watch. The proponents for the theory say that the scientists who are skeptical are ignoring facts, dishonest, or bought and paid for by the evil corporations who are out to destroy the world ala Captain Planet villains. The skeptics claim that the scientists who adhere to the theory are ignoring facts, dishonest, or bought and paid for by idealist ex hippy elite politicos who want to freeze technological advancement and turn the planet into a giant, eco friendly commune.

The greatest thing about all these proponents and skeptics is how unerringly their opinion on this topic is separated along the exact same lines as partisan politics. When practically every democrat I talk to/hear from believes we're melting the icecaps and heading for day after tomorrow, and practically every republican I hear from is certain that the whole theory was cooked up as part of a global, Marxist conspiracy, I can't help but assume that most of the opinions formed by non climate scientists on this matter are simply an extension of their political identity, and in no way a product of honest logic.

I would even go so far as to say that most of the people siting articles that they've read weren't actually swayed by these essays. If you look deep down and self assess with any level of integrity, I'd be willing to bet that most of you had an opinion in mind and simply set out to find literature that supports a preconceived narrative. Sometimes, the only honest answer is, "I don't know enough about that to say one way or the other."

I am a scientist (geology) and I was once a devout warmist. I modified a great part of my life to conform to those ideals. Then, a student of mine (who I freely admit is a lot smarter than I am) began to ask some very troubling questions that I had no answer for.
The two of us then did the research neccessary to determine if what we were being told made sense.

I was shocked to discover that no, it didn't. I have worked as an environmental geologist for 90% of my rather long career and I wouldn't trade a bit of it. I really do care about the environment. the warmists don't. They care about power and wealth. That is what drives them.

 

[westwall]

No they don't... you're dishonest and a liar. Also good job with the Nazi comparison, jackass. Sorry... but neonazi's already exist... and they are certainly not on this playground.

I have many friends in Germany and their saying is the Greens are the new Reds. Neonazis are incompetant morons who live in a little dream world. Your cohorts are trying to institute a global government and they are using environmental laws to do it. You're an admitted socialist so for you it's OK.

I, on the other hand, actually read history books and socialist countries ALLWAYS fail, but usually not before they kill mass quantities of their citizens in the name of collectivisation.

LOL. So, dumb fuck, you finally admit that you are just another rightwingnut. Damned obvious from the lies you tell and the people you quote.

Not a rightwing nut. I'm very liberal in most things. I do however read and the warmist have said those are their goals. But thanks for playing. We KNOW you're a shill for the oil companies and the other gross polluters, hell you work for a gross polluter.

 

[westwall]

I guess you don't know what rapid means or the kind of timescale I'm talking about.

I guess you don't understand much about the world. Here's a friendly bit of advice. Go back and look at all the predictions and claims that the AGW crowd have made. Everytime, and I mean everytime their claims or predictions have been tested they have been wrong. A more colossal lack of accuracy would be impossible to find in the scientific community. To get as dead wrong as the AGW crowd have been you need to look at astrologers. Actually astrologers are more accurate. You have to drop down to palm readers to get the type of failure the AGW crowd has enjoyed.

"The scientists say the hybrid sharks are a combination of the common blacktip shark and the smaller Australian blacktip shark, which lives in warmer tropical waters near the coastline.

The researchers say the new, hybrid sharks live along a 200 kilometer stretch of Australia's northeastern coast but have ventured more than 1,600 kilometers south, to cooler waters.

The scientists say they do not know for certain why the two species started interbreeding but suggest it may be an evolutionary process to adapt to climate change or pressures on their food supply.

The findings appear in the journal Conservation Genetics."


Aussie Sharks ‘Evolving’ « VOA Breaking News

At the turn of this century, the deniers were stating that there was no warming, that it was all made up. Then, as the warming became obvious, they changed their tune to it is warming, but we have nothing to do with it.

Now they are claiming that it is cooling, in spite of the fact that the last decade was the warmest on record.

Yes, the people like Hansen have given some incorrect predictions. They really thought that the melting that we are seeing right now in the Arctic would not occur until mid-century. They thought that we would not see significant Arctic Ocean clathrate emissions until the end of the century, not in 2011. The scientists predictions have been far more accurate than that of posiers like Walleyes. The majority of predictions have erred by not being alarmist enough.

Arctic methane emergency

Wrong as usual. Rush Limbaugh probably qualifies for your statement but sceptics have allways acknowledged the fact the planet was warming. We are arguing the cause of the warming. we have allways claimed that it is due to natural variability. We are being proven correct, no matter how hard your high priests falsify and hide their data.

 

[westwall]

Note that the deniers here seldom link to real science in support of their denial. All they have is yap-yap. Because real science states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

By the way, Walleyes, I know full well who Dr. Tanya Atwater is, and of her work exemplery work in tectonics and concerning subduction zones. I found referance to her papers concerning the black smokers in the rift zones, but not a single referance to any claim that they were in any way linked to the increase in acidity in the oceans. Another red herring on your part. How about links to specific papers rather than vague yap-yap to change the subject.

Well then you didn't look hard enough did you? Black smokers are volcanic in origin. They pour ENORMOUS amounts of CO2 into the local area. Amazingly enough they are islands of life in an otherwise sterile world. I've known Tanya for over 30 years and she does do excellent work. She's a little too liberal for my tastes but she is a friend going back many years. You know, you could ask her about Dr. Anikouchine. She knows him too. He's still a consultant in Santa Barbara.

 

[westwall]

Most sea life can't even adapt to a sudden(in terms of evolutionary scale) change of even one degree in ocean temperature without dying off. They have to migrate to fit in their comfort range, which is drastically impeded or even impossible if the ocean currents are altered, which is particularly possible not simply due to increasing temperatures on earth, but by the thermohaline circulation problems it creates.

Demonstrably and provable untrue. The main stress on sea life is overfishing. Do you know anything, or are you just capable of parroting the party line?

I guess you've never studied biology... jackass. What does biology have to do with "the party line", whatever the fuck that is? Most aquatic species have a threshold of temperature variances that they are able to tolerate and still survive... whether it means by being able to breed, or simply just being able to still live. Temperature isn't the only variable either.

Go back to school, idiot.

Resorting to personal insults now are we? A sure sign that it is you who need to go back to school. You are far, far out of your depth.

 

[saveliberty]

Come on westwall, all the Faithers know volcaneos have no impact on CO2 releases. Their scientists told them that....

 

[Cowman]

Demonstrably and provable untrue. The main stress on sea life is overfishing. Do you know anything, or are you just capable of parroting the party line?

I guess you've never studied biology... jackass. What does biology have to do with "the party line", whatever the fuck that is? Most aquatic species have a threshold of temperature variances that they are able to tolerate and still survive... whether it means by being able to breed, or simply just being able to still live. Temperature isn't the only variable either.

Go back to school, idiot.

Resorting to personal insults now are we? A sure sign that it is you who need to go back to school. You are far, far out of your depth.

Insults and profanity are not a sign of improper education. Ignorance and lack of knowledge are, which you are demonstrating remarkably.

Idiot. <--- Oh no! This must mean I need to go back to school, where children are taught to not hurl insults at stupid people!

 

[westwall]

I guess you've never studied biology... jackass. What does biology have to do with "the party line", whatever the fuck that is? Most aquatic species have a threshold of temperature variances that they are able to tolerate and still survive... whether it means by being able to breed, or simply just being able to still live. Temperature isn't the only variable either.

Go back to school, idiot.

Resorting to personal insults now are we? A sure sign that it is you who need to go back to school. You are far, far out of your depth.

Insults and profanity are not a sign of improper education. Ignorance and lack of knowledge are, which you are demonstrating remarkably.

Idiot. <--- Oh no! This must mean I need to go back to school, where children are taught to not hurl insults at stupid people!

No, they are not. They are a sign of insecurity and a lack of the proper education to allow you to carry on a conversation erudite enough to make your point without resorting to the use of insults. It is a sign of an ignorant person. Please note, I am not calling you stupid, that is not fixable, ignorance is.

As far as my educational boni fides, suffice to say I've had a PhD for probably longer than you've been alive. I am not too sure what level of education you have attained but whatever level it is, and from whichever institution you may or may not have graduated from, they clearly did you no favors.

And that is sad.

 

[code1211]

Global warming is one of my favorite political debates to just sit back and watch. The proponents for the theory say that the scientists who are skeptical are ignoring facts, dishonest, or bought and paid for by the evil corporations who are out to destroy the world ala Captain Planet villains. The skeptics claim that the scientists who adhere to the theory are ignoring facts, dishonest, or bought and paid for by idealist ex hippy elite politicos who want to freeze technological advancement and turn the planet into a giant, eco friendly commune.

The greatest thing about all these proponents and skeptics is how unerringly their opinion on this topic is separated along the exact same lines as partisan politics. When practically every democrat I talk to/hear from believes we're melting the icecaps and heading for day after tomorrow, and practically every republican I hear from is certain that the whole theory was cooked up as part of a global, Marxist conspiracy, I can't help but assume that most of the opinions formed by non climate scientists on this matter are simply an extension of their political identity, and in no way a product of honest logic.

I would even go so far as to say that most of the people siting articles that they've read weren't actually swayed by these essays. If you look deep down and self assess with any level of integrity, I'd be willing to bet that most of you had an opinion in mind and simply set out to find literature that supports a preconceived narrative. Sometimes, the only honest answer is, "I don't know enough about that to say one way or the other."

I was on the side of the AGW crowd when i still didn't know what Anthropogenic meant. The more i found out, the less convinced i became.

To be a doubter, you only need to have doubts. To be proponent, you need to be dead on certain.

I don't understand how anybody can be dead on certain about something that is so poorly understood that any conclusion is, and has been, made.

What sent me on the road to doubting was the first time that I heard that we had warmed about 0.7 degrees in 2000 years. This is hardly cause for panic. In fact, the speaker of this fact noted that far from runaway warming, this was astonishing stability.

I agree.

 

[code1211]

Global warming is one of my favorite political debates to just sit back and watch. The proponents for the theory say that the scientists who are skeptical are ignoring facts, dishonest, or bought and paid for by the evil corporations who are out to destroy the world ala Captain Planet villains. The skeptics claim that the scientists who adhere to the theory are ignoring facts, dishonest, or bought and paid for by idealist ex hippy elite politicos who want to freeze technological advancement and turn the planet into a giant, eco friendly commune.

The greatest thing about all these proponents and skeptics is how unerringly their opinion on this topic is separated along the exact same lines as partisan politics. When practically every democrat I talk to/hear from believes we're melting the icecaps and heading for day after tomorrow, and practically every republican I hear from is certain that the whole theory was cooked up as part of a global, Marxist conspiracy, I can't help but assume that most of the opinions formed by non climate scientists on this matter are simply an extension of their political identity, and in no way a product of honest logic.

I would even go so far as to say that most of the people siting articles that they've read weren't actually swayed by these essays. If you look deep down and self assess with any level of integrity, I'd be willing to bet that most of you had an opinion in mind and simply set out to find literature that supports a preconceived narrative. Sometimes, the only honest answer is, "I don't know enough about that to say one way or the other."

There is not a single Scientific Society, a single National Academy of Science, or a single major University that states that AGW is wrong. Almost all state that it represents a clear and present danger. That is a strong a consensus as you are going to get in science.

You can see the history of the investigation of the science of GHGs here;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

That is the American Institute of Physics, a scientific society made up of scientific societies.

You can see current peer reviewed studies here;

AGW Observer

And the scientific society that has the most members involved in studying the affects of AGW, the American Geophyical Union states this concerning global warming;

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

AGU Position Statement

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system&#8212;including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons&#8212;are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956&#8211;2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change&#8212;an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade&#8212;is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and&#8212;if sustained over centuries&#8212;melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

Rocks, the problem with your scientific sites and sources and attributions and quotes and all the rest is that they all say what might happen.

There has been enough time and there is enough data to say what has happened if anything has.

Where is the runaway greenhouse effect occurring? Venus is too far from neighborhood to be of any interest.

 

[code1211]

I guess you don't know what rapid means or the kind of timescale I'm talking about.

I guess you don't understand much about the world. Here's a friendly bit of advice. Go back and look at all the predictions and claims that the AGW crowd have made. Everytime, and I mean everytime their claims or predictions have been tested they have been wrong. A more colossal lack of accuracy would be impossible to find in the scientific community. To get as dead wrong as the AGW crowd have been you need to look at astrologers. Actually astrologers are more accurate. You have to drop down to palm readers to get the type of failure the AGW crowd has enjoyed.

"The scientists say the hybrid sharks are a combination of the common blacktip shark and the smaller Australian blacktip shark, which lives in warmer tropical waters near the coastline.

The researchers say the new, hybrid sharks live along a 200 kilometer stretch of Australia's northeastern coast but have ventured more than 1,600 kilometers south, to cooler waters.

The scientists say they do not know for certain why the two species started interbreeding but suggest it may be an evolutionary process to adapt to climate change or pressures on their food supply.

The findings appear in the journal Conservation Genetics."


Aussie Sharks ‘Evolving’ « VOA Breaking News

At the turn of this century, the deniers were stating that there was no warming, that it was all made up. Then, as the warming became obvious, they changed their tune to it is warming, but we have nothing to do with it.

Now they are claiming that it is cooling, in spite of the fact that the last decade was the warmest on record.

Yes, the people like Hansen have given some incorrect predictions. They really thought that the melting that we are seeing right now in the Arctic would not occur until mid-century. They thought that we would not see significant Arctic Ocean clathrate emissions until the end of the century, not in 2011. The scientists predictions have been far more accurate than that of posiers like Walleyes. The majority of predictions have erred by not being alarmist enough.

Arctic methane emergency

Hansen predicted that the warming we see right now would only occur if the infusion of CO2 into the atmosphere was reversed and was in truth declining.

Can you say anything that involves the whole truth instead of just half of it?

 

[code1211]

How is proving that you are a clueless idiot a strawman?

Still having a problem with that whole proofy thingy, aren't we.

First prove your assertion that CO2 increasing from current levels will cause catastrophic warming.

A good place to start is how the increase from the levels of 280 has already caused catastrophic warming.

Go ahead and present the proof that has never been produced up until now by any person in any sector at any time.
I'll wait...

And you know for a fact that is a bullshit statement, Code. For those that do not know, here is a statement from the people who know the most about the impact of weather disasters that are driven by the presently rapidly changing climate.

Of course, the denial will come immediatly. But these are the people that measure the costs worldwide. And Munich Re states exactly the same thing. The insurers of the insurance companies understand full well what is happening as the costs of disasters increase every decade as the temperatures do the same.

Climate Change Adaptation: A Case for Preventative Action and Risk Transfer | World Resources Report

Global efforts to address climate change have been in disarray following the failed talks in Copenhagen. But even if all carbon emissions were stopped at once, climate trends would continue to expose local populations to the mounting challenges - and costs - of protecting greater asset values against weather-related risks. These range from more frequent and severe storms, floods, droughts and other natural disasters to sea level rise, crop failures, and water shortages. Innovative insurance solutions involving partners from the public and private sectors offer local decision-makers cost-effective ways to secure funding before a disaster strikes and make their communities more resourceful when it does.

Adapting to the unavoidable impacts of climate change

Economic losses from climate change are already substantial and on the rise. Over half of the world’s population is presently threatened by natural hazards, and insured losses from weather-related disasters have jumped from USD 5.1 billion (GBP 3.4 billion) per year in the period between 1970 and 1989 to USD 27 billion (GBP 17.7 billion) annually over the last two decades[1]. In Europe alone, losses from surge events along the North Sea coast are expected to more than quadruple from an annual average of EUR 600 million (GBP 530 billion) to EUR 2.6 billion (GBP 2.3 billion) towards the end of this century[2]. But the most vulnerable and least prepared regions are in the developing world. Climate risks could cost emerging economies up to 19 percent of their total gross domestic product by 2030, predicts the Economics of Climate Adaptation (ECA) working group in its 2009 study “Shaping Climate-Resilient Development.”[3]

Another half truth.

The amount of damage caused by any weather event is the result of where property of value is located in relation to the event. No property to damage means there is not damage to pay for.

No coastal property to damage means that there will very likely be no damage to report and conversely, if a hotel was recently built or a house or a marina, then there is property to damage.

Why do you continue to present lies and disingenuous misrepresentations of unrelated data as proof that there is a rise in the amount of severe storms when there is ample evidence that the strength and number of storms is declining?

Another good question for you: If hurricanes feed on warmer water and if the temperature of the oceans is declining as shown by the Argo Array, how, in direct violation of the natural way of things, COULD there be an increase in hurricanes?

III. Air and Water Issues

Most scientists recognize that we have had increasing temperatures for the past 150 years or more. Yet, in spite of U.N. and EPA proclamations to the contrary, there is no evidence supporting any of the tragic consequences that are supposed to accompany global warming, such as increased number and strength of hurricanes, super hot summers, and Antarctic icecap melting. For instance, the U.S. National Hurricane Center states that "during the forty year period 1961-2000 both the number and intensity of land-falling U.S. hurricanes decreased sharply!"2 The same is true of hurricane intensity. As can be seen from Figure 2, hurricane frequency and intensity in the Atlantic Ocean follow cycles, some of them longer than others. After nearly 50 years of declining frequency and intensity, an increase is long overdue. The downward trend may be reversing with the 2005 hurricane season. Even with the huge hurricanes of Katrina and Rita, however, Figure 2 shows that 2005 still has a long way to go to even get to the average of 5-6 major hurricanes in a season. Several years will be needed to determine if 2005 is an aberrant or shows a true trend back to what was experienced in the 1940s and 1950s. The same is true of hurricane intensity.3

 

[skookerasbil]

Resorting to personal insults now are we? A sure sign that it is you who need to go back to school. You are far, far out of your depth.

Insults and profanity are not a sign of improper education. Ignorance and lack of knowledge are, which you are demonstrating remarkably.

Idiot. <--- Oh no! This must mean I need to go back to school, where children are taught to not hurl insults at stupid people!

No, they are not. They are a sign of insecurity and a lack of the proper education to allow you to carry on a conversation erudite enough to make your point without resorting to the use of insults. It is a sign of an ignorant person. Please note, I am not calling you stupid, that is not fixable, ignorance is.

As far as my educational boni fides, suffice to say I've had a PhD for probably longer than you've been alive. I am not too sure what level of education you have attained but whatever level it is, and from whichever institution you may or may not have graduated from, they clearly did you no favors.

And that is sad.

West......Im pumped. Looks like we have a new regular k00k in here to beat up on.

 

[saveliberty]

Yep, starting to curdle too. Wonder how long before its cheese?