Global warming over the last 16 years

[IanC]

Saigon- I love all the work that is being done on climate change. unfortunately I see a serious bias towards making the conclusions as alarmist and catastrophic as possible. many climate scientists are acting more like lawyers trying to defend their client at all costs, including losing their respectability, than just stoic scientists that are only looking for facts.

 

[Saigon]

Ian -

I just don't see that at all - and, of course, this is where it becomes entirely subjective.

I do agree that some reports have been foolishly alarmist - but as mentioned, other reports have also been found not to be alarmist enough (e.g. Andean glacial melt).

I have only met one real climate scientist, and he struck me as as honest, hard-working and open minded as anyone could hope for. The idea that he is part of some global conspiracy to commit fraud, or is guilty of junk science I find baffling.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGW is Big Business, it's taking over a nations economy and there's tons of money to be made in it

It sure as fuck ain't science

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Michael, this Global Warming is bigger than US Steel

 

[Saigon]

Frank -

A serious question here - what would you need to see in order to believe that human activity is causing climate change?

Please be specific, and I'll see if I can find that research for you.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank -

A serious question here - what would you need to see in order to believe that human activity is causing climate change?

Please be specific, and I'll see if I can find that research for you.

One repeatable scientific experiment demonstrating how a 100ppm increase in CO2 causes any much less all of the things you give it credit for

 

[IanC]

Ian -

I just don't see that at all - and, of course, this is where it becomes entirely subjective.

I do agree that some reports have been foolishly alarmist - but as mentioned, other reports have also been found not to be alarmist enough (e.g. Andean glacial melt).

I have only met one real climate scientist, and he struck me as as honest, hard-working and open minded as anyone could hope for. The idea that he is part of some global conspiracy to commit fraud, or is guilty of junk science I find baffling.

two points-

J Curry became a lukewarmer when she started talking to her collegues and they described to her how the work in their particular area of expertise wasnt behaving according to global warming theory, although they all still 'believed' that AGW was still correct.

S McIntyre is a Cambridge wrangler in mathematics. he came to the climate wars because the canadian govt sent a copy of the hockeystick graph to every household. Mc thought it looked fishy so he started inquiring, and the rest is history (that you should read). he is no wild eyed sceptic, he is a mathematical prodigy who is extremely good in deriving methodologies from incomplete information, and uncovering background data from other sources. he is also another lukewarmer that is more concerned about the poor science involved than whether CO2 and AGW theory is correct.


remember Bernie Madoff? there were people trying to warn the world about that scam for years before the economic collapse made it impossible to hide any longer. the whistleblowers were not treated well.

 

[Saigon]

Frank -

A serious question here - what would you need to see in order to believe that human activity is causing climate change?

Please be specific, and I'll see if I can find that research for you.

One repeatable scientific experiment demonstrating how a 100ppm increase in CO2 causes any much less all of the things you give it credit for

Right.

So actually no field research at all, regardless of who it was conducted by, how it was conducted, or what conclusions it drew, would convince you of climate change.

In which case there isn't much point discussing this with you, is there?

 

[edthecynic]

SSDD -

Of course it is possible to go on screaming that each and every report which analyses aspects of climate change are in some way faked - and then religously triumphing any reports which even hint at the opposite as if they were impeachable gospel; but it isn't a particularly credible position.

The idea that research conducted by literally hundreds of different research units, universities and private companies is all faked - and that only you and a handful of others know about it - is of no more credibility than claiming the Hoocaust was faked by the Jews.

warmers often call sceptics 'conspiracy theorists' because we state the the records have been changed, over and over again.

will you state that, say, the contiguous USA historical temps have not significantly changed since 1998?

Deniers often whine about temperature station being sited in improper locations, like at airports or near air conditioning vents, and they demand that their data be removed from any temperature calculation and the sites shut down.

Will you state that when the data is removed and the site shut down deniers bitch that the data record was changed and the number of reporting sites reduced by some nefarious socialist conspiracy?

 

[IanC]

SSDD -

Of course it is possible to go on screaming that each and every report which analyses aspects of climate change are in some way faked - and then religously triumphing any reports which even hint at the opposite as if they were impeachable gospel; but it isn't a particularly credible position.

The idea that research conducted by literally hundreds of different research units, universities and private companies is all faked - and that only you and a handful of others know about it - is of no more credibility than claiming the Hoocaust was faked by the Jews.

warmers often call sceptics 'conspiracy theorists' because we state the the records have been changed, over and over again.

will you state that, say, the contiguous USA historical temps have not significantly changed since 1998?

Deniers often whine about temperature station being sited in improper locations, like at airports or near air conditioning vents, and they demand that their data be removed from any temperature calculation and the sites shut down.

Will you state that when the data is removed and the site shut down deniers bitch that the data record was changed and the number of reporting sites reduced by some nefarious socialist conspiracy?

when has this happened? care to give me a few examples so that I can understand your context.

the great thermometer die off in the 90's affected high altitude and rural thermometers much more than urban and airport ones. please explain your last comment a little more thoroughly.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank -

A serious question here - what would you need to see in order to believe that human activity is causing climate change?

Please be specific, and I'll see if I can find that research for you.

One repeatable scientific experiment demonstrating how a 100ppm increase in CO2 causes any much less all of the things you give it credit for

Right.

So actually no field research at all, regardless of who it was conducted by, how it was conducted, or what conclusions it drew, would convince you of climate change.

In which case there isn't much point discussing this with you, is there?

Sure, we can still talk, but don't pretend you're still talking about science.

Deal?

 

[Saigon]

Frank -

I think we both know that even if a suitable lab experiment could be designed and implemented, you would reject the results outright.

What happens in a lab is of no real value here - what matters is what is happening to the planet on a daily basis. Just this month we have seen Sydney record its hottest daily temperature ever (46C), and Australia record its hottest daily temperature ever (40.5C).

We have also seen research released showing that the collapse of Andean glaciers has been more severe than previously estimated, and establsihing that many glaciers have fallen to half of the size they averaged in the 1970's.

If you actually cared at all about this topic or about science - that is what you'd be looking at.

 

[edthecynic]

warmers often call sceptics 'conspiracy theorists' because we state the the records have been changed, over and over again.

will you state that, say, the contiguous USA historical temps have not significantly changed since 1998?

Deniers often whine about temperature station being sited in improper locations, like at airports or near air conditioning vents, and they demand that their data be removed from any temperature calculation and the sites shut down.

Will you state that when the data is removed and the site shut down deniers bitch that the data record was changed and the number of reporting sites reduced by some nefarious socialist conspiracy?

when has this happened? care to give me a few examples so that I can understand your context.

the great thermometer die off in the 90's affected high altitude and rural thermometers much more than urban and airport ones. please explain your last comment a little more thoroughly.

And there is your basic denier's conspiracy theory in 5 words.
Thank you!

If these shut down temp stations are so accurate they will disprove global warming, why don't you deniers man them and collect your own data? Instead you attack everyone else's data with none of your own!!!!
Very revealing!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank -

I think we both know that even if a suitable lab experiment could be designed and implemented, you would reject the results outright.

What happens in a lab is of no real value here - what matters is what is happening to the planet on a daily basis. Just this month we have seen Sydney record its hottest daily temperature ever (46C), and Australia record its hottest daily temperature ever (40.5C).

We have also seen research released showing that the collapse of Andean glaciers has been more severe than previously estimated, and establsihing that many glaciers have fallen to half of the size they averaged in the 1970's.

If you actually cared at all about this topic or about science - that is what you'd be looking at.

No, if you had a repeatable experiment, I would be convinced that you weren't totally full of shit. As it is, all you guys ever do is post weather events and go, "See that! Manmade Global Warming!!" it's a cult, it's not science

I can even post record snowfalls and cold and you Cultists still go, "yeah, it's cold BECAUSE of Global Warming!"

Also, what if the glacier are melting because that's exactly what they've been doing since the temperature increased by 8 degrees 14,000 years ago? How does that validate your Cult? What if it's soot from greater industrial output in China and India?

I noticed you didn't even bother to post the experiment you're saying I would reject. Why is that?

 

[Saigon]

Frank -

Because we both know that the experiment is a red herring.

It is of absolutely no importance and relevance here, and if it was, you wouldn't be mentioning it.

Being able to reproducing a black hole in a lab makes no difference to the exisrtance of black holes.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank -

Because we both know that the experiment is a red herring.

It is of absolutely no importance and relevance here, and if it was, you wouldn't be mentioning it.

Being able to reproducing a black hole in a lab makes no difference to the exisrtance of black holes.

Lab is where real science is done. Either show us how a wisp of CO2 alters the temperature or climate or we treat you like a Cult

It's that simple.

Here's a hint: If the Lab is being unkind to your theory, the fault is not in the lab

 

[Saigon]

Frank -

Can black holes be reproduced in labs?

Do you accept that black holes exist?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank -

Can black holes be reproduced in labs?

Do you accept that black holes exist?

Stop deflecting.

You have a theory, test it in a lab.

If there are too many variables in the system to be properly reproduced in the lab you cannot say with any confidence (unless you're a Cult) that your theory is accurate.

How odd that science can produce black holes in a lab, but you can't show us AGW

 

[Saigon]

Frank -

Ok, so we have established that lab tests are not actually the key here at all.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank -

Ok, so we have established that lab tests are not actually the key here at all.

We've established AGW is not science.

Artificial black hole created in lab - physicsworld.com

Pseudo Black Hole Created in Lab | Space.com

Scientists create artificial mini 'black hole'