Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

1. Is climate change real or am a Fox News retard?

• Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Again, a failure to wonder how an institute founded in 1961 has data going back to 1880 as well as a failure to actually read what has already been posted in this thread.

1) Are the temperature recording methods consistent? Especially given the undocumented provenance of older data?
2) The data in question isn't even absolute temperature data - it is vs. some unknown and unstated 'average'
3) The biggest warming years also were AFTER the global warming scare

More importantly, the temperature record, even if accurate, doesn't prove man made global warming any more than more Muslims means Islam is the true religion.

In particular the question of how the massive fossil fuel use in WW II and post WWII Europe and America due to reindustrialization saw CO2 levels RISE but global temperatures FALL.

• The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.

Yes, and again even if the conflicting reports are untrue, it still doesn't answer the question of whether the warming is CO2 AND manmade, or is due to some other factor. This STILL fails to answer the questions on how past higher temperature levels without man made CO2 occurred, as well as how past Ice Ages with CO2 at 4000 ppm could have occurred.

• The Arctic is feeling the effects the most. Average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004.

Again, the failure to prove that temperature rises are both manmade and consistent. Eastern Russia's records in particular are extremely spotty. And the assertions of temperature rises in the Arctic seem inconsistent with what's posted in the next rebuttal below.

• Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 or earlier. Polar bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.

Again, a failure to actually read what was posted. As for the Polar Bear crap - the mislabelled pictures, the diminishment of the fact that Polar Bear populations are higher than than 20 years ago - I've already posted plenty of rebuttal to this ridiculous line of reasoning.

Secondly, the term ice free is a misnomer. The ice area always goes up and down.

Thirdly what is not being mentioned is that Arctic ice actually greatly increased last year:

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

Thirty years of sea ice data. The record begins at 1979, the year satellite observations began (Source: Arctic Research Center, University of Illinois)

Rapid growth spurt leaves amount of ice at levels seen 29 years ago.

Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.
Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.

...

Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery. Bill Chapman, a researcher with the UIUC's Arctic Center, tells DailyTech this was due in part to colder temperatures in the region. Chapman says wind patterns have also been weaker this year. Strong winds can slow ice formation as well as forcing ice into warmer waters where it will melt.

Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Oops, the models were wrong!

Oops the de-icing trend in the Arctic has broken.

Oops there's more ice than since before the current warming trend.

Oops I don't read anything but alarmist crap thus don't see when trends might change.

• Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting—for example, Montana's Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later.

• Coral reefs, which are highly sensitive to small changes in water temperature, suffered the worst bleaching—or die-off in response to stress—ever recorded in 1998, with some areas seeing bleach rates of 70 percent. Experts expect these sorts of events to increase in frequency and intensity in the next 50 years as sea temperatures rise.

Confusing correlation with causation. I've said before that there was a warming trend just as there now appears to be a cooling trend. Again this proves nothing with regards to whether these effects are due to man-made CO2 causes. As for bleaching - how much is due to pollution?

• An upsurge in the amount of extreme weather events, such as wildfires, heat waves, and strong tropical storms, is also attributed in part to climate change by some experts.

Wildfires - is it due to temperature or is it due to 40 years of wildfire suppression?

As for strong tropical storms, if this is true then it is certainly odd why Hurricane incidence is no higher than in the previous decades. Again a failure to actually read what has been previously posted.

Here's some new data: hurricane incidence in Florida/East Coast:

Florida hurricane incidence.gif

Doesn't look like hurricane incidence is increasing there

In fact NOAA itself has a paper showing decreasing hurricane incidence in the 5 decades leading up to 1996:

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/downward/

There is concern that the enhanced greenhouse effect may be affecting extreme weather events such as tropical cyclones. The North Atlantic basin offers a reliable, long-term record of tropical cyclone activity, though it may not be representative of tropical cyclones throughout the rest of the tropics. The most recent years of 1991 through 1994 have experienced the quietest tropical cyclone activity on record in terms of frequency of tropical storms, hurricanes, and intense hurricanes. This was followed by the 1995 hurricane season, one of the busiest in the past 50 years. Despite 1995's activity, a long-term (five decade) downward trend continues to be evident primarily in the frequency of intense hurricanes. In addition, the mean maximum intensity (i.e., averaged over all cyclones in a season) has decreased, while the maximum intensity attained by the strongest hurricane each year has not shown a significant change.

Oops! Maybe you should read something besides Al Gore and Hansen crap.

2. Is climate change caused by Humans, God, or Rush Limbaugh?

• Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, all greenhouse gases that help trap heat near Earth's surface. (See an interactive feature on how global warming works.)

And yet CO2 is the only one causing the problem? That is odd how human changes to surface albedo due to farming, urbanization, plant and animal husbandry; how human populations have exploded, etc etc are not factors. Oh yeah those can't be 'reversed' via a tax.

• Humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere much faster than plants and oceans can absorb it.

And yet past CO2 levels were 10 times or more higher, but without higher temperatures. And yet past temperature changes in fact preceded CO2 rises. So is CO2 causing higher temperatures or vice versa?

• These gases persist in the atmosphere for years, meaning that even if such emissions were eliminated today, it would not immediately stop global warming.

And so what? If the CO2 isn't the cause, then persistence is irrelevant. If CO2 in fact is increasing due to other effects such as warming of the oceans, then man-made CO2 emission reductions in fact won't do a damn thing.

• Some experts point out that natural cycles in Earth's orbit can alter the planet's exposure to sunlight, which may explain the current trend. Earth has indeed experienced warming and cooling cycles roughly every hundred thousand years due to these orbital shifts, but such changes have occurred over the span of several centuries. Today's changes have taken place over the past hundred years or less.

And so what is this assertion mean? That the warming of the earth cannot be due to any other causes than CO2? The way science works is you show how an asserted cause creates an asserted effect, not by saying the asserted effect can only have an asserted cause.

Furthermore you have yet to show me why 4000 ppm CO2 levels permit an Ice Age, and why 4500 BC global temperatures (and tree lines) 2 degrees higher/4000 feet elevation higher occurred given no man made CO2 or higher CO2 levels.

For that matter how it is possible that documented instances of more recent historical warming/cooling trends could have occurred when man made CO2 was obviously not a factor: Little Ice Age, Medieval Warming Period. That there is a concerted effort to minimize the MWP itself is pathetic despite evidence to the contrary:

http://www.livinginperu.com/features...ks-again-andes

The last time global warming came to the Andes it produced the Inca Empire. A team of English and U.S. scientists has analyzed pollen, seeds and isotopes in core samples taken from the deep mud of a small lake not far from Machu Picchu and their report says that "the success of the Inca was underpinned by a period of warming that lasted more than four centuries."

The four centuries coincided directly with the rise of this startling, hyper-productive culture that at its zenith was bigger than the Ming Dynasty China and the Ottoman Empire, the two most powerful contemporaries of the Inca.

"This period of increased temperatures," the scientists say, "allowed the Inca and their predecessors to expand, from AD 1150 onwards, their agricultural zones by moving up the mountains to build a massive system of terraces fed frequently by glacial water, as well as planting trees to reduce erosion and increase soil fertility.

"They re-created the landscape and produced the huge surpluses of maize, potatoes, quinua and other crops that freed a rapidly growing population to build roads, scores of palaces like Machu Picchu and in particular the development of a large standing army."

• Other recent research has suggested that the effects of variations in the sun's output are "negligible" as a factor in warming, but other, more complicated solar mechanisms could possibly play a role.

And equally other recent research has asserted that the vast majority of climate changes are due to various factors related to the sun. There is no 'consensus'.

3. What is going to happen or is this just Armageddon?

• Sea level could rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 to 59 centimeters) by century's end, the IPCC's February 2007 report projects. Rises of just 4 inches (10 centimeters) could flood many South Seas islands and swamp large parts of Southeast Asia.

Sea levels have changed before, and they will change again. So what? Is your assertion that stopping all man made CO2 emissions will stop this? If so it contradicts your earlier statement.

• Some hundred million people live within 3 feet (1 meter) of mean sea level, and much of the world's population is concentrated in vulnerable coastal cities. In the U.S., Louisiana and Florida are especially at risk.

And how is that relevant? If people want to live on the beach, they are going to get swamped. For one thing, even a normal hurricane has Storm Surge. The record storm surge levels are nearly 50 feet, and typical storm surge is 6 to 12 feet. So anyone living on a coast anywhere within 3 feet of sea level is already at risk whenever a hurricane swings by. The sea level rise is irrelevant compared to allowing people to build near the ocean.

For that matter, tidal surge is higher than the 'sea rise' alarmism levels as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide

The theoretical amplitude of oceanic tides caused by the Moon is about 54 centimetres (21 in) at the highest point, which corresponds to the amplitude that would be reached if the ocean possessed a uniform depth, there were no landmasses, and the Earth were not rotating. The Sun similarly causes tides, of which the theoretical amplitude is about 25 centimetres (9.8 in) (46% of that of the Moon) with a cycle time of 12 hours. At spring tide the two effects add to each other to a theoretical level of 79 centimetres (31 in), while at neap tide the theoretical level is reduced to 29 centimetres (11 in). Since the orbits of the Earth about the Sun, and the Moon about the Earth, are elliptical, tidal amplitudes change somewhat as a result of the varying Earth–Sun and Earth–Moon distances. This causes a variation in the tidal force and theoretical amplitude of about ±18% for the Moon and ±5% for the Sun. If both the Sun and Moon were at their closest positions and aligned at new moon, the theoretical amplitude would reach 93 centimetres (37 in).

If the maximum high tide surge is higher than the "mean sea level" for these several hundred million people, they and the government who let them build in these areas are stupid.

CO2 taxation won't save them.

Sea level rise = alarmism

• Glaciers around the world could melt, causing sea levels to rise while creating water shortages in regions dependent on runoff for fresh water.

This statement you are cribbing from Vandana Shiva is stupid.

For one thing, glacier melt is a finite resource much like an aquifer unless snowfall equals melt. Well, if the glaciers are melting faster than replenishment, then the short term should see MORE water, not less.

Yes, it will ultimately run out but the question isn't the melting of the glacier. It is the usage of the snowfall/rainfall in the watershed feeding the river.

• Strong hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, wildfires, and other natural disasters may become commonplace in many parts of the world. The growth of deserts may also cause food shortages in many places.

The hurricanes aren't getting stronger now, and haven't been for the entire 'warming cycle' thus far - completely at odds with IPCC assertions.

global_running_ace half.jpg

• More than a million species face extinction from disappearing habitat, changing ecosystems, and acidifying oceans.

And how much of this is due to man made CO2? And how much is due to simply more people? Again, irrelevant.

• The ocean's circulation system, known as the ocean conveyor belt, could be permanently altered, causing a mini-ice age in Western Europe and other rapid changes.
• At some point in the future, warming could become uncontrollable by creating a so-called positive feedback effect. Rising temperatures could release additional greenhouse gases by unlocking methane in permafrost and undersea deposits, freeing carbon trapped in sea ice, and causing increased evaporation of water.

Uh ok. May, could, might. How many of these causes could occur if the warming was due to natural cycles? How many are avoidable even if the draconian measures are implemented today? A complete non-sequitur.

4. Why can't I understand how global warming can result in cooling in some parts of the world?

• Because you are a Fox News watching Republican retard.

• Because Rep. Steve King R-Iowa, 5th District is my hero retard.

• The label is now "climate change" not "global warming' in order to help the retards undestand.

Gee, this is useful. You continue to beat up the Fox News straw man.

I'll continue to beat up on supposed scientists who constantly and publicly decry their agenda. No doubt you agree with Hansen's view that anyone who disagrees with him should be jailed.

As for climate change being easier to understand vs. global warming:

Your statement is bullshit - climate change is an obvious backtrack vs. a much more clear statement that the world is warming.

Because the world is now cooling.

Apparently global warming was too simplistic AND WRONG, and now the AGW faithful are covering their collective fannies.

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

I just posted an essay by John Reid in the Rant 'N Rave Section:

Climate Modeling Nonsense

A lot of the ground covered there is already in this thread, but there are 3 items of interest:

1) Insight into potential problems with use of climate models as predictive devices

I have been a fluid dynamical modeller and I know how flaky numerical models can be for even a relatively small chunk of fluid like the Derwent Estuary. The models are highly unstable and need to be carefully cosseted in order to perform at all realistically. One reason for their inherent instability is that the mesh size of the model grid (typically hundreds of metres to hundreds of kilometres) is always much larger than the scale at which friction and molecular diffusion operate (millimetres or less). These are the forces which act to damp down oscillations by converting free energy to heat. In order to get around this difficulty, in order to keep a model stable, it is common practice to set certain parameters such as eddy viscosity unrealistically high to compensate for the absence of molecular friction. This is reasonable if we are using the model to gain insight into underlying processes, but it means that fluid dynamic models are not much good at predicting the future. There is no exact correspondence between model and reality, and the two soon part company. Fluid mechanics and celestial mechanics are very different disciplines.

...

My belief is that early models did not show much increase in global temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the reason set out above. However, an ingenious trick was used to make this happen. It is called “water vapour positive feedback” and appears to be used in all the Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate models. Without it, the climate models would show negligible increase in global temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Water vapour positive feedback is only an assumption; but, importantly for the modellers, it is an assumption which makes the models work.

2) Failure to attempt normal scientific testing of AGW theories

A scientific theory is not tested merely by looking for confirmations but by conscientiously trying to “break” the theory, by trying to disprove it. The AGW theory is encapsulated in the IPCC assessment reports. The models discussed in these reports have not been tested in this way. These reports include sections on “Verification and Validation” but none on testing. “Verification” means that only data which support the theory are examined and data which do not support it are ignored. Indeed the authors of this section in the IPCC Third Assessment Report specifically dismiss the need for rigorous testing when they state: “our evaluation process is not as clear cut as a simple search for ‘falsification’” (Section 8.2.2 on page 474). Effectively what they are saying is: proper scientific testing is too hard and we are not going to bother doing it.

3) Existing carbon emissions limitation programs via taxation failing to address specific problem of (over)consumption

This last point is very interesting and one which I have wondered about for a while.

My personal question came when I saw a man driving a Chrysler Crossfire: a 2 passenger car with a 3.2 liter, V6, 215 horsepower engine. Nothing unusual these days but the driver was alone and the car sported a "This car's carbon emissions traded off using XXX scheme"

The point which Dr. Reid is bringing up is that carbon emissions taxation doesn't itself limit consumption. For the poor, it might, but then again the poor are already limited via their limited financial resources.

But those who have more money can now freely pollute as much as they desire since their pollution is now 'traded off'.

What truly needs to happen is for consumption to go down.

Not people starving, but people using less than they can but as much as they need.

The ability to freely over-consume but be 'carbon neutral' is exactly like the argument that 'free trade is always good'.

If you're the one who has the bigger industrial output and the credit, free trade is good but if you're the one with nascent industries or subsistence farmers - not so good.

The idea that somehow paying $0.50 a day or $175/year makes everything ok; that installing solar panels makes 2000 Kwh/month electrical consumption ok; that driving 40 miles one way to work in your hybrid is ok - all of these excuses don't conceal the basic issue that overconsumption is really what is bringing about more of environmental destruction than anything else.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Thanks for the good posts, jdv and jneal3. I agree. c1ue is doing fine work.

[zilbo79]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

santafe2,

I was actually on the fence about AGW. But this YouTube channel you just mentioned has rebutted all the deniers theories. And even if it didn't disprove all of them, it raises doubts about their doubts.

Thanks.

Paul

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

santafe2,

I was actually on the fence about AGW. But this YouTube channel you just mentioned has rebutted all the deniers theories. And even if it didn't disprove all of them, it raises doubts about their doubts.

Thanks.

Paul

Your welcome. At it's worst, this debate can get rancorous but I, and I think c1ue and others on both sides, try not to let it devolve into a shouting match. As contentious as this debate can be, there's valuable information here for anyone who is interested in researching the topic.

Agree with AGW or not, you have to read and understand the latest IPCC report. You can find that here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/

Spend time understanding Lindzen and Hansen. You won't agree with both but both scientists will help you understand how they frame the debate which is not a bad way to begin structuring your understanding.

Avoid Monckton and Gore and anyone else not actively working in the field of climate science.

That will make for a good start. Then you have to separate the scientific issues from the political issues which can be difficult but not as much once you have some background.

[aaron]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Yes, again the lame attempts to equate one specific denier with all those who oppose the AGW tin god.

Why is it the questions I post have yet to be answered? If the science is settled, then it should be trivial to answer these conundrums. Or is it perhaps that too much skepticism and scrutiny is not permissible under the Great Leader's CO2 mandate?

Again, I repost them:

Why was there an Ice Age with CO2 levels at 4000 ppm if CO2 is such a powerful GHG?

Why was there global cooling from 1936 to 1976 - a period in which both a massive World War (with its accompanying industrialization) and massive increase in world oil use occurred? Was the CO2 and other forms of pollution in this era less than the modern one?

Why is there now global cooling and yet somehow CO2 will rampantly increase temperatures 20 years from now - as opposed to the 20 years from 1989 originally asserted as a possibility?

Why were temperatures 10000 years ago 2 degrees Celsius higher than today - when clearly there could not be significant man made CO2 AND CO2 levels were lower than today - and why it is different this time?

Why is it a climate model which can predict global temperature behavior 20 years or 50 years from now with confidence, cannot predict behavior 2 or even 5 years from now? For that matter, why can the climate models not model past major events like Ice Ages with any consistency?

Why is $23M spent by Exxon in 20 years more corrosive to scientific skepticism and debate than $70B+ spent by the federal government in the same period?

Why are hundreds of scientists in the Physics, Chemistry, and Meteorology fields putting their names and reputations publicly on the line as not agreeing with the AGW thesis - if the science is truly settled?

Can anybody answer these questions? They seem reasonable to me.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

1. Is climate change real or am a Fox News retard?

• Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.


• The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.

• The Arctic is feeling the effects the most. Average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004.

• Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 or earlier. Polar bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.

• Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting—for example, Montana's Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later.

• Coral reefs, which are highly sensitive to small changes in water temperature, suffered the worst bleaching—or die-off in response to stress—ever recorded in 1998, with some areas seeing bleach rates of 70 percent. Experts expect these sorts of events to increase in frequency and intensity in the next 50 years as sea temperatures rise.
• An upsurge in the amount of extreme weather events, such as wildfires, heat waves, and strong tropical storms, is also attributed in part to climate change by some experts.

2. Is climate change caused by Humans, God, or Rush Limbaugh?

• Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, all greenhouse gases that help trap heat near Earth's surface. (See an interactive feature on how global warming works.)


• Humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere much faster than plants and oceans can absorb it.

• These gases persist in the atmosphere for years, meaning that even if such emissions were eliminated today, it would not immediately stop global warming.

• Some experts point out that natural cycles in Earth's orbit can alter the planet's exposure to sunlight, which may explain the current trend. Earth has indeed experienced warming and cooling cycles roughly every hundred thousand years due to these orbital shifts, but such changes have occurred over the span of several centuries. Today's changes have taken place over the past hundred years or less.
• Other recent research has suggested that the effects of variations in the sun's output are "negligible" as a factor in warming, but other, more complicated solar mechanisms could possibly play a role.


3. What is going to happen or is this just Armageddon?


• Sea level could rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 to 59 centimeters) by century's end, the IPCC's February 2007 report projects. Rises of just 4 inches (10 centimeters) could flood many South Seas islands and swamp large parts of Southeast Asia.

• Some hundred million people live within 3 feet (1 meter) of mean sea level, and much of the world's population is concentrated in vulnerable coastal cities. In the U.S., Louisiana and Florida are especially at risk.

• Glaciers around the world could melt, causing sea levels to rise while creating water shortages in regions dependent on runoff for fresh water.

• Strong hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, wildfires, and other natural disasters may become commonplace in many parts of the world. The growth of deserts may also cause food shortages in many places.

• More than a million species face extinction from disappearing habitat, changing ecosystems, and acidifying oceans.

• The ocean's circulation system, known as the ocean conveyor belt, could be permanently altered, causing a mini-ice age in Western Europe and other rapid changes.
• At some point in the future, warming could become uncontrollable by creating a so-called positive feedback effect. Rising temperatures could release additional greenhouse gases by unlocking methane in permafrost and undersea deposits, freeing carbon trapped in sea ice, and causing increased evaporation of water.

4. Why can't I understand how global warming can result in cooling in some parts of the world?

• Because you are a Fox News watching Republican retard.

• Because Rep. Steve King R-Iowa, 5th District is my hero retard.

• The label is now "climate change" not "global warming' in order to help the retards undestand.

Since the time of the Ice Age when ice sheets covered North America and northern Europe, there was a flood of biblical proportion: a 300 foot rise in the level of the sea. Most of this 300 foot rise took place 9,000 or 10,000 years ago. It may well be that walls of water crossed barriers such as the gap between to-day's Black Sea and the Agean Sea.

Sometime around 5,000 years ago, the Sahara Desert became wetter. There is some evidence of a grassland with actual rivers flowing into the Nile River from the Sahara grassland.

One or two thousand years ago, the Sahara became a desert again. Still, at the time of the Roman Empire, Cyranaica in to-day's NE Libya was a wheat-growing region. There was human habitation within the Sinai Desert of Egypt and also in Arabia.

About 800 years ago, temperatures on Earth were warmer than to-day. But a little ice age occurred from 1600AD to 1850AD when temperatures abruptly cooled on Earth and glaciers grew.

Since 1900, we know that the Earth has warmed slightly, about 1 degree F, or maybe just a bit more. Sea-level is up about 6 or 7 inches.

We know that the late 1990s were warmer than average probably because the solar output (the Sun's solar constant) was higher than average. For the first time in my life (of 61 years) I could see the northern lights at night in central California.

Since the late 1990s, solar activity has decreased, and global mean temperatures have slightly cooled. El Nino vanished in 2003, and La Nina conditions returned to the Pacific. Drought returned to California. In 2009, El Nino has returned, and warm-wet conditions have returned to the west coasts of North and South America. El Nino conditions will last to around 2013 or 2014.

Looking forward, sea-level may rise another 6 or 7 inches in the next 100 years; that would not be a shock. That would be just a continuation the current trend. City planners need to think about the mega-trend of slightly rising sea-level and plan ahead for it.

But there is no case to be made for mankind having upset the balance of nature. No such balance ever did exist in nature. Rather, the Earth's climate is always changing and will always change. Mankind just needs to observe nature and plan ahead for natural changes which occur constantly.

The observation that the Earth's sea-level is rising at just 6 or 7 inches per century is downright encouraging. It is something to celebrate. But climate could change (colder or warmer) thru time, and sea-level could change dramatically too. So, planners need to plan ahead--- not to restrict man's industrial activities or carbon-producing activities, but simply to build cities several feet above mean sea-level, and not at mean sea-level.

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Can anybody answer these questions? They seem reasonable to me.

The questions are not reasonable they are simply attempts to frame the argument inappropriately to gain debate ground and create political talking points. I won’t take time to answer all of them but I’ll point to one and you can do your own research on others if you desire more knowledge.

Why was there an Ice Age with CO2 levels at 4000 ppm if CO2 is such a powerful GHG?

The last time CO2 concentration was above 4000 PPM, was 375 million years ago. Think dinosaurs and then go 5X back in time. There was burgeoning flora by that time but in the beginning of the Paleozoic there was little vegetation. What we see during this period is the earth beginning to create a balance as we humans like to see it, and bringing down the concentration of CO2 from 7000 PPM to well under 500 PPM. Think, little vegetation at the start and much more at the end. Good time for trilobytes but humans, not so much.

But, the issue at hand is AGM. A warming of the planet over the human industrial epoch. Any decent paleoclimatologist can explain the push and pull of CO2, temperature and other forces over the Paleozoic era better than one of us on iTulip if that is your interest but it’s complete bullshit as an AGM talking point. C1ue does not define the ice age period, (when CO2 is over 4000 PPM), he’s talking about so we don’t know if it’s 700 million years ago or 375 million years ago. But it doesn’t matter because we’re not concerned with the earth as it forms 500 million years before humanity, we’re concerned about today. Let me say that again, as science, it’s complete bullshit, as polemic…apparently golden.

The question as stated above is provocative but no more interesting than questioning whether the US moon landings were staged. A better question might be this: Where is the published, peer reviewed paper by a working paleoclimatologist or other closely associated scientist that suggests one should consider ultra high CO2 in the Paleozoic period as a precursor or explanation for modern AGM?

[MulaMan]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

LOL! Let me provide some direction:

1. Is climate change real?

This is the scientific evidence that points to climate change.

If you do NOT believe in climate change then you need to refute the scientific evidence in this section - only.

2. Is climate change caused by Humans?

This is evidence that climate change is caused by humans.

If you argue against this as if it refutes climate change then you watch too much Fox News.

If you do not believe climate change is caused by humans then you need to argue against this - only.

3. What is going to happen?

These are projections - speculation.

If you argue against this as if it refues climate change then you have entered the retard zone - LOL - for example, a historical chart of hurricanes in Miami and then conclude extreme weather events have not increased hence there is no climate change. Sorry, but that is very dumb.

4. Why can't I understand how global warming can result in cooling in some parts of the world?

This is the extreme retard zone. Glad most of you did not try to argue that a single or two or three very cold, snowy winter(s) in Boston or Moscow ... and hence there is no global warming.

Please take a look at your arguments and if you want to argue against climate change then please argue against climate change and not against -Is it caused by humans? what are the predicted outcomes? why did it snow so much this year? what would Jesus do? ect...

[MulaMan]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Looking forward, sea-level may rise another 6 or 7 inches in the next 100 years; that would not be a shock. That would be just a continuation the current trend. City planners need to think about the mega-trend of slightly rising sea-level and plan ahead for it.

But there is no case to be made for mankind having upset the balance of nature. No such balance ever did exist in nature. Rather, the Earth's climate is always changing and will always change. Mankind just needs to observe nature and plan ahead for natural changes which occur constantly.

A little more simple direction for you on simple reasoning:

The scientists are making a very specific statement about CO2 released into the atmosphere by humans causing / speeding up / increasing the earth's temperature.

No scientist claims humans upset the balance of nature. If there is some warming mega-trend then that just makes CO2 based global warming even more urgent to address, if we luck into a cooling mega trend then we luck out, if a volcano erupts for 2 years straight it will get very cold no matter how much CO2 we pump out, ect...

Philisophical arguments about nature vs. humans, should humans intervine - we pumped CO2 into the air but nature made us do it..we cannot control nature so I can dump garbage in my nieghbor's pool, what would Jesus say... are all gateways into the retarded zone.

Now, if you understand that humans have increased CO2 levels and hence global temperatures the only question that should be debated is - What to do about it?

Do we roll the dice and keep pumping out CO2? Do we take some action to clean it up? Do we hope for "nature" to clean up? push the problem to our grand-kids and party on?

Do you cut your grass and take your garbage out or do you wait for nature to take care of it?

Because nature will take care of it, let your garbage pile up in your kitchen for 6 months and see what nature does.

[jneal3]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

A little more simple direction for you on simple reasoning:

The scientists are making a very specific statement about CO2 released into the atmosphere by humans causing / speeding up / increasing the earth's temperature.

No scientist claims humans upset the balance of nature. If there is some warming mega-trend then that just makes CO2 based global warming even more urgent to address, if we luck into a cooling mega trend then we luck out, if a volcano erupts for 2 years straight it will get very cold no matter how much CO2 we pump out, ect...

Philisophical arguments about nature vs. humans, should humans intervine - we pumped CO2 into the air but nature made us do it..we cannot control nature so I can dump garbage in my nieghbor's pool, what would Jesus say... are all gateways into the retarded zone.

Now, if you understand that humans have increased CO2 levels and hence global temperatures the only question that should be debated is - What to do about it?

Do we roll the dice and keep pumping out CO2? Do we take some action to clean it up? Do we hope for "nature" to clean up? push the problem to our grand-kids and party on?

Do you cut your grass and take your garbage out or do you wait for nature to take care of it?

Because nature will take care of it, let your garbage pile up in your kitchen for 6 months and see what nature does.

Does anyone know of a forum where the AGW proponents actually make sense and know what they're talking about? I've come to the conclusion that if I have any chance of understanding the scientific responses to c1ue, it ain't coming from iTulip.

iTulip global warming debate template:

anti-AGW - Q: "What is the evidence that reducing CO2 will have a discernible impact on future global warming?"
pro-AGW - A: "Yesterday, you Fox-news watching idiot"

For the record, I get my news from Olbermann and Stewart.

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

The question as stated above is provocative but no more interesting than questioning whether the US moon landings were staged. A better question might be this: Where is the published, peer reviewed paper by a working paleoclimatologist or other closely associated scientist that suggests one should consider ultra high CO2 in the Paleozoic period as a precursor or explanation for modern AGM?

Excuse me, but again you attempt to avoid the issue. The issue is: if global warming/climate change/weenie term du jour is due to CO2 - manmade in today's case but clearly NOT man made in the past - then the mechanism being asserted today (warming due to CO2) should have been equal or worse in the period when CO2 was 10 times or more greater than today.

Yet there was an Ice Age.

This is clearly documented fact. Having a peer reviewed paper is irrelevant since the twin assertions of AGW being due to CO2 and CO2 causing warming are supposedly settled.

LOL! Let me provide some direction:

1. Is climate change real?

This is the scientific evidence that points to climate change.

If you do NOT believe in climate change then you need to refute the scientific evidence in this section - only.

This evidence of 'climate change' used to be evidence of global warming.

This evidence also fails to address key conflicting historical fact.

This evidence also primarily consists of mathematical models for the future and a short term warming trend which was both preceded and followed by cooling trends.

This evidence fails to show if these changes are or are NOT due to man made reasons.

The presence of SOME evidence is not the basis for a verdict.

Perhaps you need to take some instruction on both the scientific method and the basis for logical proof.

2. Is climate change caused by Humans?

This is evidence that climate change is caused by humans.

If you argue against this as if it refutes climate change then you watch too much Fox News.

If you do not believe climate change is caused by humans then you need to argue against this - only.

Now, if you understand that humans have increased CO2 levels and hence global temperatures the only question that should be debated is - What to do about it?

Nice circular argument. What is 'this'? Perhaps you need to stop smoking whatever crack it is you are on and try to make a coherent statement.

As for your second statement - nice try to assumptively close the argument. Unfortunately the questions I have posed which seem to contradict both parts of your assertion are still unanswered.

3. What is going to happen?

These are projections - speculation.

If you argue against this as if it refues climate change then you have entered the retard zone - LOL - for example, a historical chart of hurricanes in Miami and then conclude extreme weather events have not increased hence there is no climate change. Sorry, but that is very dumb.

You are the one who asserted hurricanes would be worse with global warming. I've shown that both Atlantic hurricane incidence and severity is not increasing.

You asserted 'sea level rise' would threaten "hundreds of millions of people". I've shown that these people are threatened anyway - but not due to sea level rise. They're threatened because they live near sea level - and are threatened whenever a storm goes by or even a very high tide.

Now you are saying historical evidence disproving your assertion is useless and that anyone who disagrees with you is dumb.

It is clear who is dumb.

Do we roll the dice and keep pumping out CO2? Do we take some action to clean it up? Do we hope for "nature" to clean up? push the problem to our grand-kids and party on?

Do we roll the dice and hope that all the assumptions, have truths, and half baked models are right?

Do we take some action to ensure that this crusade we are all being roped into is necessary and beneficial?

I've already posted a report on the German experience with alternative energy subsidies - perhaps you should read it.

Because it specifically pits the investment into alternative energy against carbon emissions trading schemes. Or in other words - it is better to restrict carbon than it is to find better ways to generate energy.

Is this a good outcome?

4. Why can't I understand how global warming can result in cooling in some parts of the world?

This is the extreme retard zone. Glad most of you did not try to argue that a single or two or three very cold, snowy winter(s) in Boston or Moscow ... and hence there is no global warming.

Please take a look at your arguments and if you want to argue against climate change then please argue against climate change and not against -Is it caused by humans? what are the predicted outcomes? why did it snow so much this year? what would Jesus do? ect...

It seems all of these questions are really your own - your own complete lack of understanding writ upon straw man questions for others.

You've made many posts and have failed to actually present any evidence beyond a single video.

You've made many statements yet have failed to answer any of my specific questions.

Clearly you're talking to yourself.

Please continue to do so and continue to discredit your entire movement.

In conclusion I reiterate what I said in a previous post:

The bugaboo of AGW due to CO2 is not only potentially wrong, it is also a danger in that it both risks diverting attention from real problems (including non-AGW warming, non-CO2 warming, etc etc) as well as removes focus from overconsumption to CO2 limitation.

CO2 limitation is itself a blatant reinvention of the Catholic indulgence: the ability to buy your way out of sin with money.

Certainly there will be some effect on consumption as energy prices rise, but ultimately those with more money can just indulge away while those with less money will suffer.

CO2 emissions limitation is a regressive method. What is needed is a progressive method which discourages those with the most ability to overconsume, to consume less.

[Diarmuid]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

A little more simple direction for you on simple reasoning:

The scientists are making a very specific statement about CO2 released into the atmosphere by humans causing / speeding up / increasing the earth's temperature.

No scientist claims humans upset the balance of nature. If there is some warming mega-trend then that just makes CO2 based global warming even more urgent to address, if we luck into a cooling mega trend then we luck out, if a volcano erupts for 2 years straight it will get very cold no matter how much CO2 we pump out, ect...

Philisophical arguments about nature vs. humans, should humans intervine - we pumped CO2 into the air but nature made us do it..we cannot control nature so I can dump garbage in my nieghbor's pool, what would Jesus say... are all gateways into the retarded zone.

Now, if you understand that humans have increased CO2 levels and hence global temperatures the only question that should be debated is - What to do about it?

Do we roll the dice and keep pumping out CO2? Do we take some action to clean it up? Do we hope for "nature" to clean up? push the problem to our grand-kids and party on?

Do you cut your grass and take your garbage out or do you wait for nature to take care of it?

Because nature will take care of it, let your garbage pile up in your kitchen for 6 months and see what nature does.

Just because this topic has been not divisive enough to date - here is something to stir the pot a bit ;)

[ggirod]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Does anyone know of a forum where the AGW proponents actually make sense and know what they're talking about? I've come to the conclusion that if I have any chance of understanding the scientific responses to c1ue, it ain't coming from iTulip.

I could as easily ask the question "does anyone know a forum where I can become conversant in brain surgery, causes, interventions, outcomes, ethics, and techniques" you might find this is not your forum. However, brain surgeons have not recently been put into the political spotlight, news media don't discuss them derisively, and few vested interests purport to educate the public on the topic. As a result, you don't come here for brain surgery discussion.

With due deference to brain surgeons the world around, climate science, the interactions between earth's systems and the sun/moon along with the impact of biology and human activity are at least as complex as brain surgery. So, while you swallow nervously and seek out an expert for that anuerism or whatever afflicts your cranium, does it seem likely you should be able to be expert in climate science and to meet thousands of similarly highly qualified people in forums such as this?

I am sure there are many forums devoted to climate science, their membership and existence are not widely open, and very active and penetrating discussions of research go on every day. Probably very few iTulip readers could keep up with the discussions and learning the background information to just begin to understand one posting could take a day for a committed student.

Now, with that introduction you are probably going to say I am some sort of ego maniac elitist. I am not. I recognize that people need to understand at least some of the science behind the major issues of the day, just as they should comprehend the economics behind our current mess. So, with that in mind, here is my recommendation for study materials if you wish to comprehend and begin to judge climate science discussions and assertions...

1. Philosophy of Science - Science is conducted with a set of agreed upon rules that are followed quite rigorously by people who are qualified to call themselves scientists. Politicians, business people, religious experts, and others sometimes find those rules confusing and confining, but if you don't know that 3 strikes is an out and 4 balls is a walk, you will find baseball confusing in addition to boring. :-) So, here is an introductory set of resources for philosophy of science ...

Wikipedia has a brief but meaty overview and with the links spread richly throughout the text it is quite thorough. You should keep it at hand when reading scientific discussions so you can look up topics like the rhetoric of science, Explanation and many others that are listed. Perusing this one article will probably open your eyes to a lot of fallacies foisted on the public in the name of science by people who are working outside their primary field.

2. Design of Experiments - While climatology does not involve lots of experiments, a quick perusal of experimental design and statistical analysis of experimental data will help you understand critical aspects of the scientific method. One thing you will realize from studying that topic is that the crucial experiment to "prove" AGW cannot be conducted until we find two identical earths, measure the climate exhaustively on each, and then have the humans on one do as we are doing, except in a carefully measured and controlled way, while the people on the other planet do as we should do. Analyzing the data would be rather enlightening. You would also find out about experimental controls and why, by our profligate production of CO2, we just might be conducting the experiment of our lives. Then again, maybe not ...

3. Topics like causation vs correlation are not treated to their own article in Wiki but perusing the links there and following up details will help you understand some of the difficult topics of discussion you might hear thrown around in climatology discussions.

4. Then, statistical topics such as curve fitting are useful to understand so that everything that looks like a hockey stick is not used to hit a puck and everything that grows really really fast need not be exponential but might look like it. It will help you become both skeptical and accepting of the outcomes of research depending on how the reports are presented. You will understand the limitations of predicting outcomes based on curve fitting, correlations, and statistical analyses in general.

5. Writing styles for reporting research are important to understand. While each discipline has its own rulebook, you can pretty much discount any article that does not include ... an Introduction (what is it about), a review of the literature and the rationale for why the study was done, the methodology (the what, where, how, when, why, of measurements and analysis) and a justification for why the study was conducted the way it was, details of the data analysis including statistical tests used, and finally, results and discussion, usually related back to the issues identified in the literature survey. Once you realize that you need to assess all areas of the research article not only before you believe it, but before you CAN understand and then maybe believe it. The major impact of peer review is on this stage; where a team of experts read, question, criticize, and evaluate the research article before it is published. The primary review is at the microscopic fact level for each article so that the basis of subsequent review articles (see below) is more solid.

6. Climatological models are critical to understanding many of the discussions of climate change. These models utilize the data produced in 5, above, and they attempt to predict with ever more accurate results, the climatic future given drivers such as sun, water, wind, CO2, methane, ice cover, etc. There are lots, and the Wiki articles I cited just scratch the surface, but you can study each in depth by going back to the original articles and reading them. Sorry, but most of the models are rather mathematically rigorous so you may or may not be able to pursue the author all the way to the nuances of his findings with full comprehension. Such is life.

7. Critical reading of survey articles - You will find lots of interesting stuff if you start reading survey articles, especially those with lists of references as long as your arm. Here is the trick ... read the article and then, when you encounter a reference, read it. The judgments you learned in (5) above should be used to assess whether the referenced article actually said what the survey author said it did. In almost all cases with survey articles you will find a review of the references will provide a more nuanced and less certain view of the point in the article but it will also provide more background to understanding the real problem being discussed.

After you get to the point of reading a bunch of review articles and looking at the references and evaluating the truth for yourself, you are probably ready to benefit from LISTENING TO (not talking in) the discussions of climate scientists in their real groups. Probably, if, after researching a question arising from reading the discussion, you send a private email to a group member with a well thought out scientific question related to the methods, measures, outcomes, analyses, etc. for a study, you will probably find the guy is as nice and competent as Finster or Bart are in our group.

Go forth and prosper. After a while engaged in the pursuit of climatological understanding you will begin to understand that the discussions you see happening here, there, and everywhere, for what they are. If, late in your pursuit you are not frightened to the core with the ignorance being applied to really serious issues, then you probably should go back, do a refresher, and start again.

Now, back to brain surgery, above. The brain surgeon, when he plows through your skull to rearrange you 'til you're sane (or more likely save your life or the use of your faculties) relies on research produced in analogous ways to the approaches above. He daily reads journal articles and survey articles and has to question the results of anything that looks suspicious. So, because he follows a rigorous approach in his profession, you can pretty well trust him to open your skull as needed.

I hope this helps.

[jneal3]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Now, with that introduction you are probably going to say I am some sort of ego maniac elitist. I am not. I recognize that people need to understand at least some of the science behind the major issues of the day, just as they should comprehend the economics behind our current mess.

Good to hear, for the record it's not how you come across.

1. Philosophy of Science - Science is conducted with a set of agreed upon rules that are followed quite rigorously by people who are qualified to call themselves scientists. Politicians, business people, religious experts, and others sometimes find those rules confusing and confining, but if you don't know that 3 strikes is an out and 4 balls is a walk, you will find baseball confusing in addition to boring. :-) So, here is an introductory set of resources for philosophy of science ...

Wikipedia has a brief but meaty overview and with the links spread richly throughout the text it is quite thorough. You should keep it at hand when reading scientific discussions so you can look up topics like the rhetoric of science, Explanation and many others that are listed. Perusing this one article will probably open your eyes to a lot of fallacies foisted on the public in the name of science by people who are working outside their primary field.

I'll forward this to my former thesis advisor at Purdue, he'll be shocked to learn I've been exposed to a definition of the scientific method.:rolleyes:

Seriously, how condescending can you be?

2. Design of Experiments - While climatology does not involve lots of experiments, a quick perusal of experimental design and statistical analysis of experimental data will help you understand critical aspects of the scientific method. One thing you will realize from studying that topic is that the crucial experiment to "prove" AGW cannot be conducted until we find two identical earths, measure the climate exhaustively on each, and then have the humans on one do as we are doing, except in a carefully measured and controlled way, while the people on the other planet do as we should do. Analyzing the data would be rather enlightening. You would also find out about experimental controls and why, by our profligate production of CO2, we just might be conducting the experiment of our lives. Then again, maybe not ...

3. Topics like causation vs correlation are not treated to their own article in Wiki but perusing the links there and following up details will help you understand some of the difficult topics of discussion you might hear thrown around in climatology discussions.

4. Then, statistical topics such as curve fitting are useful to understand so that everything that looks like a hockey stick is not used to hit a puck and everything that grows really really fast need not be exponential but might look like it. It will help you become both skeptical and accepting of the outcomes of research depending on how the reports are presented. You will understand the limitations of predicting outcomes based on curve fitting, correlations, and statistical analyses in general.

'Black Belt Six Sigma' on this end (my parents are sooo proud), kind of know statistics and Taguchi.

I'm mostly embarrassed by the pro-AGW side in this discussion, because before letting myself dragged into this I accepted AGW, and probably after drilling down will be back in the fold but with better understanding. The detailed questions being brought up, forgive me, deserve answers if you're trying to convince the world at large to go along with drastic action. A respectful, convincing answer to some of them would be 'We don't know yet' or 'yes but that is a small issue and here's why' (I do see that occasionally here, but it's rare), without the condescension.

BTW, you haven't lived until you've tried to follow a forum discussion between doctors on how to read an EKG...

I hope this helps.

It did. Thanks.