Global Warming Consensus?

[mhaze]

If people are short with you it is because they have been through the same arguments many times on many threads and are just tired enough to not want to go through it all again, but not so tired that they will stand by and see the same toppled arguments pushed upright again for the unwary to bump into.

And Muslims are peaceful, right?

 

[Big Al]

Prepare to have your stripes and buttons cut off, mhaze...

 

[fsol]

And Muslims are peaceful, right?

I don't know what you are getting at I am afraid.

 

[mhaze]

I don't know what you are getting at I am afraid.

Muslims are peaceful is, like it or not, a widely held consensus view.

I mention this to illustrate the gross errors in generalization on a complex subject. Generalization on a complex subject will always be a lie, because the simplification is not correct. I

If people are short with you it is because they have been through the same arguments many times on many threads and are just tired enough to not want to go through it all again, but not so tired that they will stand by and see the same toppled arguments pushed upright again for the unwary to bump into.

That's a pretty darn lame excuse. You got a campfire there a lot of people would not want to sit around.

 

[Big Al]

I don't know what you are getting at I am afraid.

I think it's about the implied assertion that all "pro-AGM" people will feel this way, as if there's some "consensus" in the way to reply to questioning posts.

I would be grateful if you could answer a few queries I raised a while back, since they do see troublesome to me:

Since hurricanes and other winds are driven by the temperature difference between the poles and the equator, and models indicate that the poles are warming faster than the equator, thus reducing the temp difference, how do the climate scientists come to assert that GW will cause more and stronger hurricanes?

What justification is used to dismiss the fact that the other planets are warming rapidly as irrelevant to what's happening on Earth?

Satellite and balloon data originally implied that stratospheric temperatures were not rising as fast as ground and sea temperatures, whereas theory said they should be rising faster. This has been explained by satellite calibration drift and something else for balloons. However, I understand that the relevant correction factors bring the readings much closer to those seen on the ground. However, they still aren't greater than the ground changes, which current theory says they should be. How is that explained, and are historical readings from satellites and balloons likewise affected?

Let me just say again that I'm not denying the climate seems to be heating up, and I'm ready to acknowledge that humans are behind it, if the evidence warrants it. However, I want to see facts, not assertions.

 

[Big Al]

That's a pretty darn lame excuse. You got a campfire there a lot of people would not want to sit around.

I'm reminded of the Goths in "South Park": "You can't be a nonconformist if you don't drink coffee, dress the same as us and listen to the same music!"

 

[mhaze]

I think it's about the implied assertion that all "pro-AGM" people will feel this way, as if there's some "consensus" in the way to reply to questioning posts.

I would be grateful if you could answer a few queries I raised a while back, since they do see troublesome to me:

Since hurricanes and other winds are driven by the temperature difference between the poles and the equator, and models indicate that the poles are warming faster than the equator, thus reducing the temp difference, how do the climate scientists come to assert that GW will cause more and stronger hurricanes?

What justification is used to dismiss the fact that the other planets are warming rapidly as irrelevant to what's happening on Earth?

Satellite and balloon data originally implied that stratospheric temperatures were not rising as fast as ground and sea temperatures, whereas theory said they should be rising faster. This has been explained by satellite calibration drift and something else for balloons. However, I understand that the relevant correction factors bring the readings much closer to those seen on the ground. However, they still aren't greater than the ground changes, which current theory says they should be. How is that explained, and are historical readings from satellites and balloons likewise affected?

Let me just say again that I'm not denying the climate seems to be heating up, and I'm ready to acknowledge that humans are behind it, if the evidence warrants it. However, I want to see facts, not assertions.

I would comment that if someone thinks answering such questions is a cause for going mad dog politico, well, gee, they've been answered too many times before and people still haven't learned??

Some of those smart people out on that internet invented a way to handle this. Is called FAQS and also, sticky posts.

DUHHHHH>>>>>>>...............

 

[fsol]

Muslims are peaceful is, like it or not, a widely held consensus view.

I mention this to illustrate the gross errors in generalization on a complex subject. Generalization on a complex subject will always be a lie, because the simplification is not correct. I

If people are short with you it is because they have been through the same arguments many times on many threads and are just tired enough to not want to go through it all again, but not so tired that they will stand by and see the same toppled arguments pushed upright again for the unwary to bump into.

That's a pretty darn lame excuse. You got a campfire there a lot of people would not want to sit around.

Well feel free to replace an "is" with a "could be" up there somewhere if you must. I don't particuly care that much either way. It doesn't much change the point I was trying to make, which was that it is tedious to constantly see the same arguments offered up as if they are brand new. In some cases when you know that they aren't even brand new to the people offering them up.

 

[fsol]

Well this one is easy enough for me to have a go at quickly.

What justification is used to dismiss the fact that the other planets are warming rapidly as irrelevant to what's happening on Earth?

The other planets aren't all warming rapidly and the ones that are, are not necessarily warming due to increased solar activity. Not least because there hasn't been any for a while

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf


but also...

Second, what I am seeing in these arguments is a very dangerous practice called "cherry picking"; selectively picking out data that support your argument and ignoring contrary evidence. It certainly looks interesting that Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Triton, and Pluto are warming, and if that’s all you heard then it seems logical to think maybe the Sun is the cause. But they aren’t the only objects in the solar system. What about Mercury, Venus, Saturn, Uranus… and if you include Triton to support your case, you’d better also take a good look at the nearly 100 other sizable moons in the solar system. Are they warming too?
I have heard nothing about them in these arguments, and I suspect it’s because there’s not much to say...

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/

 

[Big Al]

Well, who says anyone has to post if they're ticked off by answering? I would have thought a few swift, to the point answers with appropriate links would take much less time than flaming the questioners.

I wouldn't expect to see this much resistance to answering if I had a fundamental misunderstanding of, say, thermodynamics. Plenty of people would chime in to put me right. I've seen hundreds of threads where someone thinks he has invented a new perpetual motion machine, and I've seen plenty of germane and constructive rebuttals among the flame.

I've had the same non-responses on any number of climate sites. I can't escape the feeling of a schoolkid argument: "You don't even know the capital of Thailand." "Do, too." "What is it, then?" "I'm not telling."

 

[fsol]

Some of those smart people out on that internet invented a way to handle this. Is called FAQS and also, sticky posts.

DUHHHHH>>>>>>>...............

Something like this?

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_FAQs.pdf

or this?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/

Of course these are "politically motivated" sites and so they don't count.

 

[Big Al]

Well this one is easy enough for me to have a go at quickly.



The other planets aren't all warming rapidly and the ones that are, are not necessarily warming due to increased solar activity. Not least because there hasn't been any for a while

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf


but also...



http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/

Thank you. Good answers, particularly Phil Platt's one, as ever. I respect his opinion as an astronomer. The Stanford paper is 3 years old, and things could have changed since then.

But that's much better. One question answered to my complete satisfaction.

See how easy I am to please?

 

[fsol]

Thank you. Good answers, particularly Phil Platt's one, as ever. I respect his opinion as an astronomer. The Stanford paper is 3 years old, and things could have changed since then.

But that's much better. One question answered to my complete satisfaction.

See how easy I am to please?

Well that's the second of yours I've answered but who's counting.

The thing with that Stanford paper is that the solar forcing is causing global warming crowd don't seem to have heard of it. Strangely they all seem to have heard of the paper it corrects. Obviously I wouldn't like to speak for them all as to why that might be, I might get slapped by mhaze again for a start, but if your thesis is the planet is getting warm because of the Sun, wouldn't it be a little sensible to try and keep a little up to date with your reading? Obviously, I am not trying to imply anything untoward is going on here, it could be that they have so many papers to review that they haven't caught up to work that was done three years ago just yet.

 

[Big Al]

Well that's the second of yours I've answered but who's counting.

Sorry, fsol, what was the other one? I'm feeling a bit punch-drunk.

 

[Big Al]

Ah, was that the CO₂ lag issue? I wasn't utterly convinced. If a little rise in CO₂ causes a rise in temperature, and that causes a later increase in CO₂, why haven't we had runaway greenhouse excursion already, such as in the Holocene Maximum or Medieval Warm Period? Sounds like a positive feedback loop to me.

 

[fsol]

Sorry, fsol, what was the other one? I'm feeling a bit punch-drunk.

I am feeling a bit arsey myself today really, so am probably coming across as such. I had a go at the CO2 lags temperature a page or so back and probably didn't explain it very well, seeing as it isn't my area of expertise, well seeing as most of this stuff is outside my area of expertise...

 

[rockoon]

Rockoon claimed in another thread that the IPCC had been caught in a lie in that thread, when he was called on it he vanished.

Actualy, I was asked for an ADDITIONAL lie and took several minutes out of my day to search a SPECIFIC document for one. I found one there too and called it a day.

Simple verifiable lie:

The IPCC claims that both the MWP and LIA were regional in extent, with major effects only in the North Atlantic region rather than global in extent.

I cited somewhere around a dozen chinese studies, some of which date back years before the IPCC began telling this lie.

The IPCC only cite a small select group of research as evidence for their claim: Mann, Jones, Bradely, Crowley and Lowery, Keigwin and Pickart, Salinger, and Cook.

Now, Salinger and Cook are the only ones from this select group to actively research data from the southern hemisphere. Guess what they concluded? Salinger gives evidence FOR a Little Ice Age in the southern hemisphere, and Cook gives evidence AGAINST it.

The IPCC have made bold claims about the global climate but do not consider the science being done around the globe. Hundreds of Chinese studies on past climate in the period between the 11th and 19th century exist, yet not once do they cite them. They do not cite them because they are contrary to their position.

Chery Picking at its finest.

If they were shown to have lied, in that thread, and he knows what the lie is because, well it is his claim, it should be really easy to say what the lie is and show it to be a lie.

Been there, done that. Didnt want to hear it? Didnt read that thread? No excuses for you now.

Now lets get on with the show. Do YOU have evidence, or can you cite any evidence, that suggests that there is a consensus among scientists as to AGW?

Yes, or No.

If yes, please provide. If no, well.. why do you defend the position then?

 

[varwoche]

Crevice-derived, dated opinion emanating from less than stellar sources (and rumors thereof; all hail Kevin Bacon) is cheap. As Big All suggests, we should look to the body of expert knowledge to determine if there's a consensus.

Here are (articles about) peer-reviewed studies since 2005 that stand as evidence of AGW. I will reconsider my opinion about consensus if someone points me to peer-reviewed studies since 2005 that indicate otherwise.
__________

May 9, 2007 Brazil National Institute for Space Research
large dams annually release about 104 million metric tons of methane to the atmosphere

May 1, 2007 US National Snow and Ice Data Center
The Arctic icecap is melting much faster than expected ... no doubt that this is caused in large part by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere

Feb 12, 2007 NASA
warmer future climate likely will produce droughts ... The same model showed that greenhouse-gas warming has similar effects on the atmosphere

Dec 14, 2006 Postdam
Global warming could push sea levels about 40 percent higher than current models predict ... Reducing greenhouse gas emissions can impact such sea level rise.

Dec 11, 2006 NCAR, UW, McGill
if emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases were to slow, the likelihood of rapid ice loss would decrease

Aug 25, 2006 Postdam
The findings broadly back up other Potsdam forecasts about the effects of a build-up of carbon dioxide emitted by power plants, cars and factories.

Sept 13, 2006 Heliophysics, Max Planck Institute
Sunspots alter the amount of energy Earth gets from the sun, but not enough to impact global climate change

Aug 16, 2006 Florida State
hurricane damage will continue to increase, in part, due to greenhouse warming

Aug 3, 2006 Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement
Methane is an important greenhouse gas, and its atmospheric concentration has nearly tripled since pre-industrial times

July 6, 2006 Scripps
The increase in the number of large western wildfires ... evidence also links it to the effects of human-induced climate warming

July 6, 2006 NOAA
Human activities, chiefly the burning of fossil fuels, have upset a natural balance in ocean acidity ... We have very clear evidence, and there is no doubt this is occurring

June 26, 2006 NCAR
Global warming provided much of the ocean heat that fueled last year's record-setting hurricane season ... Natural climate cycles were only a minor factor

June 22, 2006 Natl Academy of Science
multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that current warming is occurring in response to human activities

May 31, 2006 MIT, Penn St.
Human-induced climate change, rather than naturally occurring ocean cycles, may be responsible for the recent increases in the frequency and strength of North Atlantic hurricanes

May 26, 2006 Wageningen, Potsdam
warming due to human fossil fuel emissions may be 15-to-78 percent higher than estimates

May 22, 2006 Berkeley Lab, UC Berkeley
able to quantify the feedback implied by past increases in natural carbon dioxide and methane gas levels

Mey 3, 2006 NOAA
Global warming caused by human activity has begun to dampen an important wind circulation pattern over the Pacific Ocean, and that could alter climate and the marine food chain

May 2, 2006 U.S. Climate Change Science Program
The evidence continues to support a substantial human impact on global temperature increases.

Mar 31, 2006 British Antarctic Survey
Greenhouse gases could be having a bigger impact in Antarctica than across the rest of the world

Mar 13, 2006 NASA
a major form of global air pollution involved in summertime "smog" has also played a significant role in warming the Arctic.

Feb 28, 2006 UC Santa Cruz
Human activities are releasing greenhouse gases more than 30 times faster than the rate of emissions that triggered a period of extreme global warming in the Earth's past.

Feb 17, 2006 Woods Hole
an indication that greenhouse gases could heat the oceans in the future much more than currently anticipated

Jan 24, 2006 Scripps, Brookhaven
The Arctic is showing the first unmistakable signs of climate warming caused by human activities, in the form of rapidly retreating and thinning sea ice

Dec 21, 2005 Hadley Centre
New observations show that man-made aerosols may be having a greater direct effect on our climate than previously thought

Nov 30, 2005 Rutgers
Ocean levels are rising twice as fast today as they were 150 years ago, and human-induced warming appears to be the culprit

Nov 16, 2005 Scripps, UW
human-produced greenhouse gases, and the resulting warmer climates they produce, will have a significant influence on ... water supply

Feb 17, 2005 Scripps
results clearly indicate that the warming is produced anthropogenically ... The statistical significance of these results is far too strong to be merely dismissed and should wipe out much of the uncertainty about the reality of global warming

 

[mhaze]

Crevice-derived, dated opinion emanating from less than stellar sources (and rumors thereof; all hail Kevin Bacon) is cheap. As Big All suggests, we should look to the body of expert knowledge to determine if there's a consensus.
.... good stuff snipped....

Here are (articles about) peer-reviewed studies since 2005 that stand as evidence of AGW. I will reconsider my opinion about consensus if someone points me to peer-reviewed studies since 2005 that indicate otherwise.
__________

No more surveys of opinions of scientists found in your google search, eh, Var? Change the subject then a bit, eh? Gosh I was sure you were going to prove me a biased conspirator and a liar.

 

[fsol]

Actualy, I was asked for an ADDITIONAL lie and took several minutes out of my day to search a SPECIFIC document for one. I found one there too and called it a day.

Actually I asked you to back up the claim you made in that thread about the IPCC being caught in a lie in that thread. I pointed to that document because that was the document that addressed the issues brought up in that thread. I wasn't clear enough with my original question and I admitted that and tried to explain myself more clearly. But you already know that because I explained that in that thread.

The "lie" that you found was that the IPCC call CO2 a globally well mixed greenhouse gas and that the NASA GISS disagrees. Well I went and looked at the NASA site and again with references to their site showed you why this "lie" was perhaps not so heinous as you made it out to be.

Simple verifiable lie:

The IPCC claims that both the MWP and LIA were regional in extent, with major effects only in the North Atlantic region rather than global in extent.

So using the IPCC report you will be able to show me where they state that.

I cited somewhere around a dozen chinese studies, some of which date back years before the IPCC began telling this lie.

You cited CO2Science reviews of Chinese studies, reviews that when looked at more closely appeared to misrepresent the studies.

The IPCC only cite a small select group of research as evidence for their claim: Mann, Jones, Bradely, Crowley and Lowery, Keigwin and Pickart, Salinger, and Cook.

Now, Salinger and Cook are the only ones from this select group to actively research data from the southern hemisphere. Guess what they concluded? Salinger gives evidence FOR a Little Ice Age in the southern hemisphere, and Cook gives evidence AGAINST it.

The IPCC report which I pointed you towards addresses the southern hemisphere.

The IPCC have made bold claims about the global climate but do not consider the science being done around the globe. Hundreds of Chinese studies on past climate in the period between the 11th and 19th century exist, yet not once do they cite them. They do not cite them because they are contrary to their position.

Chery Picking at its finest.

I showed you why this was wrong in the other thread. I gave you references from the IPCC report that they cited that deal with those issues.

Been there, done that. Didnt want to hear it? Didnt read that thread? No excuses for you now.

*sigh* The above is from memory. If you think I have misrepresented the discussion, it might be so. In anycase here is the thread I am talking about.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83166

You will see that I have posted in the thread since you last did. I don't see your answer there.