Anthopogenic Global Warming Myth or Real ?

[Pipirr]

"Demonstrably bad" just because some guy blogged about it?

Truly, truly pathetic.

Yawn.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Yawn. But since you insist, http://www.climateaudit.org/

...If a series has a negative correlation to temperature (as about half of the tree ring series do), the test shown above will lead to the exclusion of this series. So this test either intentionally or unintentionally eliminates all the series with negative correlations to gridcell temperature ...
​

Yawn.

You libel scientists with baseless smears and when called on it, you yawn? Disgraceful, and shameless with it.

Being a right-wing bigot ever bother you?

 

[CapelDodger]

NO.. that is cart before the horse.. SOME measurments showed that temperature was increasing and the prediction was is was due to greenhouse effect.. completely the other way around and VERY unscientific.

The greenhouse effect was discovered in the 1820's, IIRC, when temperatures were not rising. Arrhenius predicted that global warming if Co2 was substantially increased in 1896, when temperatures were not rising. Callender did his research in the 30's and 40's, and it was followed up in the 50's and 60's (when temperatures were not rising). By the 70's there were predictions of AGW, of the order and timescale of what we're experiencing, before there was any warming.

All very scientific, and very correct.

I am not making a wild theory.. I don’t require predictions.. but if you like my model predicts this.. Global temperatures will increase and decrease periodically.. IN SPITE OF MAN ….

They'll only increase in the way they are because of man's activities. Digging up and burning vast amounts of carbon that's been sequestered since the Carboniferous period is uniquely our thing.

 

[AOK Tiger]

Spud1nk

Yes it has. AR4WG1, chapter 9. It's all in there.

And your other comments

YAY for Spud1nk… the first AGW proponent who has at least attempted to answer the questions… Instead of just saying.. ahh.. educate yourself.. scientists all agree.. you are a creationist.. etc.

I do “get” what the proponents for AGW are saying about AGW.. but it still boils down to..

It is VERY difficult to make climate models.

The models we have are inconsistent.

Some studies show a GW trend.

The models we have do not explain GW.

If we include man made causes into our VERY inconsistent models it comes up with a “Similar” pattern to what we have been observing.

What have been observing has changed recently and does not match up with our revised models… unless we revise them more.

That’s like Tychoe Brahes model for an Earth centric universe… he made the data fit his notion… and remember his model was extremely accurate for almost 80 years !

There is NO WAY I would be rapidly altering our lifestyle on the basis of AGW theory.

 

[AOK Tiger]

Guys,

You may not know much about me but I just needed to qualify something.

I am a very strong sceptic.

Cannot stand the paranormal BS.

Cannot stand creationists/anti evolutionists.

Cannot stand “truthers” and inane conspiracy theories.

Put the notion of God on a par with Santa and the Easter Bunny.

Just to put you in the picture…

Honestly doesn’t your BS meter go off with AGW.. its just so wishy washy…

(I guess not as most of you seem pretty clever.. and I would agree with you 99 % of the time.. you must see something in it I cannot).

I just wonder why AGW seems to get by with less real evidence than other things !

 

[CapelDodger]

Of course - it was deliberate. It was a playful dig at your earlier comments about clarity. I apologise that wasn’t clearer or if you took offence.

I'll bear that in mind. We're new to each other, and for what it's worth I haven't taken an instant dislike to you .

But 2005 was only a little lower than 2004 which was only a little lower than 2003 etc. A long steady decrease with one weird result (2007 not 2008) is what I see. If 2008 had showed accelerating loss I would be firmly in your corner but it didn’t. Weird weather event or not it’s data we can’t ignore.

Perhaps. Personally I think when we look back in 2020 and draw a straight line of ice loss, 2007 will be well below the line and 2008 will be a little below the line.

This is where we differ.

The 2007 reduction in ice extent (15% ice cover) revealed how much ice volume had been lost over the previous few decades. 2007 could not have happened otherwise. Ice extent has previously been robust in the face of similar weather conditions, after all.

I am talking "tipping-point", and ice is notorious for tipping-point behaviour.

My prediction (based on gut feel and some experience in monitoring natural systems) is that we won’t go lower than 2007 till about 2012. What’s your prediction? You’re prediction ice free in 2015 right? So you must be thinking we’ll get below 2007 levels pretty damn soon. 2009? 2010?

I'm on record as predicting a record minimum next summer. I'm taking a punt on wind and weather. If I'm wrong it'll be humble pie (I hate that) but a chap has to go out on a limb to claim a "Told You So" (I live for them).

 

[CapelDodger]

You libel scientists with baseless smears and when called on it, you yawn? Disgraceful, and shameless with it.

A fossil, best ignored when there are fresh bones to gnaw on. It'll always be the same-old same-old from mhaze, whatever actually happens. It took years of aversion-therapy to wean him off Al Gore, which established in principle that we can influence him. There's no point in trying to conquer Everest twice.

 

[CapelDodger]

Ahem, one of the "coldest" ...

The coldest since 1980, according to your link. Not exactly rousing, is it?

... and in the midst of all this warming hysteria, you would think that it would be national news.

Have you not noticed the real hysteria that's going on around you? From Russia's March Through Georgia to one Black Monday after another on the markets, and a Presidential Election year. This "hysteria" you speak of is at best muted in that environment.

If if went the other way and it was one of the "warmest", you can make a safe bet it would make the national news.

As I suggested in another place, if this Alaskan winter is particularly warm we can settle that bet.

Sure it would be riveting. It would be a contrary data point that would help relieve our fears of the supposedly upcoming horrors of GW, yet it is not mentioned!

The President of the United States went on prime-time TV to predict unspeakable horrors if the US banking system isn't bailed out by the tax-payer, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, and you think "Cool Summer In Alaska" would be riveting. A single talking-point that clearly looms large in your world but in the normal world, not so much.

Ah, perhaps it falls into the old "if it bleeds, it leads" category of news prioritizing, and freezing to death is not as newsworthy as burning to death!

At the moment losing your home, job, and/or pension fund is what's newsworthy. That's what normal people are concerned about.

I went there too. And I exposed you there as well for ignoring the evidence. Funny, I don't remember calling it a conspiracy, but you did and even named a boogyman, Rupert Murdoch! Ah, too funny. But trying to reason with AGW fanatics such as yourself is always a trying task.

I find playing with loonies like you fun. It would count as bullying if you didn't ask for it, but you straight-out demand it.

You claim that the mainstream media concertedly downplay any evidence against AGW, and now you also claim that there's no collusion involved. How does that work? Well ...

As for me, I just think it is a individual newsroom policy decision that stories about increased GW are trumpeted and stories about decreasing GW are suppressed. Why? Well, see the above paragraph.

I have seen it, and I'm none the wiser.

Most people are like you; they want to hear that AGW is a dud, and they will buy stories that tell them just that. That's why the Torygraph, the Daily Mail and the Sun put such stories on their front pages, in normal times. These are not normal times, and it has bugger-all to do with climate change.

It has something to do with Peak Oil, but climate change comes later.

 

[CapelDodger]

By showing it is warming… NOT showing man is causing it

But leaving behind claims that it isn't happening, along with the increasingly desperate alternative explanations.

In term of the argument that we are having here.. why mention other things scientists agree on ? That seems disingenuous.

Well spotted. What you've perhaps missed is that Conservation of Energy is very relevant to the issue at hand.

Unless you just copped the coldest winter in Alaska for 20 years or the coldest day in Sydney for 20 years.

I've just suffered a cold wet summer in Wales, but I don't project it onto the world-stage.

The last 8 Years have shown NO increases in global temperatures.. has Global warming finished ?

No, it hasn't. During those eight years lots of ice has melted, and the energy for that came from somewhere. The system as a whole has been absorbing energy.

Is it ? .. and even if it is.. did man cause it.. I’ve said this ad infinitum.. 95 % of greenhouse gas is water vapour !!! We didn’t cause that !

Absolute humidity is dependent on temperature, so water vapour is a positive feedback, not a forcing. The atmosphere hasn't got warmer because it's got wetter, it's got wetter because it's got warmer. With no CO2 the atmosphere would be almost completely dry because there'd be no liquid water at the surface.

So blame man ?

What else have you got?

Where did I suggest that ?

With :

4. Man's activity has increased.. man must be the culprit.

(Truncated ellipsis not mine)

Did you mean to suggest something else?

It is stupid to jump to an inconclusive conclusion though.

It's stupid to ignore conclusions because you don't like them. The conclusion that AGW is behind current warming has not been jumped to, it has been arrived at step-by-step and the evidence has only served to back it up. Your hope that there might be some other explanation has been tested to destruction over the last two decades and has failed every time.

Less stupid than accepting the speculation with NO foundation.

Do let us know how that works out for you.

If you are to “stupid” to understand from my user name “Aussie thinker” that I come from AUSTRALIA.. Not the USA, maybe you should pay more attention.. we have paid NOTHING to bail out Wall St !

A username isn't evidence. You've got "thinker" in there; why should I give any more credence to "Aussie"? I'm a sceptic, after all.

I am talking about destroying economies by applying carbon taxes that wouold do extremely little or nothing to avoid and Global warming that may or may not be taking place.

I'm talking about the science. When I hear the term "economic soul" I reach for my gun (figuratively speaking).

 

[mhaze]

.. but it still boils down to..

It is VERY difficult to make climate models.
The models we have are inconsistent.
Some studies show a GW trend.
The models we have do not explain GW.

If we include man made causes into our VERY inconsistent models it comes up with a “Similar” pattern to what we have been observing.....

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/10/when-computer-m.html

Change in 2004 brokerage reserves and from traditional capital reserves to one selected after computer gaming. Smart little bankers kept plugging parameters in until the output was what they wanted.

Brief slideshow -
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/09/28/business/20080928-SEC-multimedia/index.html the accompanying article <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03sec.html>

All "named names" should be fired.

Is there a similarity in "Climate Modeling?"

 

[David Rodale]

Important message follows.

Did we all understand that? Good.


Well, I already have a bet about next year's minimum. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is, or simply make a prediction?

Next years minimum of what? SC23? NASA blew that for the last two years. Now they've extended it out to July 2009. It is a good thing for NASA they don't rely on funding based on making bets. Why do you think Hathaway is so bent on a very strong SC24, just for kicks? Every month that ticks by makes SC24 less likely to be strong. Met O says warming will return in ernest beginning in 2009; no connection to expectations of a very strong SC24?

I'll assume you refer to 2009 ice extent. What can be done is research why the ice melted as it did the last several years, then the 2007 anomaly. From that we can study the data to see if it or other factors have changed since then. BenBurch thought he had all sewn up for 2008, but nature has a way of mucking things up doesn't it?

So, have you studied the data or is this a willy nilly roll of the dice? I've never been much for making bets without being pretty sure of the outcome beforehand. 2008 was supposed to surpass 2007. Why didn't it? I'm not positive, but it appears to be a result of changing conditions in the Arctic to a return of a cooling period.

Understandably, CO2 worshipers automatically assume warming or melting of ice is a result of rising CO2 levels. The problem is you haven't presented any direct evidence to support it.

Amongst howls and ridicule (Schneibster RIP) last year I suggested 2007 was beginning a decline into a strong cooling. Several posts ago I said Sept was likely going to spike, but the following months will bring more cooling again. Well, what happened in September? Do you think those conclusions came by counting CO2 molecules?

So, to answer your question, no, I don't care to bet, but if I were a bettin' man, things aren't looking so good for you. A hint of a few metrics to research. Look up ENSO 3.4 and PDO, AMO, AAM, OLR etc. What is the current ENSO 3.4?


Another is GLAAM. The rest you'll have to figure out. We all know the sun can't possibly affect weather/climate right? Warmology disciples have been programmed to think that way. We'll just have to see what awaits us in 6 months

 

[Spud1k]

If not for a hard core of demonstrably bad science by warmer scientists Mann, Hansen, Jones, etc., you might have a point.

If that was 'bad' science it would have got shot down long ago.

If not for the notable silence by many (but not all) politicians and scientists in the face of lies, distortion and fear factor strategies by Warmer activists, you'd have a point nonetheless.

Says you.

Considering though how you frame this argument to protect propagandists and shelter bad science (of favored varieties), while painting a broad brush against your supposed opposition, I conclude your argument is ideological, not scientific.

It is a very general point. But it does hold true in many cases.

To restate the basics is instructive: It is the far left radical environmental activists who, in a fog of authoritarian controller belief sets, would slap countless restrictions on personal freedoms.

Whatever. I doubt I have any more truck with that crowd than you do. Doesn't change the facts.

 

[Spud1k]

YAY for Spud1nk… the first AGW proponent who has at least attempted to answer the questions… Instead of just saying.. ahh.. educate yourself.. scientists all agree.. you are a creationist.. etc.

I do “get” what the proponents for AGW are saying about AGW.. but it still boils down to..

It is VERY difficult to make climate models.

Correct.

The models we have are inconsistent.

But there are common themes.

Some studies show a GW trend.

Try substituting 'some' for 'all' when you have decent models simulating real-world scenarios.

The models we have do not explain GW.

Yes they do. If you run a model without increasing GHG concentrations, you don't get warming (or at least, nowhere near as much as you should).

If we include man made causes into our VERY inconsistent models it comes up with a “Similar” pattern to what we have been observing.

I'd dispute the 'inconsistent' and the 'similar' bits, but even the result as you describe it should set alarm bells ringing.

What have been observing has changed recently and does not match up with our revised models… unless we revise them more.

I keep saying this but none of the GWSkeptics will listen... climate models can only do long-term trends in forecast mode. The models keep getting better, but the current developments are motivated more by improving their abilities to predict regional climate and extreme weather.

That’s like Tychoe Brahes model for an Earth centric universe… he made the data fit his notion… and remember his model was extremely accurate for almost 80 years !

Tycho Brahe was a lone scientist that didn't have anyone going over his work or presenting alternative theories. The instant a third party was involved (Kepler), the truth came out. There is a huge community of scientists out there, all keeping each other in check. The ones that DR and mhaze cite just represent the more extreme end of that.

There is NO WAY I would be rapidly altering our lifestyle on the basis of AGW theory.

If we don't have you convinced, then it's partly our failings as scientists. However, the science keeps improving all the time and the answer to the question you posed way back when you started this thread just keeps getting more certain. At what point would you become convinced?

 

[Spud1k]

Is there a similarity in "Climate Modeling?"

In layman's terms, no.

 

[a_unique_person]

Guys,

You may not know much about me but I just needed to qualify something.

I am a very strong sceptic.

Cannot stand the paranormal BS.

Cannot stand creationists/anti evolutionists.

Cannot stand “truthers” and inane conspiracy theories.

Put the notion of God on a par with Santa and the Easter Bunny.

Just to put you in the picture…

Honestly doesn’t your BS meter go off with AGW.. its just so wishy washy…

(I guess not as most of you seem pretty clever.. and I would agree with you 99 % of the time.. you must see something in it I cannot).

I just wonder why AGW seems to get by with less real evidence than other things !

There is a whole bucketload of evidence here. If you want to get past the spoonfeeding, stage, and get past the questions and start to understand the things you hadn't even thought of yet.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

You will have to do some of your own legwork.

In regards to models not understanding CO2's role, look at the figures in sectiou 9.4.1.2. They clearly show the role that CO2 plays in the current climate. Take away the CO2, and the climate would not have changed.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Guys,

You may not know much about me but I just needed to qualify something.

I am a very strong sceptic.

Cannot stand the paranormal BS.

Cannot stand creationists/anti evolutionists.

Cannot stand “truthers” and inane conspiracy theories.

Put the notion of God on a par with Santa and the Easter Bunny.

Just to put you in the picture…

I'm with you on all the above.

Honestly doesn’t your BS meter go off with AGW.. its just so wishy washy…

Wishy washy? Because there is no simple experiment that can prove the theory of AGW in 5 minutes? A planet's climate is a very complex system but it still has to obey physical laws we've known about for a very long time.

Does your BS meter not go off with all the "sceptic" claims? They jump from one false claim to another, even between contradictory ones, as each is discredited; they frequently lie; they claim bizarre conspiracies (the whole climate deniosphere could not exist without those beliefs), etc.

Apply some critical thinking and see which "side" resembles the Creationists and the Truthers.

(I guess not as most of you seem pretty clever.. and I would agree with you 99 % of the time.. you must see something in it I cannot).

I just wonder why AGW seems to get by with less real evidence than other things !

There's plenty of evidence. What are you expecting? What would you expect from someone trying to prove a theory about some other highly complex system? Why believe any science you cannot prove to yourself using simple equipment?

 

[easycruise]

Please read the posts for content next time and improve your memory skills. Here is my original claim. I said nothing about a conspiracy

If you are told at all. It seems that the contrary evidence is publicly kept localized and suppressed by the major national news media.

YOU came up with a conspiracy in this post and then mentioned "shadowy forces" and the left's favorite boogeyman, Rupert Murdoch. ...

Ah, conspiracy. Who do you reckon's behind it? Rupert Murdoch? He's always struck me as a wrong 'un.

Have you not noticed the real hysteria that's going on around you? From Russia's March Through Georgia to one Black Monday after another on the markets, and a Presidential Election year. This "hysteria" you speak of is at best muted in that environment.

Newspapers have lots of room for other topics. Some even have a Science section.

find playing with loonies like you fun. It would count as bullying if you didn't ask for it, but you straight-out demand it.

I find the same with you. I presented a claim and I provided strong evidence after doing research that you actually commended me on, and now you refuse to accept the claim as proven, responding with weak retorts and give excuses for the media not covering it and also putting words in my mouth. Who's really the loony here? Who's the one who brought up the notion of a conspiracy and shadowy forces and a boogeyman? YOU did, which makes you quite amusing.

You claim that the mainstream media concertedly downplay any evidence against AGW, anow you also claim that there's no collusion involved. How does that work?

Never said concertedly, never said collusion, you have with that active imagination of yours. Clearly, any rational thinker would realize that there are way too many TV networks and newspapers for there to be any sort of collusion.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Would you care to reiterate your predictions for next year?
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting...845dc90780.png

Well, I already have a bet about next year's minimum. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is, or simply make a prediction?

Next years minimum of what? SC23?

It seems clear enough to me that it was about sea ice. I see no mention of solar cycles.

 

[Spud1k]

Honestly doesn’t your BS meter go off with AGW.. its just so wishy washy…

Not personally. Like all planets, the temperature of the earth is in part controlled by the constituents of the atmosphere (if it wasn't for GHGs, we'd all freeze). It follows that if you change the atmosphere, you'd change the temperature.

(I guess not as most of you seem pretty clever.. and I would agree with you 99 % of the time.. you must see something in it I cannot).

I just wonder why AGW seems to get by with less real evidence than other things !

It depends on what you count as 'real evidence'. But it's also partly because of what's at stake.

Just remember that there have been plenty of incidences in the history science of people incorrectly rejecting new theories, not because the evidence wasn't there, but because they couldn't (or wouldn't) get their heads around it. Examples include the dangers of smoking, evolution and quantum mechanics, some of which some people still have problems with.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Just remember that there have been plenty of incidences in the history science of people incorrectly rejecting new theories, not because the evidence wasn't there, but because they couldn't (or wouldn't) get their heads around it. Examples include the dangers of smoking, evolution and quantum mechanics, some of which some people still have problems with.

And Plate Tectonics. I mention this because some geologists could never accept it. Some of the most prominent AGW sceptics now happen to be geologists...