Global warming...debunked?

[skeptsci]

Essentially they are trying to argue that unless new records are set every single year warming has somehow stopped. Why bother debunking it, simply use it as idiot proof because only a politically motivated moron could find it convincing, and these are not going to listen to anything anyway.

It's interesting to read that you think that political motivation is driving the AGW skeptic scientists. IF this was true it would mean that politics (and not the scientific thought) would be motivating both schools of scientists. This would mark a very sad period for science, don't you think?

 

[Thunder]

CO2 levels in general and especially ACO2 are definitely not sure to be the cause for GW in theory or practice, as much as the alarmists would like everybody to believe it like they (sometimes honestly) do.

i doubt the scientific analysis of ANYONE who uses name calling to make an argument.

 

[daenku32]

I can comment on this one line from the article:




While it is true the surface area covered by the ice, ships which have gone in and examined the ice have found that the ice is not thick, solid pack ice but rather a thin, mushy ice easily broken up by wind and wave action, and which an icebreaker can easily plow through.

In short, while the ice may be covering more surface area, it's 'quality' is terrible.

There is a much shorter and quicker way to address it:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100105_Figure6.png

They just took the record year (2007) and used it as a reference point. So, no global warming until the next record year... And because non-record years outnumber record years, it means there is no global warming....

Denialism in a nut shell.

 

[skeptsci]

About this increase in ice area, this could be a misleading fact. It may not be linked to a "cooling" effect. Quite the contrary.

In June 2006, there was already a case of a misread publication. The scientists found an increase of polar ice thickness in a specific region. Of course, GW deniers jumped on it.
I learned it on the radio. "It's not melting! Do you hear me, (insert bad word - sic). It's thickening!" It was pleasant to have a DJ calling you names early morning.
An editorial in the journal Nature (mid-June 2006) set it back on perspective. It turned out this patch of ice was deep inland, and was not receiving much rain or snow. The thickening was the result of more precipitations making in inland.
And what causes an increase of precipitations? More water in the atmosphere, meaning more sea evaporation. Meaning higher temperatures.

To this extend, "global warming" could be a bit misleading. From that I understood, it's more like "warmer summers, colder and more rainy/snowy winters". I think I will wait next Summer to decide if the global warming is over.

Adding a little bit of drama made it more interesting especially when used as a mean to belittle the opinions you didn't like. But hey you did reach the reasonable conclusion highlighted (by me) in yellow.

 

[Corsair 115]

Interesting, do you have a link or something to that effect? Thanks in advance.

The CBC program Mansbridge One on One had an interview with an Arctic researcher who had part of a research mission on an icebreaker investigating the ice and all involved were surprised by the poor quality of the ice.

Unfortunately, for some reason CBC does not offer episodes of the program available for viewing online.

 

[Thunder]

how many AGW skeptics are REAL skeptics, and how many of them are just pseudo-skeptics, listening to the views of any and every obscure and poorly known scientist who simply confirms their pre-conceived notions that AGW is not only false, but may be part of a greater conspiracy by evil political forces?

i have known a few AGW deniers, and they were very very poor researchers. they simply took one article or one interview, and accepted it as truth. they rarely did any fact checking or independent research to verify what they had just learned.

such, is a very poor skeptic, if a skeptic at all.

 

[Peephole]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html

can someone debunk this "debunking"?

I know soo little about this subject. I have no idea what to think.

Here's a real reaction from the guy the article claims to be based on:

Mojib Latif, a climate expert at the Leibniz Institute at Kiel University in Germany, said he "cannot understand" reports that used his research to question the scientific consensus on climate change.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/11/climate-change-global-warming-mojib-latif

And this is the actual evolution of arctic sea ice:

 

[dlorde]

ISTR some years ago, some noted climatologists saying that global warming didn't mean that everyone would get warmer in the short to medium term, but that we could expect more extreme weather conditions more frequently - which is pretty much what we're seeing. The weather here in the UK recently put me in mind of what would happen if the Gulf Stream ceased (e.g. due to melting polar ice reducing North Atlantic salinity).

 

[mhaze]

how many AGW skeptics are REAL skeptics, and how many of them are just pseudo-skeptics, listening to the views of any and every obscure and poorly known scientist who simply confirms their pre-conceived notions that AGW is not only false, but may be part of a greater conspiracy by evil political forces?

i have known a few AGW deniers, and they were very very poor researchers. they simply took one article or one interview, and accepted it as truth. they rarely did any fact checking or independent research to verify what they had just learned.

such, is a very poor skeptic, if a skeptic at all.

Yep, I wondered how long it would take you to get to the conclusion you had before you posted the OP.

(Reference the graph in #17). The presentation of the PDO and the caluculation of straight line fit through it as presented above are flawed.

1. It is a straight line fit from the low of a PDO cycle to a high of a PDO cycle. Properly done, the fit should be high to high or low to low or mid to mid. So the presentation lies, and shows more warming than has actually occurred.

2. Many arguments from Warmers as to current warming use the 1978 onwards section of data or the last half century. Note that this is also from a PDO low to a PDO high, and thus the Warmers doing this, either willfully or by ignorance, are claiming that rise in temperature due to AGW which is actually just the PDO.

These kinds of misrepresentations and propaganda driven tactics whould leave one to wonder as to the quality of thinking ability of those making said arguments on said data.

By the way, the background rising temperature line which is left after removing PDO and other periodics is referred to as the "secular curve". It has been there for a while. Like since the Little Ice Age.

 

[Thunder]

2. Many arguments from Warmers as to current warming use the 1978 onwards section of data or the last half century. Note that this is also from a PDO low to a PDO high, and thus the Warmers doing this, either willfully or by ignorance, are claiming that rise in temperature due to AGW which is actually just the PDO. .

does labeling people make you feel strong?

actually, what it does is de-humanize people. they stop being individuals with personal points of view, and become part of a monolithic group, that you can easily attack.

 

[Thunder]

Here's a real reaction from the guy the article claims to be based on:

Mojib Latif, a climate expert at the Leibniz Institute at Kiel University in Germany, said he "cannot understand" reports that used his research to question the scientific consensus on climate change.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/11/climate-change-global-warming-mojib-latif

And this is the actual evolution of arctic sea ice:

http://i50.tinypic.com/a0zat0.png
http://i45.tinypic.com/zmf79j.png

thank you. very very much.

 

[a_unique_person]

wow...PDO index seems to follow world-wide temperature variations through the years. is it possible that this is causing most of our temperature changes..and not CO2 levels?

It is causing, or associated with, most of our temperature changes. But you are confusing the short term 'noise' with the long term 'signal'. The year to year temperature changes are quite large, but do not persist. The long term CO2 caused warming is quite small year by year, but scientists are thinking in the long term, over centuries. That is going to be persistent over that time scale.

 

[Meed]

Yep, I wondered how long it would take you to get to the conclusion you had before you posted the OP.

(Reference the graph in #17). The presentation of the PDO and the caluculation of straight line fit through it as presented above are flawed.

1. It is a straight line fit from the low of a PDO cycle to a high of a PDO cycle. Properly done, the fit should be high to high or low to low or mid to mid. So the presentation lies, and shows more warming than has actually occurred.

WTF are you talking about? It ends on a lower point of the PDO cycle than it starts on.

2. Many arguments from Warmers as to current warming use the 1978 onwards section of data or the last half century. Note that this is also from a PDO low to a PDO high, and thus the Warmers doing this, either willfully or by ignorance, are claiming that rise in temperature due to AGW which is actually just the PDO.

And yet the PDO index doesn't increase over this period, while global temperatures go up about .2

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I find it really interesting to see all you AGW proponents heading out to debunk the information that come from these climate change scientists first. That was the premise of the OP and you have all fallen directly into line. "They must be wrong, so we must debunk" attitude.

This is far from open minded or scientific imho.

If they stated that the world is continuing to warm through AGW you would all be nodding your heads in the usual agreement and accepting it without question.

More groupthink.

Here we have two (non 'denier' by the way) putting forward some additional and alternate theories that might actually be good news and you first and foremost wish to disbelieve them.

Incredible!

 

[Thunder]

Yep, I wondered how long it would take you to get to the conclusion you had before you posted the OP.

and AGW Deniers don't have a pre-conceived notion of truth?

please.

 

[mhaze]

WTF are you talking about? It ends on a lower point of the PDO cycle than it starts on.

The exact momentary start and end point are not relevant.

I think my point was clear, you cannot measure a trend line with a component of sine wave from the low of one wave to the high of another. The start point should have been about 1880.

Is this not clear?

And yet the PDO index doesn't increase over this period, while global temperatures go up about .2

1970 to 2000 was the upward sweep of the PDO. NASA announced PDO reversal a year or two ago based on sea temperature indices from the last oh, six years or so if I recall correctly.

If someone does not understand these (well understood) natural phenomena, then it is not possible to be correct in stating beliefs about what part of planetary warming is due to man's effects.

Eg, the Warmer who is ignorant of PDO will always look foolish.

 

[temporalillusion]

The CBC program Mansbridge One on One had an interview with an Arctic researcher who had part of a research mission on an icebreaker investigating the ice and all involved were surprised by the poor quality of the ice.

Unfortunately, for some reason CBC does not offer episodes of the program available for viewing online.

Ok, cool thanks!

 

[Hallo Alfie]

In short, while the ice may be covering more surface area, it's 'quality' is terrible.

Does that mean that the quality of the ice disproves that it is, in fact cold?

i doubt the scientific analysis of ANYONE who uses name calling to make an argument.

Warmers and deniers seem to be accepted terms of reference for many. I am constantlky called a denier despite my claims and statements to the contrary.

Your arm waving and whining over "name calling" seems to be an effort to ignore or dodge the point being made.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

1970 to 2000 was the upward sweep of the PDO. NASA announced PDO reversal a year or two ago based on sea temperature indices from the last oh, six years or so if I recall correctly.

If someone does not understand these (well understood) natural phenomena, then it is not possible to be correct in stating beliefs about what part of planetary warming is due to man's effects.

Eg, the Warmer who is ignorant of PDO will always look foolish.

1920 to 1940 was an upward sweep of the PDO as well. Why wasn't it as warm from 1920 to 1940 as it was from 1970 to 2000?

 

[Meed]

The exact momentary start and end point are not relevant.

The start point should have been about 1880.

I think my point was clear, you cannot measure a trend line with a component of sine wave from the low of one wave to the high of another.

Is this not clear?

PDO ends lower than it starts on that graph, so no it's not clear. Nor is it a sine wave.

1970 to 2000 was the upward sweep of the PDO. NASA announced PDO reversal a year or two ago based on sea temperature indices from the last oh, six years or so if I recall correctly.

Yes, yet we're still faced with an oscillating straight line trend in PDO vs a rising trend in global temperature.