Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Wangler]

At least it isn't all bad news:

"Of those, three out of every four fish species have grown in numbers with warming. Catches of cold-loving species, including haddock and cod, have dropped by half in the past three decades, whereas landings of warm-loving species, including hake and dab, have more than doubled.

The results show that studies focused only on changes to where particular fish species are found -- species ranges -- will miss the far more ecologically and economically relevant effects of warming. They also suggest there will be an unavoidable change in what's for dinner.

Simpson added: "We may see a further decline in cold-adapted species, many of which were the staple for our grandparents. The flip side is a likely increase in species that for the UK may seem relatively exotic now, such as red mullet and John Dory. Over time, with effective management and an appropriate response in consumer demand, European seas have the potential to yield productive and sustainable fisheries into the future."

 

[This is The End]

I saw this article in the news so I thought I'd link to it .

Global warming: ‘Missing’ heat found deep in the ocean - - New study explains why global surface temperatures don’t rise in a straight line

 

[Reality Check]

Is Nature a picking pseudoscience web site, Furcifer

No it isn't, you're wrong. That's been demonstrated numerous times now.

Yes it is according to NOAA: NOAA said that you are wrong.
Your 'demonstrations' have nothing to do with a "20th Century average", i..e. an average of a quantity like temperture claculated over the 20th century: Furcifer's cited papers do not calculate a "20th Century average"

Nonsense, it's numerous numbers.

Obvious nonsense: The average of a quantity is always a single number.

You really needed to proof read that statement: Using science to prove a point is tno a cargo cult! It is scentific debate.

But thanks for the clarification. You have you own personal definition (and wrong) of a cherry picking pseudoscience web site which is that it does not cite every paper ever published on the subject.
It is a pity that you are wrong aout the defintion of cherry picking.
It leads you to the strange conclusion that every web site that exists that examines science and does not cite every paper in existence (on every page?) is a cherry pickling pseudoscience web site!

So according to you, Nature is a cherry picking pseudoscience web site, Furcifer !

 

[Reality Check]

Are climate science textbooks also cherry picking, Furcifer

I don't. I really don't need to read those websites, all you have to do is pick up a journal and read a paper and the references.

Yes you do. You made the assertion. Now back it up with the evidence that lead you to the assertion. That is why I asked

Originally Posted by Reality Check
Still no answer to Furcifer: Provide your evidence for the cherry picking in Skeptical Science
(30 August 2011).
How about a list of 10 articles and the papers that they ignored in order to cherry pick their cited papers?

But the rest of your post suggests that this is some kind of blind prejudice on your part, possibly based on you ignorance of what cherry picking means.. If you have no evidence then you should just say so and admit you are just insulting web sites that discuss climate sceince for some personal reason.

While I am thinking about your misunderstanding of the term cherry picking, another question arises. Textbooks to not cite every paper that ever existed on their subject.
Are climate science textbooks also cherry picking, Furcifer?
They meet your personal (and very wrong) definition of cherry picking.

In fact every textbook on any subject matches your incorrect understanding of cherry picking.

And what about scientific papers? They are 'cherry picking' according to you because they do not cite every paper in existence about their subject !

 

[Warmer1]

Global energy use is expected to jump 53% by 2035, largely driven by strong demand from places like India and China, according to a report Monday.

Accompanying the surge in energy use is a correspondingly large jump in greenhouse gas emissions. EIA sees energy-related carbon dioxide emissions rising 43% by 2035.

WOW! I had read about the coal terminals in Australia ramping up production by a magnitude but I had not yet seen the increase in global energy projections.

I'm am so lucky that I lived during the best of times. The debate about what solutions are possible may soon be over. The chart on the page is not looking good.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/19/markets/global_energy_use/index.htm?iid=Popular

 

[Trakar]

The debate about what solutions are possible may soon be over. The chart on the page is not looking good.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/19/markets/global_energy_use/index.htm?iid=Popular

There are a lot of assumptions built into those charts and findings, but in large part they simply address the realities which have concerned many of us for quite a while now. Our options have always been limited and based predominantly upon when we begin acting in earnest. The longer we wait the fewer choices we have, and the more effort (money and time) it is going to take to achieve the goals.

This is why people like the Israeli Dr. Gymshi¹, British attorney Polly Higgins², and many other prominent personalities³ around the globe are starting to call for "ecocide" and other such global environmental degradations to be considered as crimes against humanity. I understand the sentiment, but am more interested in addressing the the issues moving forward than I am worried about pointing fingers and laying blame.

There are still a lot of choices to be made, and most of these don't require congressional action or even approval, all they need are executive branch leadership and commitment to accomplishment.

¹ - "Environmental offenses are crimes against humanity" - http://www.jpost.com/HealthAndSci-Tech/ScienceAndEnvironment/Article.aspx?id=176708

² - "British campaigner urges UN to accept 'ecocide' as international crime" - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/09/ecocide-crime-genocide-un-environmental-damage

³ - "ECOCIDE: A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY?" - http://beta.genocidepreventionnow.org/Portals/0/docs/Ecocide_Collegium Ramazzini_Richter.pdf

"Economic, Social & Environmental Crimes" - http://ecafg.org/

"Establishment of an International or European Criminal Court" - http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetd...201007/20100713_envi_criminal_court_v3_en.pdf

"Is climate science disinformation a crime against humanity?" - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/nov/01/climate-science-disinformation-crime

 

[Furcifer]

Science is not a belief

Yes it is according to NOAA: NOAA said that you are wrong.
Your 'demonstrations' have nothing to do with a "20th Century average", i..e. an average of a quantity like temperture claculated over the 20th century: Furcifer's cited papers do not calculate a "20th Century average"

Nonsense. The fine man from NOAA also shook his head in bewilderment at this ridiculous notion of a universal definition of the 20th Century.

I don't know why you persist in this myth?

Obvious nonsense: The average of a quantity is always a single number.

Incorrect. The average was calculated for each month, hence 12 distinct values.

You really needed to proof read that statement: Using science to prove a point is tno a cargo cult! It is scentific debate.

Nonsense. I suggest you read the cited paper for clarity.

But thanks for the clarification. You have you own personal definition (and wrong) of a cherry picking pseudoscience web site which is that it does not cite every paper ever published on the subject.
It is a pity that you are wrong aout the defintion of cherry picking.
It leads you to the strange conclusion that every web site that exists that examines science and does not cite every paper in existence (on every page?) is a cherry pickling pseudoscience web site!

So according to you, Nature is a cherry picking pseudoscience web site, Furcifer !

More nonsense. These pseudoscience websites like realcrapclimate.com and notsoskepticalscience.com cultivate a religious like following of believers. Not surprisingly they use the same cherry picking techniques that religious groups and cults do. What they omit doesn't have to be in direct odds with what they cherrypick. You're simply wrong.

 

[Furcifer]

But the rest of your post suggests that this is some kind of blind prejudice on your part, possibly based on you ignorance of what cherry picking means.. If you have no evidence then you should just say so and admit you are just insulting web sites that discuss climate sceince for some personal reason.

This isn't an insult, this is merely a statement of fact. These pseudoscientific websites cherry pick studies to further their preconceived notions. It's the very definition of a cargo cult. That's why it's been described as such. I didn't make this up, a Nobel Prize winning physicist did.

While I am thinking about your misunderstanding of the term cherry picking, another question arises. Textbooks to not cite every paper that ever existed on their subject.
Are climate science textbooks also cherry picking, Furcifer?
They meet your personal (and very wrong) definition of cherry picking.

Which textbooks would that be? You're just making stuff up now. If you have a text book you'd like to discuss, and the .pdf is freely available I'll be more than happy to discuss it with you.

In fact every textbook on any subject matches your incorrect understanding of cherry picking.

Incorrect.

And what about scientific papers? They are 'cherry picking' according to you because they do not cite every paper in existence about their subject !

More strawman based entirely in your failure to understand the definition of "cherrypicking".

You don't seem to realize that pseudoscience sites like realcrapclimate.com and notsoskepticalscience.com cherry pick in the same way that any newspaper or nightly news broadcast does. They sensationalize the studies that support their preconceived notions and ignore those that don't.

Just because the 6 o'clock news "cherrypicks" a story to headline about a family getting kicked out of their home because the bank foreclosed on it, doesn't mean there has to be a story about a family moving into a home being suppressed. And just because they "cherrypick" a story about a building burning down doesn't mean there's a story about one being built suppressed.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread.

 

[Mikemcc]

Short term, or full equilibration?

In Hansen's "Earth's Energy Imbalance and Implications" - http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110415_EnergyImbalancePaper.pdf

We see fast-feedback sensitivity at around 3° per CO2 doubling, but long-term, full-equilibration ranges significantly higher over a period of centuries to millenia, at least in accordance with what the paleoclimate record indicates has occurred (repeatedly) in somewhat similar previous climate change episodes. With all the most likely occurences considered and all the proper qualifications made, 4.5°C per doubling of CO2 in the short-term is more than enough to put us in a 6-8°C warmer world in the early part of the next century and a 10-12°C warmer world within the next couple of centuries, and this doesn't stop anytime soon if the longer term full equilibration issues are examined carefully and honestly.

I guess we are giving our species a crash course in terraforming. Nothing like a trial by fire to test our mettle. Should prove an interesting case-study.

Cheers for that. I hadn't even considered the lag to reach full equilibrium because we are continuing to force CO2 levels up. That consideration really only becomes important when we make serious global efforts to become carbon-neutral.

 

[Insane Duck]

Blind Question: What evidence do we have linking the current climate trends to human activity?

I haven't really read up on it and I'm not sure where to start.

 

[Mikemcc]

Blind Question: What evidence do we have linking the current climate trends to human activity?

I haven't really read up on it and I'm not sure where to start.

There's a number of pointers:

1. We can calculate how much CO2 is generated (vehicle use, power generation, cement production, domestic fuel use, etc). Most countries keep fairly detailed records. We are actually emitting about twice as much as remains in the atmosphere, this indicates that the natural exchanges (to/from biomass, ocean, etc) are still acting as sinks, they are absorbing CO2).

2. Isotope ratio analysis of the CO2 in the air and in ice-cores show that the ratios of different isotopes of carbon in the CO2 are changing. This is because fossil fuels are are exactly that - fossils. A record of the conditions when they are formed.

3. Oxygen in the atmosphere is being depleted (by a tiny amount in relation to it's volume), but the measured value matches that for human fossil fuel use.

4. The energy balance of the earth has been recorded by a number of satellites, and there is a net increase of energy in the system. More is being absorbed, than is being emitted. Spectroscopic analysis of the long-wave radiation confirms the presence of the inapproapriately named greenhouse effect. This isn't disputed, if it didn't exist the Earth would be significantly colder that it actually is. The proportion of the contribution of the various gases to the greenhouse effect has been measured over time and shows that the effect due to CO2 has increased.

5. The stratosphere has cooled, this is in line with the greenhouse theory and not sun-driven variation. Especially since solar activity has remained stagnant, or even declined slightly in the last few decades.

There are a number of other pointers, the best resource for this (despites Furcifer's unsupported rantings) is Skeptical Science:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html

 

[Pixel42]

Blind Question: What evidence do we have linking the current climate trends to human activity?

The Royal Society published a short guide about a year ago which is a good place to start.

You can download it here: http://royalsociety.org/Royal-Society-launches-new-climate-change-guide/

 

[BenBurch]

Blind Question: What evidence do we have linking the current climate trends to human activity?

I haven't really read up on it and I'm not sure where to start.

We have evidence enough to convict and send to the chair, were human activity on trial for murder...

Here are some helpful links;

Argument: It’s not us http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us.htm

Argument: Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate http://www.skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-affect-global-climate.htm

Argument: CO2 is not the only driver of climate http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-is-not-the-only-driver-of-climate.htm

Science: Researchers Find Direct Evidence That Humans Cause Global Warming http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/07/970704073049.htm

Science: Evidence For Human-Caused Global Warming Is Now 'Unequivocal' http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070202085036.htm

Science: Scientific Consensus on Global Warming http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html

Google is your friend, and you can simply ask it questions;

http://www.google.com/search?q=what...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

 

[lomiller]

Blind Question: What evidence do we have linking the current climate trends to human activity?

Current changes fall outside natural variation so we know they are a forced response. The major climate forcings have been documented and their expected effects either quantified or constrained by multiple liens of evidence. The cumulative changes expected from these forcings matches the observed warming trend.

In the unlikely event a major new forcing is discovered, it would mean much of what we know about CO2 forcing must be wrong and those new forcing would need to have been changing is exactly the same way CO2 has been changing over the last 100 years.

In short our current understanding of greenhouse gases explains not only current climate change but is required to understand much of the earth’s climate history. There is no alternative theory that explains even a fraction of this. Huge explanatory power in its own right and a complete lack of competing scientific theories to explain any of this is as much as you can ever hope for in a scientific theory.

I haven't really read up on it and I'm not sure where to start.

Realclimate (a blog run by current actively publishing climate scientists, all of whome have an impressive record of peer reviewed papers on the subject of climate change) has a guide to some introductory resources.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

 

[Reality Check]

Nonsense. The fine man from NOAA also shook his head in bewilderment at this ridiculous notion of a universal definition of the 20th Century.

We are not talking about the "20th century".

We are talking about the "20th Century average". The fine man from NOAA stated that you were wrong: NOAA said that you are wrong.

Incorrect. The average was calculated for each month, hence 12 distinct values.

I see your point now. Yes, when you split your data set up into 12 parts and calculate a "20th Century average", you get 12 numbers.

More nonsense. These pseudoscience websites like realcrapclimate.com ....

You do not need to keep repeating your blind prejudice against web sites.
We know that the answer to:
Furcifer: Provide your evidence for the cherry picking in Skeptical Science
is that you have none.

 

[Reality Check]

This isn't an insult, this is merely a statement of fact.

Cherry picking is an insult because it is a form of lying (unless it is not intentions in which case it is just a mistake).
It is also not a statement of fact since you have no idea whether these web sites are cherry picking since you imply that you have never read them. (see you previous rely to Furcifer: Provide your evidence for the cherry picking in Skeptical Science ).

Which textbooks would that be?

Any of them. The definition of cherry picking that you have seems to be not citingevery paper on the subject. No textbook that I know of cites every paper in existsence.

More strawman based entirely in your failure to understand the definition of "cherrypicking".

The definition of cherry picking is clear:

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. Cherry picking may be committed unintentionally.[1]

But maybe you can give us the correct defintion of cherry picking?

You don't seem to realize that pseudoscience sites like realcrapclimate.com and notsoskepticalscience.com cherry pick in the same way that any newspaper or nightly news broadcast does.

(fixed your spelling mistakes)
Selecting the subjects to report on is not cherry picking.

P.S. You forgot crapWattsUpWithThat.com and hundreds of other web sites that comment on climate science. You also forgot about all of the web sites that comment on science (since they also cite scientific papers).
For that matter scientific papers cite scientific papers and so by your definition are cherry picking .

 

[Furcifer]

We are not talking about the "20th century".

Yes we are.

We are talking about the "20th Century average". The fine man from NOAA stated that you were wrong: NOAA said that you are wrong.

No he didn't. He said the dataset they used was from 1901-2000 and not the 1880-2006 used in the referenced paper. He laughed at this notion of there being some defined "20th Century".

You do not need to keep repeating your blind prejudice against web sites.
We know that the answer to:
Furcifer: Provide your evidence for the cherry picking in Skeptical Science
is that you have none.

Nonsense. These pseudoscientific websites deliberately select the studies and issues they wish to highlight in order to fear monger to their willing believers. I've already cited numerous studies that have been ignored by them because they contradict and cast doubt on their cargo cult ideas.

 

[Furcifer]

Cherry picking is an insult because it is a form of lying (unless it is not intentions in which case it is just a mistake).
It is also not a statement of fact since you have no idea whether these web sites are cherry picking since you imply that you have never read them. (see you previous rely to Furcifer: Provide your evidence for the cherry picking in Skeptical Science ).

As I said, they ignore most of the studies coming from scientific journals that conflict with their preconceived notion. That's cherry picking. I've cited numeorus studies that have been deliberately ignored by realcrapclimatescience.com and socalledskepticalscience.com. How many more before you acknowledge this?

Any of them. The definition of cherry picking that you have seems to be not citingevery paper on the subject. No textbook that I know of cites every paper in existsence.

Pure fabrication. If you have a text you wish to discuss please cite it here.

The definition of cherry picking is clear:


But maybe you can give us the correct defintion of cherry picking?

Sure: cherry-pick, to select the best or most desirable

These pseudoscience sites select the most desirable studies to fear monger to their willing readers who can't read and understand the science and journals for themselves.

P.S. You forgot crapWattsUpWithThat.com and hundreds of other web sites that comment on climate science. You also forgot about all of the web sites that comment on science (since they also cite scientific papers).
For that matter scientific papers cite scientific papers and so by your definition are cherry picking .

realcrapclimate.com and notsoskepticalscience.com aren't spelling mistakes.
Again, you fail to understand the simple definition of cherry picking and it's limiting your ability to discuss the issue. It's also leading you to erroneous conclusions like textbooks being cherrypicked. If you think textbooks are cherry picked perhaps it's time to rethink your position. It's ludicrous.

 

[Mikemcc]

As I said, they ignore most of the studies coming from scientific journals that conflict with their preconceived notion. That's cherry picking. I've cited numeorus studies that have been deliberately ignored by realcrapclimatescience.com and socalledskepticalscience.com. How many more before you acknowledge this?



Pure fabrication. If you have a text you wish to discuss please cite it here.



Sure: cherry-pick, to select the best or most desirable

These pseudoscience sites select the most desirable studies to fear monger to their willing readers who can't read and understand the science and journals for themselves.



realcrapclimate.com and notsoskepticalscience.com aren't spelling mistakes.
Again, you fail to understand the simple definition of cherry picking and it's limiting your ability to discuss the issue. It's also leading you to erroneous conclusions like textbooks being cherrypicked. If you think textbooks are cherry picked perhaps it's time to rethink your position. It's ludicrous.

Please cite one study that they've ignored, frankly none of what you have posted has done so.

 

[Reality Check]

Yes we are.

No we are not. You may be talking about "20th century" for some reson.
I am talking about the "20th Century average" that you claimed was calculated over a period that was wider than the 20th century.

No he didn't. He said the dataset they used was from 1901-2000 and not the 1880-2006 used in the referenced paper. He laughed at this notion of there being some defined "20th Century".

Who cares about "20th Century". We are talking about "20th Century average".
Can you quote Deke Arndt "laughing" at there being a notion that there is is a defined "20th century".
There is an actual definition of the 20th century.

• 20th century: "The 20th century began on January 1, 1901, and ended on December 31, 2000"
• twentieth century: "the century from 1901 to 2000"
• etc.

All I can find is him "laughing" at the idea that someone would be ignorant of the definition of "20th century average".
NOAA said that you are wrong.

Re: Subject: Definition of "20th century average"
From: "Derek.Arndt@noaa.gov" <Derek.Arndt@noaa.gov>Add to Contacts
To: [redacted]
Cc: cmb.contact@noaa.gov
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi,

Our global temperature anomalies presented at
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php are departures from the 20th Century average. The 20th Century average is calculated using the 100-year period beginning with 1901 and ending with 2000.

Deke Arndt
Chief, Climate Monitoring Branch
NOAA's National Climatic Data Center

The dataset used was 1880-2006 but the "20th century average" was calculated from the 20th century part of the dataset !