• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
lomiller said:
By putting "some" in italics are you attempting to imply that there are only a few or that there are some that do not? If you are not attempting to infer either of these then what exactly do you intend the italics to mean.

At this point it's worth nothing that it's almost universally accepted by climate scientists that warming over the last 4 decades is almost entirely anthropogenic. There is no debate over this in the peer reviewed literature.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. There's little debate that most of the observed warming over the last 150 years is due to anthropogenic sources.
 
Trakar said:
So, you accept Hansen, Mann, Archer, Pierrehumbert, Schimdt and the rest's assessments and evidences as reasonable and likely, given their understandings and expertise, it is merely the popular media slipshod mistakes and misspeaks that you take exception to?
Click to expand...

Depends, if Mann's found guilty and there's finally disclosure things might change considerably.

Trakar said:
If there are no rumors being supported, how can exaggerated rumors be the issue?
Click to expand...

Not rumours, the science.
 
Trakar said:
Most of them seem to have been largely irrelevent throughout their professional life, and this provides a tincture of the attention they apparently craved and never realized in their pre-retirement careers.
Click to expand...

Those who did have some prominence saw it fade, and I can see how that might be discomforting. Being one of the later Moon-walkers, for instance, may have been a little disappointing, given that viewing figures (and hence coverage) dropped quite rapidly. Apollo 13 jumped the shark on that show :).

Attention-seeking is very much part of the denier scene. McIntyre, Watts and Monckton rose without trace to suddenly become international denier icons in their later years, and they won't give that up easily. Their more dedicated followers won't desert them even when they pass beyond retirement into emeritus rank or, heaven forfend, death. The dog-days of denial will have a long tail.

The attention given to (for instance) Mann, Hansen and Jones is, ironically enough, a result of attention-seeking deniers calling them out to single-combat. The element of surprise in that strategy wore off long ago, hence the 49'ers and the the WSJ 16 and (gawdelpus) the Oregon Petition.

Will there even be another release of stolen emails? SlimeItGate 3? That shark pretty much got jumped in the pilot, but maybe there'll be something just before the US Presidential Election. Only in desperation, though, after the weird weather over there recently - the last thing Romney's campaign will want to draw attention to is climate change, I'd have thought, and I don't see Obama making it a big issue unless it's a very hot summer.

AGW is a people-watching exercise for me these days, and very entertaining it is.
 
Furcifer, please cite your evidence that Skeptical Science is a pseudoscience site

Furcifer said:
These are still just examples from a pseudoscience cite where correlation is being used to infer causation.
Click to expand...
Oh dear - you are back to the unsupported "pseudoscience" assertions like
And now we have:
Furcifer, please cite your evidence that Skeptical Science is a pseudoscience site
20 April 2012

Read the scientific papers cited in the links:
Ocean acidification: global warming's evil twin
What is the link between hurricanes and global warming?
Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
It is the scientific papers where physics, etc. is being used to deduce causation for the effects.
 
Furcifer said:
Is this a way of admitting you were wrong before? Several pages back you, RC and lomiller were arguing quite ferverently that greenhouse gas emissions weren't in direct correlation to economic growth. This is Economy and Energy 101.
Click to expand...
You are wrong: I have never stated that greenhouse gas emissions weren't in direct correlation to economic growth. What I have pointed out is that the "Economy and Energy 101" of reducing greenhouse gas emissions leads to economic growth.
See The economic impacts of carbon pricing
Economic assessments of proposed policy to put a price on carbon emissions are in widespread agreement that the net economic impact will be minor. The costs over the next several decades center around $100 per average family, or about 75 cents per person per week, and a GDP reduction of less than 1%. Moreover, the benefits outweigh the costs several times over, as real-world examples illustrate.
Click to expand...

The inverse is also "Economy and Energy 101", i.e. economic growth means more plower pants, cement works, vehicle usage, etc. and thus greater greenhouse gas emissions as stated in the article:
Transportation remained the second-largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions after electricity production, according to the report. Travel accounted for nearly a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions in 2010 and the economic recovery meant more people drive and fly.
Click to expand...
(my emphasis added)
 
Furcifer said:
Depends, if Mann's found guilty and there's finally disclosure things might change considerably.
Click to expand...
Is this an assertion that there is a trial of Mann happening in which he can be found guilty of something? Citations?

Disclosure of what?

Michael E. Mann
The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the National Science Foundation carried out a detailed investigation, which it closed on 15 August 2011. It agreed with the conclusions of the university inquiries, and exonerated Mann of charges of scientific misconduct.[20][21][22]
Click to expand...

Or are you thinking about the "hockey stick" graph which has been confirmed by other papers:
Michael E. Mann
More than a dozen subsequent scientific papers produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original graph, and almost all agreed that the warmest decade in the last thousand years was probably that at the end of the 20th century.[9]
Click to expand...

And for the actual science: What evidence is there for the hockey stick?
Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.
Click to expand...
 
Furcifer said:
Depends, if Mann's found guilty and there's finally disclosure things might change considerably.



Not rumours, the science.
Click to expand...

Mann has been found innocent. But i guess the deniers see that just as evidence of the huge conspiracy they believe in.
 
Reality Check said:
Oh dear - you are back to the unsupported "pseudoscience" assertions like
And now we have:
Furcifer, please cite your evidence that Skeptical Science is a pseudoscience site
20 April 2012
Click to expand...

This has been addressed several times.

Reality Check said:
Read the scientific papers cited in the links:
Ocean acidification: global warming's evil twin
What is the link between hurricanes and global warming?
Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
It is the scientific papers where physics, etc. is being used to deduce causation for the effects.
Click to expand...

None of these papers are citing AGW as causation, they're only noting the correlation.

As both Trakar and I have already noted scientists are reluctant to admit causation because it doesn't exist scientifically.
 
Reality Check said:
Is this an assertion that there is a trial of Mann happening in which he can be found guilty of something? Citations?

Disclosure of what?
Click to expand...

This has been discussed numerous times as well.

On May 16, 2011, American Tradition Institute’s Environmental Law Center and Virginia Delegate Robert Marshall asked a Prince William County judge, under the Commonwealth’s Freedom of Information Act, to expedite the release of documents withheld by the University of Virginia that pertain to the work of its former environmental sciences assistant professor Dr. Michael Mann.

This case is pending, as well as another one in BC if memory serves. UVA has 12000 emails which they're withholding.
 
Furcifer said:
The list ridiculous inanities attributed to global warming has been cited in this thread at least 3 times now.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid what you quoted was 100% accurate, in spite you not liking that so vehemently, to say it mildly.

Just provide the post numbers, Furcifer, one for each one of those three times, or the groups of posts if otherwise fragmented, so we can finally address the supposed inanities of GW according to you and a very small group.
 
Furcifer said:
These are still just examples from a pseudoscience cite where correlation is being used to infer causation.
Click to expand...

A "blog," certainly,...a "pseudoscience" source, not that I've seen any compelling support of, please reference or present such support.

Pseudoscience - Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status. Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
 
Furcifer said:
Indeed, the scientists hesitate because the correlation does not mean causation. Just like I said.
Click to expand...

The article this response is made to, isn't about the scientific considerations, merely popular US considerations, which is only now starting to catch up to the climate science understandings as exemplified in such studies as:

A decade of weather extremes - http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1452.html
(http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/10-ans-dextremes-climatiques.pdf)
The ostensibly large number of recent extreme weather events has triggered intensive discussions, both in- and outside the scientific community, on whether they are related to global warming. Here, we review the evidence and argue that for some types of extreme — notably heatwaves, but also precipitation extremes — there is now strong evidence linking specific events or an increase in their numbers to the human influence on climate. For other types of extreme, such as storms, the available evidence is less conclusive, but based on observed trends and basic physical concepts it is nevertheless plausible to expect an increase...
Click to expand...

Special Report - Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX) - http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/
...This Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX) has been jointly coordinated by Working Groups I (WGI) and II (WGII) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The report focuses on the relationship between climate change and extreme weather and climate events, the impacts of such events, and the strategies to manage the associated risks....
Click to expand...

Predicting and managing extreme weather events - http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v65/i3/p31_s1?bypassSSO=1
(http://www.leif.org/EOS/PTO000031.pdf)
Earth’s climate is warming, and destructive weather is growing more prevalent. Coping with the changes will require collaborative science, forward-thinking policy, and an informed public.
Click to expand...
 
Furcifer said:
Originally Posted by Trakar
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/3294...very.htm?cid=2
Click to expand...
Is this a way of admitting you were wrong before?
Click to expand...

Please reference and cite the specific statements of mine which you feel are contradicted by information or inferences from this article.


Several pages back you, RC and lomiller were arguing quite ferverently that greenhouse gas emissions weren't in direct correlation to economic growth. This is Economy and Energy 101.
Click to expand...

The only argument I've ever made is that the correlation between greenhouse gas emissions and economic growth are tied to the use of fossil fuels as a principle and primary energy source. Reduce or replace the fossil fuels with energy sources that don't emit greenhouse gasses and the correlation almost entirely disappears. If you have any evidence that I have argued or stated otherwise please present that evidence.
 
Furcifer said:
Originally Posted by Trakar
So, you accept Hansen, Mann, Archer, Pierrehumbert, Schimdt and the rest's assessments and evidences as reasonable and likely, given their understandings and expertise, it is merely the popular media slipshod mistakes and misspeaks that you take exception to?
Click to expand...
Depends, if Mann's found guilty and there's finally disclosure things might change considerably.
Click to expand...

So this is a "no"?

Guilty of what?

http://cen.acs.org/articles/90/web/2012/03/Virginia-Court-Dismisses-Climate-Change.html

Not rumours, the science.
Click to expand...

As stated and defined by mainstream science sources and peer-reviewed field relevent science journals, not blogs, think tanks or political activists,...agreed.
 
Furcifer said:
...As both Trakar and I have already noted scientists are reluctant to admit causation because it doesn't exist scientifically.
Click to expand...

If you insist upon speaking for me, please attempt accurate portrayals of my considerations and expressions.

Of course, in comparison to a willingness to misportray and mispresention of the science, misrepresetation of my remarks and considerations is a minor transgression.
 
Trakar said:
Well, that's the thing, these delayers are counting on a welfare state to protect them from their arrogant ignorance, and while I feel their actions are practically "criminal," I believe in uplifting and helping even the least among us,...a tide that actually raises all boats.
Click to expand...

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2012/03/23/1226308/638647-120324-lake-cathie.jpg

"Oh Noes! That ocean will rise 16" by 2050 (maybe), but, geezers, fear not, the welfare state will protect you by driving you from your homes!"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...te-change-threat/story-e6frg6nf-1226308725029
 
SlOWDOWN IN GLOBAL WARMING; second post

FURCIFUR and WESTWALL are thoughtful sceptics who have studied these matters longer than I have. I would be grateful for their opinions about GATA, Global (monthly) Average Temperature Anomaly, including any reasons they might have for finding this or any other series more relevant than the five “raw” data series used by Foster and Rahmstorf. Do we have thirty years of data on GATA? I discuss these matters on post 4830,page 121. (Like all my posts on all Randi forums it met with universal indifference). I am not a trained scientist, so I need things in baby-talk
 
casebro said:
I haven't kept up with the latest satellite data. Is the record high year still '97, or are we back on track in parallel with CO2?

Hey, if CO2 is the cause of AGW, would allowing anybody's house burn just add to the problem? Sounds like the proposal in the OP is counterproductive.
Click to expand...

Top ten warmest years in the instrumental record, in descending order

2005

2010

1998

2003

2002

2006

2009

2007

2004

2001
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom