Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Whiile the fraud accusations against Mann's reconstructiuons have feiled.
Now even Potholer is exposing fraudulent graphs of temperature reconstructions.
 
r-j said:
If the consensus really believes there is a crisis, ...

What is the solution? I've read a thousand posts bemoaning the end of the world as we know it, but nobody is posting a solution.
Click to expand...

The issue is that there is an consensus among the people who study climate, there appears to be an increase in global temperatures, and it seems likely that green house gases emitted by humans and then the warming also release green house gasses.

There are many different solution, and saying that there are not a lot of alternative solutions discussed is a little disingenuine, plenty exist and plenty are discussed. Some even within this thread.

To me there is going to be a multi part solution;
-decreased use of fossil fuels
-increased use of 'alternative' energy sources
-capture of CO2 in biomass and sequestration

The problem is there are politics and human nature at work.
 
its not often that i learn something new from the Youtube comments on a video dealing with AGW, only new lies from the deniers mostly. But today i learned something.
I knew that there is a gravitational effect from ice sheets and that sea level rises are not uniform around the globe. but how huge the gravitational effect actually is, that i didn't know. at the coast of greenland, the sea levels will actually fall when it melts. lol very counterintuitive.


admitetly i didn't check the scientific literature about it to see if its actually correct. but to me it seems legit so far :)
 
321xamt said:
Unscientific observation: The banded gecko, a critter of the North American Southwest, is now occasionally spotted in my garden here in Northwest Florida.
Click to expand...

One of the unheralded benefits of AGW is the opportunity to observe lots of new wildlife close to home. Much of it will come in the shape of ticks, bugs and things which eat your home, of course, but lets not carp.
 
The Esper et al paper and its rather overblown conclusions has come at an opportune moment for the denial movement, and will no doubt be the default response to the upcoming BEST finale (when they can't ignore it entirely). It's in the fine old tradition of one paper overturning a huge body of science (when looked at from a very particular perspective).

Rumour has it that BEST will just get better :). From the moment I heard of the project I've had a feeling it'll be a treasure. After all, there's a good reason why denialists never use any of the data they so vehemently demand, and even the data Watts gathered himself with the Surface Stations photo-shoot was eaten by the dog.

The denier response to both projects is telling. With the photo-shoot they started crowing about what the data would show from the moment the project started, only to go gradually silent as it came in. With BEST they nailed themselves to its mast at the moment of launched, quite certain that Muller, Curry and the Kochs made it a sure-fire good thing. Which lends weight to the theory that many of them actually believe that mainstream science is engaged in a conspiracy to distort the data.

I must say I'm enjoying watching the denier meltdown. I've been looking forward to it and so far I have not been disappointed. This BEST thing, for instance - who saw that coming? Pure gold.
 
DC said:
not at all. there are even people in denial of the greenhouse effect. there are also people in denial about warming trends, there are people in denial of physical properties of Co2 etc etc.
there are many levels of denial. but there are also people merely being skeptical.
Click to expand...

True, but claiming victory over AGW "denialism" here is pretty much like posting a picture of the ol' blue marble and claiming "I haven't heard much from the flat Earther's since".
 
Reality Check said:
Again you are making your own mistake of confusing Topic 1 with Topic 2. Maybe it is the 1 and 2 that you do not understand so here we go again!
I hope that I do not have to split this into 2 posts so that you can understand that the first topic is about weather and the second topic is about climate.

Topic about weather that does not mention climate change:
The heat waves, which are weather, are not caused bythe albedo changes caused by deforestation and urbanization that you brought up. This is simple to undertand since deforestation increases albedo and decreases temperatures (but heat waves happened in rual areas!) and urbanization does decrease albedo and increase local tempertaures (The Effects of Urbanization on the Local Weather and Climate of Chicago, Il (PDF) derived a 5 °C increase).
Thus my still unanswered question about your previous assertion:

First asked 3rd July 2012 (21 days and counting)
​
Topic about climate change that does not mention weather:
The albedo changes caused by deforestation and urbanization that you brought up are insignificant in climate change.
Deforestation increases albedo and decreases temperatures
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”


Only a really ignorant person would not know this.
Luckily I do not claim that :D.
I claim what climate science backs up, that global warming will cause (and may already be causing) an increase in the frequency of the extreme ends of those fluctuations.
See for example: Public Perception of Climate Change and the New Climate Dice - Hansen (2011) (PDF)
Click to expand...

If you don't want to admit there is a sharp increase in talk about global warming with every extreme weather event that's fine, but you're wrong.

Likewise, you're wrong about changes in albedo and resulting changes in weather. I would strongly suggest reading actual scientific journals instead of the usual pseudoscience websites often cited here.
 
bit_pattern said:
No it's not.
Click to expand...

It really is. What I find most amusing is reading actual scientific journals and seeing the skepticism first hand and then coming here and seeing such adamant belief. This is supposed to be a skeptical website for gosh sakes :D


bit_pattern said:
The uncertainty is weighted towards high sensitivity, not low, it is becoming increasingly apparent that there is a high degree of certainty that the impact will NOT be in the lower estimates. The real uncertainty is just where on the tail of the high sensitivity estimates we'll fall.

In other words, Schmittner et al. find equilibrium sensitivities of less than 1.3°C just as unrealistic as sensitivities greater than 4.5°C. ​

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Schmittner-climate-sensitivity-goood-bad-ugly.html
Click to expand...

Not only are the sensitivities in question, so are the positive and negative impacts of such changes. It's totally uncertain, and yet some people (not most scientists mind you) are absolutely certain. Makes you wonder doesn't it :)
 
Climate change study forces sceptical scientists to change minds

Climate change study forces sceptical scientists to change minds

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/29/climate-change-sceptics-change-mind

The Earth's land has warmed by 1.5C over the past 250 years and "humans are almost entirely the cause", according to a scientific study set up to address climate change sceptics' concerns about whether human-induced global warming is occurring.

Prof Richard Muller, a physicist and climate change sceptic who founded the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (Best) project, said he was surprised by the findings. "We were not expecting this, but as scientists, it is our duty to let the evidence change our minds." He added that he now considers himself a "converted sceptic" and his views had undergone a "total turnaround" in a short space of time.
 
is it just me or is he demonstrating his extreme ego and arrogance?
since decades scientific studies show the same he came up with today. he was unconvinced, but now that he has worked out the same on a much more simplistic method, he thinks other skeptics and even the deniers have to follow?
 
Maybe the 's' on scientist is a typo. ;)

It does seem to be referring only to the group involved in the study. Who knows how many of them were deniers.
 
Last edited:
I was a bit surprised when the study was announced, because I'd always assumed that the money men behind denialism knew perfectly well that global warming was real and manmade. The fact that they funded this study suggested that some at least actually believed their cherry picked "facts" and misrepresentations; the way it was set up there would be no way to hide that the results agreed with those produced by the other three organisations, as they were bound to do.
 
Wasnt this chap in the news at least a year ago or maybe two, about changing his mind from climate change skeptiscism? I remember there was a group of skeptic/denier scientists who set out to once and for all resolve the issue, and and the results didnt come out the way they expected... and this guy was the one who made it public...
 
scratchy said:
Wasnt this chap in the news at least a year ago or maybe two, about changing his mind from climate change skeptiscism? I remember there was a group of skeptic/denier scientists who set out to once and for all resolve the issue, and and the results didnt come out the way they expected... and this guy was the one who made it public...
Click to expand...

back then they put together their own temperature record, to convince themself that the globe is actually really warming up. and now they looked into the cause of the warming and concluded it must be human Co2 emissions.
 
Pixel42 said:
I was a bit surprised when the study was announced, because I'd always assumed that the money men behind denialism knew perfectly well that global warming was real and manmade. The fact that they funded this study suggested that some at least actually believed their cherry picked "facts" and misrepresentations; the way it was set up there would be no way to hide that the results agreed with those produced by the other three organisations, as they were bound to do.
Click to expand...
It doesn't look like the study's funding is the oil and coal industry. Charles Koch gave 150K, but despite the fact he's an extreme right wing Libertarian, he's responsible for funding a lot of valid science.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom