Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[uke2se]

[qimg]http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/FigureOne.png[/qimg]

You keep making our arguments for us when you cite sources that clearly show warming.

 

[Megalodon]

Start the record at 1999. You still get a plateau of no rises.

Yeah, look at all those plateaus, one after the other



And obviously, the warming has stalled in the last decade. And I'm sure that if one was to compare the warming trend up to 1998 with the trend to, say 2011 (when I made the graph), one would see tremendous differences



Oh wait, apparently the warming trends are indistinguishable, meaning that the 1998 forecasts based on extrapolation of a linear trend were right on the nose.

Or maybe we can look at all the temperature record in a nifty way, that illustrates the wave of warming that we are presently riding.



But, ultimately, the dissenting voices have been reduced to a repetition of:

 

[Megalodon]

[qimg]http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg[/qimg]

I remember analyzing one of those graphs a couple of years ago,



Ignoring for now that it is a global sea ice index, and that it is generally used by deniers to camouflage the collapse of the Arctic sea ice... Your point is?

 

[Belz...]

Warmist propaganda

What an elegant way to hand-wave the evidence away.

The models are wrong, its time to face the facts.

So ALL climate scientists are wrong, and YOU are right ? That doesn't seem right, does it, Gallileo ?

 

[Yerushalmi]

Then I don't think you've read or understood my responses very well. You were given solid links from the get go including the ones in my signature which will get you up to speed very quickly and are not complex tho the RealClimate links onward will get you deep into it.

At the beginning when I first arrived, yes, I was given helpful responses. I asked you to pick which one of the links is best to start with and you did. But the moment I mentioned Goddard, suddenly all your helpfulness disappeared.

Do I not bother with the likes of Goddard??....absolutely and I linked you to why and you clattered right on over it as if the reason to put him totally on ignore never even registered on you.

It didn't register on me, no. Because I don't believe in putting anybody totally on ignore, ever. Even the most idiotic person can say something that happens to be true. I don't frequent Goddard's blog and don't waste my time reading it; so far as I know, yesterday was the only time in my life I ever ended up there. And the only reason I did was because a blog I do read, which I read for purposes that have nothing to do with climate science, happened to mention the Time Magazine contradiction and I followed the hyperlink cascade so I could post the original source here. Ironically, I'd have never ended up on Goddard's site had I not had the desire to show the information to you! I'd have read it on the blog I read in general, said, "Ha! That's funny!", and moved on.

Your response was not to the substance of the specific thing Goddard said in this specific instance, but rather to a generalized accusation of Goddard's lack of credentials. That's a Hitler Ate Sugar sort of argument. I am sure that Goddard, for all his crank-hood, believes that eating food and breathing air is necessary for a human being to live. Goddard's belief in something is not sufficient reason to declare it untrue!

I had no idea who he was, had no idea he already had a reputation as a crank. But that doesn't mean he is incapable of making a true statement. And in this case, there is no doubt it is true. The quotes Goddard provided from Time were accurate, and I verified this via another source.

My question was, "Why does Goddard's conclusion not follow from the valid data presented?" "Time magazine doesn't know what it is talking about" would have been a valid answer. "Polar vortexes really do become more common under both global cooling and global warming, and here's why" would also have been a valid answer. But your answer was "Goddard is a crank". That's not an answer.

Yer - I suggest you revist post 1909 before accusing me of not providing constructive and detailed answers.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9746097&postcount=1909

I never doubted that the consensus of scientific belief in the 70s was that there was a real danger of global cooling. Your post #1909 was a constructive and detailed response to the question "Knowing what we know now, was that belief mistaken at the time or not?", and I appreciated it. But when I pressed for an answer to the specific question I asked, which Trakar was able to partially answer in less than a sentence, you refused to do so.

(I still am interested to know, if the contradiction is borne out of Time magazine's unreliability as a scientific source, which of the two assertions is not backed by the science. Is it "global cooling -> polar vortices", or "global warming -> polar vortices", or both?)

 

[DC]

[qimg]http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg[/qimg]

did you know that AGW can lead to MORE sea ice in some regions?
interested how that can be?

was also what we expected in the Antarctic

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7-4-4.html

so what is your point?

 

[Belz...]

Look them up yourself, will take 5 mins. I am not going to spoon feed you, the links behind the images tell the story.

You know that sounds like "I don't know where the data is from", right ?

If you think I am lying about the source you had better prove your accusation or join the list of Ad Hom users of this forum.

That is not an ad hom.

Seriously, why do 90% of people on the internet not know what an ad hom is ?

I just did, the upper Stratosphere is affected by other processes. Any Co2 increase is contained in the upper Troposphere, if there was a blanket effect it would be seen most at the boundary between the Troposphere and Stratosphere. There are too many ozone fluctuations above this area which influence temperature.

It is very clear that the Troposphere and Stratosphere temps have plateaued for around 17 years. Why has CO2 not continued the trends experienced between 1980 and 1998, until this is answered CO2 cannot be seen as a main driver.

That doesn't make sense at all. If what you say is correct, then your stratosphere graph is irrelevant, except to show that the sun isn't the problem.

Your references are weak and show no understanding of the process, much like yourself.

Well, I'm convinced !

 

[Belz...]

If this is the strength of your argument I can see we we are in a bad place.

In other words, you are unwilling to call them all frauds and would rather dodge the question.

Ask yourself why the models are wrong, ask yourself why the planet hasn't warmed for 17 years.

Begging the question. Youi haven't demonstrated that they are wrong.

You keep making our arguments for us when you cite sources that clearly show warming.

Weird, right ?

 

[DC]

[qimg]http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg[/qimg]

"Both ice sheets appear to be losing more ice now than 20 years ago, but the pace of ice loss from Greenland is extraordinary, with nearly a five-fold increase since the mid-1990s,"

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/news/grace20121129.html

no matter how much deniers want to look at things they believe confirms their crackpottery, it doesn't change the fact that the world is still warming, sea levels still rising, ice sheets loosing mass......

no wonder people laugh at deniers.

 

[DC]

At the beginning when I first arrived, yes, I was given helpful responses. I asked you to pick which one of the links is best to start with and you did. But the moment I mentioned Goddard, suddenly all your helpfulness disappeared.



It didn't register on me, no. Because I don't believe in putting anybody totally on ignore, ever. Even the most idiotic person can say something that happens to be true. I don't frequent Goddard's blog and don't waste my time reading it; so far as I know, yesterday was the only time in my life I ever ended up there. And the only reason I did was because a blog I do read, which I read for purposes that have nothing to do with climate science, happened to mention the Time Magazine contradiction and I followed the hyperlink cascade so I could post the original source here. Ironically, I'd have never ended up on Goddard's site had I not had the desire to show the information to you! I'd have read it on the blog I read in general, said, "Ha! That's funny!", and moved on.

Your response was not to the substance of the specific thing Goddard said in this specific instance, but rather to a generalized accusation of Goddard's lack of credentials. That's a Hitler Ate Sugar sort of argument. I am sure that Goddard, for all his crank-hood, believes that eating food and breathing air is necessary for a human being to live. Goddard's belief in something is not sufficient reason to declare it untrue!

I had no idea who he was, had no idea he already had a reputation as a crank. But that doesn't mean he is incapable of making a true statement. And in this case, there is no doubt it is true. The quotes Goddard provided from Time were accurate, and I verified this via another source.

My question was, "Why does Goddard's conclusion not follow from the valid data presented?" "Time magazine doesn't know what it is talking about" would have been a valid answer. "Polar vortexes really do become more common under both global cooling and global warming, and here's why" would also have been a valid answer. But your answer was "Goddard is a crank". That's not an answer.


I never doubted that the consensus of scientific belief in the 70s was that there was a real danger of global cooling. Your post #1909 was a constructive and detailed response to the question "Knowing what we know now, was that belief mistaken at the time or not?", and I appreciated it. But when I pressed for an answer to the specific question I asked, which Trakar was able to partially answer in less than a sentence, you refused to do so.

(I still am interested to know, if the contradiction is borne out of Time magazine's unreliability as a scientific source, which of the two assertions is not backed by the science. Is it "global cooling -> polar vortices", or "global warming -> polar vortices", or both?)

there was a consensus on this in the 70's?
what is your source for this?

it rather seems there was a weak consensus that we are in for warming, not cooling.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

 

[Yerushalmi]

there was a consensus on this in the 70's?
what is your source for this?

it rather seems there was a weak consensus that we are in for warming, not cooling.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

Interesting! I will leave this in an open tab and read it soon.

 

[DC]

Dr. Roy Spencer is the keeper of the UAH record. If you wish to deny this data because he is a christian good for you. Hardly scientific though.

I can see there will be no point discussing anything further with you. You can lead a horse to water but cannot make it drink.

no, he isn't that would be Christy.... and not Spencer.

why can't you deniers get your stuff factually correct?
no wonder you guys fail so hard. you can't even get the simple things right.

 

[Megalodon]

Even the most idiotic person can say something that happens to be true.

That is a sad way to spend your limited time... There is gold in raw sewage, but I will not spend my time sifting through it in hopes of finding a nugget.

Your response was not to the substance of the specific thing Goddard said in this specific instance, but rather to a generalized accusation of Goddard's lack of credentials.

Goddard is a crank, and is known for spreading climate misinformation. That is enough to not waste time with him. If he happens to have a valuable insight, he's welcome to write it up and submit it to an adequate journal. Until then, I'll assume his ravings are as devoid of content and honesty as before. YMMV, but again, sifting through crap seems like a sad way to spend your time.

My question was, "Why does Goddard's conclusion not follow from the valid data presented?" "Time magazine doesn't know what it is talking about" would have been a valid answer. "Polar vortexes really do become more common under both global cooling and global warming" would also have been a valid answer. But your answer was "Goddard is a crank". That's not an answer.

Time magazine is irrelevant for a debate on climate, and Goddard only relevant as an example of a particularly dishonest denier.

I never doubted that the consensus of scientific belief in the 70s was that there was a real danger of global cooling.

You should have, because it's not exactly true. Even if you could speak of a "consensus" regarding climate in the 70s, when it was a very young discipline, you would find that more scientific articles showed worries about the warming effects of GHG than worries about the cooling effects of sulfates. After all, the main sulfate worry was acid rain, and that was the main reason why it was controlled.

(I still am interested to know, if the contradiction is borne out of Time magazine's unreliability as a scientific source, which of the two assertions is not backed by the science. Is it "global cooling -> polar vortices", or "global warming -> polar vortices", or both?)

Talking very much out of my specialty now, so take the following as a layman's opinion. Polar vortexes exist, and will exist. The newsworthy part is how they meander into the lower latitudes.

With global warming, the weakening of the jet stream and the encroaching of warm air masses over the oceans into high latitudes would result in cold air reaching to quite low latitudes over the continents. This is why Northern Europe is feeling comfortably toasty while the lower US is wondering what hit it.

With global cooling, I would think that the meandering would be more uniform, leading to the freezing of Northern Europe. This would probably cause an an extension of Summer sea ice, and the resulting change in albedo would lead to more cooling.

 

[Yerushalmi]

That is a sad way to spend your limited time... There is gold in raw sewage, but I will not spend my time sifting through it in hopes of finding a nugget.

Again, I don't read Goddard regularly. I read blogs that provide me with good information on a daily basis on subjects other than climate change. One day they happened to give me something on climate change that happened to come from Goddard. That's all.

Time magazine is irrelevant for a debate on climate

This is a problematic attitude. Time magazine is read by the public. If Time magazine says stupid things that are not supported by climate science, AGW activists need to stand up and say something about it. Otherwise people like Goddard are free to honestly quote it for purposes of ridicule, and the silence from the AGW community abandons the battlefield of ideas to his victory.

You should have, because it's not exactly true. Even if you could speak of a "consensus" regarding climate in the 70s, when it was a very young discipline, you would find that more scientific articles showed worries about the warming effects of GHG than worries about the cooling effects of sulfates. After all, the main sulfate worry was acid rain, and that was the main reason why it was controlled.

I'm reading the article now (I got too curious and couldn't wait). Interestingly, it sounds like there was a general belief among climate scientists that global cooling was happening, but it was a very brief one, lasting less than five years:

By the early 1970s, when Mitchell updated his work (Mitchell 1972), the notion of a global cooling trend was widely accepted, albeit poorly understood. The first satellite records showed increasing snow and ice cover across the Northern Hemisphere from the late 1960s to the early 1970s. This trend was capped by unusually severe winters in Asia and parts of North America in 1972 and 1973 (Kukla and Kukla 1974), which pushed the issue into the public consciousness (Gribbin 1975). The new data about global temperatures came amid growing concerns about world food supplies, triggering fears that a planetary cooling trend might threaten humanity’s ability to feed itself (Thompson 1975). It was not long, however, before
scientists teasing apart the details of Mitchell’s trend found that it was not necessarily a global phenomenon. Yes, globally averaged temperatures were cooling, but this was largely due to changes in the Northern Hemisphere. A closer examination of Southern Hemisphere data revealed thermometers heading in the opposite direction (Damon and Kunen 1976)

Talking very much out of my specialty now, so take the following as a layman's opinion. Polar vortexes exist, and will exist. The newsworthy part is how they meander into the lower latitudes.

Of course.

With global warming, the weakening of the jet stream and the encroaching of warm air masses over the oceans into high latitudes would result in cold air reaching to quite low latitudes over the continents. This is why Northern Europe is feeling comfortably toasty while the lower US is wondering what hit it.

With global cooling, I would think that the meandering would be more uniform, leading to the freezing of Northern Europe. This would probably cause an an extension of Summer sea ice, and the resulting change in albedo would lead to more cooling.

Thank you. This is the sort of answer I was looking for from the beginning; had this been the first response, all this could have been avoided.

 

[DC]

Again, I don't read Goddard regularly. I read blogs that provide me with good information on a daily basis on subjects other than climate change. One day they happened to give me something on climate change that happened to come from Goddard. That's all.

This is a problematic attitude. Time magazine is read by the public. If Time magazine says stupid things that are not supported by climate science, AGW activists need to stand up and say something about it. Otherwise people like Goddard are free to honestly quote it for purposes of ridicule, and the silence from the AGW community abandons the battlefield of ideas to his victory.


I'm reading the article now (I got too curious and couldn't wait). Interestingly, it sounds like there was a general belief among climate scientists that global cooling was happening, but it was a very brief one, lasting less than five years:


Of course.


Thank you. This is the sort of answer I was looking for from the beginning; had this been the first response, all this could have been avoided.

what blog is that?
and when they link to Goddard when talking about AGW, you should question if this blog is really a good source for anything.

 

[Yerushalmi]

what blog is that?
and when they link to Goddard when talking about AGW, you should question if this blog is really a good source for anything.

They didn't link to Goddard. They linked to somebody else who linked to somebody else who linked to Goddard. And just like me, they probably don't know him from Adam, and were only interested in making fun of Time.

 

[DC]

no warming yet the warmest November

http://www.livescience.com/42020-november-2013-hottest-on-record.html

 

[Red Baron Farms]

is the reason that Sweden is committed to and well on it's way to carbon neutral by 2050 in a vibrant competitive economy.
They understand that failure to keep the temperature rise within the boundaries of the Holocene range presents a serious threat.

Even Exxon recognises "serious threat".....took them long enough to openly acknowledge even the reality of AGW.
An unstable climate has serious consequences especially for agriculture and coastal regions and is already being coped with.

American farmers and ranchers are facing increasing risks to their livelihoods as a result of climate change, according to a recent report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

“Climate change poses unprecedented challenges to U.S. agriculture because of the sensitivity of agricultural productivity and costs to changing climate conditions,” the report said.

According to the report, increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere resulting from human activity are raising average global temperatures, which in turn can alter weather patterns and cause both prolonged droughts and severe downpours and increase stress on both crops and animals.

The USDA anticipates that these factors will have a negative impact on agricultural productivity in the near future if adaptive farming measures are not taken, and if greenhouse gas emissions are not curbed.

There is a post you and me can agree 100% on Mac. The USDA-NRCS is already taking action too. So called "drought proofing" the land is a VERY big issue, at least as big as modifying agriculture to sequester carbon. It turns out they are essentially the same thing to a farmer and that's good news. Ironically, erosion control is essentially the same too, and a whole list of other benefits.

Here is an educational film published by the USDA for farmers explaining the USDA-NRCS push for changing agriculture to a net carbon sink instead of the net carbon emissions source as it is now. It is only one of many adaptive farming measures that can be made in accordance with that goal, but it is a big one.

Undercover Farmers

"When farmers view soil health not as an abstract virtue, but as a real asset, it revolutionizes the way they farm and radically reduces their dependence on inputs to produce food and fiber."

 

[r-j]

Attacking Goddard is an ad hominem response, and even if the dumbest person in the world says the sun is shining that doesn't make it dark out.

Of course, but that isn't how it works on the forum here. Who you are matters more than evidence. What you believe matters more than science.

Furthermore, I never said it was a valid contradiction. I said it was an apparent contradiction. And I even brought up a parallel example involving body heat to demonstrate that I understand that such things are possible and don't dismiss them out of hand.

You were, and are, being quite reasonable. Hence the hostility you encounter. Not from myself of course, but from the never ending stream of self proclaimed experts on all things global warming.

Then what are you all doing here if you're not trying to convince each other of the science?

Believe me, it's not science. That much is clear.

I understand that you are trying to trick us with raw data,

Yeah stop trying your tricky facts and so forth. Data needs to be manipulated before it means anything.

this is a sceptics forum. you make a claim, you are expected to provide evidence and sources for your claims.

Oh if only that were true for everyone.

Like I said right click on the image.

You can lead a horse to water but cannot make it drink.

First of all, please stop with the gratuitous insults.

I came here with legitimate questions, got some legitimate answers, but then one question happens to have arrived at me fourth-hand from Goddard and suddenly the entire environment in the thread turns hostile.

Wait till you bring up some science, then it really goes south.

Just keep asking honest questions and seriously considering the answers and the other long timers will eventually stop being so suspicious.

As long as you believe the right things.

no warming yet the warmest November

http://www.livescience.com/42020-november-2013-hottest-on-record.html

That sort of thing will probably never end.

 

[DC]

Of course, but that isn't how it works on the forum here. Who you are matters more than evidence. What you believe matters more than science. You were, and are, being quite reasonable. Hence the hostility you encounter. Not from myself of course, but from the never ending stream of self proclaimed experts on all things global warming. Believe me, it's not science. That much is clear. Yeah stop trying your tricky facts and so forth. Data needs to be manipulated before it means anything.

Oh if only that were true for everyone.





Wait till you bring up some science, then it really goes south.

As long as you believe the right things.

That sort of thing will probably never end.

what are you even posting here? you do not even know what AGW means.
and despite several people explaining it to you in short and long, you still failed to understand as you keep asking the same question over and over again.

why are you here?

and what will never end?