Anthopogenic Global Warming Myth or Real ?

[Diamond]

So what's your take on the article? How do you read it?

Do you find fault with their methods as described? Or with the research they cite?

What specifically is your problem?

Or are you pretending that your ignorance is their ignorance, is everybody's ignorance?

No, just your ignorance of mathematical models. Your belief in the veracity of unknown mathematical models is causing you to discount the real world.

As a skeptic, I wait for a mathematical model to predict something useful - its no use telling me that in one hundred years the global mean temperature index thingy will be X degrees above the 1950-1980 mean, because such a claim is not falsifiable in a reasonable period of time. To believe that such predictions are even credible is a religious belief, not a scientific one.

Something useful would be - this area X will experience a drought lasting Y months starting next April.

 

[Diamond]

If you say so. It's not a subject I'm privy to, because I don't care. A nutter is a nutter as far as I'm concerned.

Yes. A nutter is someone who contradicts himself and then expects both statements to be true.

For example:

What specific projections?

That's #1

They predicted warming, and it has happened. That's evidence.

And that's #2. It contradicts #1 but its true as well!

You have nothing but misses, and AGW has hit every time. The benefit of science is that it takes a lot of the guesswork (and all of the religion and ideology) out of predictions.

Really? That, for example, one coal-fired power station being built in England would cause 400 extinctions? That ISN'T a religious belief?

I can predict warming without climate models, just so long as you're prepared to allow the timespan to slip.

For the NW passage it was this year as well (with the NE passage thrown in). Your Antarctic sea-ice reference hasn't survived so long. So last year.

Nope. The NW Passage remained shut. This is 2008 you know.

Besides which the NW passage has opened many times during the last 100 years - this proves what?

It has showed up in the Antarctic. In fact it showed up earlier than in the Arctic.

What has? By collapsing the timescale as you have, you can prove anything. The only warming of note in Antartica has been the volcanically active Antarctic Peninsula which isn't even in the Antarctic Circle.

The Arctic warms, the Antarctic warms, everywhere in between warms, and where you take comfort is not my concern.

#

But the Antarctic has not warmed. It has cooled. And you ignore it because it doesn't fit your strange religious beliefs about how the world works.

Political change, not climate change. Olives and goats, remember?

You appear to be obsessed with these things. Does Greece mean nothing to you but olives and goats? Do you get out much?

Greek culture is famous for its contribution to science, and science is what I go by.

Its a shame therefore that you discount Greek scientists when they're telling you something that you don't want to hear.

 

[David Rodale]

Source…

Cause you know there are published papers that say the exact opposite.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen_etal_1.pdf


Wait, let me guess. You have no source but read it on a blog someplace and it sounded like something you really wanted to believe?

That is an essay. You still haven't figured out the difference.

This is also an essay with as much weight as any other.
Is climate sensitive to solar variability?

Which does the observational evidence best support?


Hansen et al 2005 was published in 2005 and forms the basis for IPCC AR4 SPM conclusions:
Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications

Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases and aerosols among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85 ± 0.15 W/m2 more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years. Implications include: (i) expectation of additional global warming of about 0.6°C without further change of atmospheric composition; (ii) confirmation of the climate system's lag in responding to forcings, implying the need for anticipatory actions to avoid any specified level of climate change; and (iii) likelihood of acceleration of ice sheet disintegration and sea level rise.

What part of where is the missing heat don't you understand?

What are the latest sea level data? It will not be updated data until end 2008.

 

[Diamond]

Which 'you' are you talking about here?

Capeldodgy. Not you.

So. The vulcanologists tell you you should evacuate your home because the local volcano is about to go off. You do so. Nothing happens. The next time they tell you... you just ignore them because they've been wrong before?

No. If the vulcanologists can demonstrate previous experience in predicting an eruption, then it would be foolish not to take their advice. If only climatologists had shown ANY ability to predict future climate change on any reasonable timescale, then I might be interested. So far, zilch.

Volcanoes are proven killers. Climate changes are not unless the change is extreme. 0.6C over the globe over a century doesn't qualify.

 

[Diamond]

You were trying to suggest that a_unique_person didn't believe in evolution. You've just completely failed to back up that claim. Congratulations.

Not at all. I've made the point that the theory of evolution implies that selection pressure due to climate change is a key factor of life on Earth. As such, climate change is trivially true.

AUP does believe in the Mann Hockey Stick (despite copious evidence that its a fake) and the Hockey Stick purports to show a natural state of climate in which change is insignificant.

No it doesn't. Just because event A can lead to result B does not stop event C also leading to result B.

Or any other letter of the alphabet. Is there a reason why I should choose a particular letter and ignore all the others?

Nope. I'm a physicist for what its worth.

Then you're hiding it very well. Its rare to see such poor argumentation from a real scientist.

Doesn't say an awful lot about the notion that climate change will not cause extinctions though.

If the climate change is extreme enough, then it can happen. However, as I pointed out, life on Earth is adapted to climate change, because climate has always changed.

The notion that the Earth's climate was somehow stable and has been perturbed through the actions of mankind is rooted in creationist belief systems. It is a religious belief.

 

[Spud1k]

That is an essay. You still haven't figured out the difference.

This is also an essay with as much weight as any other.
Is climate sensitive to solar variability?

Which does the observational evidence best support?

Much as I'd like to believe that everything is going to be OK, that opinion starts with the assumption that TSI is responsible for the variability in climate then works out what statistical treatment is needed to make it best fit. It is a self-fulfilling argument. Show me something with some actual physics in it.

What part of where is the missing heat don't you understand?

Read all the way to the end of the article you linked to (bolding mine)

Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says it's probably going back out into space. The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet.

That can't be directly measured at the moment, however.

"Unfortunately, we don't have adequate tracking of clouds to determine exactly what role they've been playing during this period," Trenberth says.

It's also possible that some of the heat has gone even deeper into the ocean, he says. Or it's possible that scientists need to correct for some other feature of the planet they don't know about. It's an exciting time, though, with all this new data about global sea temperature, sea level and other features of climate.

"I suspect that we'll able to put this together with a little bit more perspective and further analysis," Trenberth says. "But what this does is highlight some of the issues and send people back to the drawing board."

Trenberth and Willis agree that a few mild years have no effect on the long-term trend of global warming. But they say there are still things to learn about how our planet copes with the heat.

 

[Pixel42]

Show me an ice core record which shows changes in carbon dioxide and methane DRIVING (ie PRECEDING) changes in temperature.

Its nearly five years since I first asked you for one and you've failed to answer.

I know for a fact that you've been given the answer several times in those five years because I've read the posts that gave it. You simply ignore the answer, wait a bit and then ask the question again.

No previous warming has been initiated by a sudden and spontaneous increase in the CO2 level, for the simple reason that there is no natural process that causes such an increase. Only intelligent life can dig up fossilised carbon that was sequestered over millions of years and burn it over a couple of centuries, increasing the CO2 level by a full third in the process.

Previous warmings were initiated by something else - changes in the earth's orbit, a continent drifting away from a pole etc. This warming then caused CO2 to be released by oceans and permafrost, which accelerated the warming, until a new equilibrium was reached.

Got it now? Or are you going to ignore this post too, and trot out the question yet again within weeks?

The notion that the Earth's climate was somehow stable and has been perturbed through the actions of mankind is rooted in creationist belief systems. It is a religious belief

Nobody here is suggesting that the Earth's climate was ever stable. It doesn't need to be stable for the actions of mankind to be sufficient to perturb it over and above its natural perturbations.

 

[Spud1k]

The notion that the Earth's climate was somehow stable and has been perturbed through the actions of mankind is rooted in creationist belief systems. It is a religious belief.

No-one is saying that. What is comes down to is this:

1: The vast majority of the evidence points to human activity warming the planet
2: The knock-on results would be A Bad Thing from our perspective
3: We should avoid it if possible
4: If we can't avoid it, we should still learn about what is happening to allow us to best prepare for the future

If you like, you can put them in a different order. Few people (even anti AGW) disagree with 4. It just so happens that the more you investigate it, the more certain 1 becomes.

 

[Tubbythin]

Capeldodgy. Not you.

I don't know whether this true or not but I hope you have evidence to bck it up. Regardless, it doesn't shift itself above the "scienctists has been wrong before so must be wrong again" argument.

No. If the vulcanologists can demonstrate previous experience in predicting an eruption, then it would be foolish not to take their advice. If only climatologists had shown ANY ability to predict future climate change on any reasonable timescale, then I might be interested. So far, zilch.

Volcanoes are proven killers. Climate changes are not unless the change is extreme. 0.6C over the globe over a century doesn't qualify.

Define "reasonable". Define "extreme".

 

[Tubbythin]

Not at all. I've made the point that the theory of evolution implies that selection pressure due to climate change is a key factor of life on Earth. As such, climate change is trivially true.

You have shown precisely 0 evidence that a_u_p's post contradicted the theory of evolution.

Or any other letter of the alphabet. Is there a reason why I should choose a particular letter and ignore all the others?

Yes, what the science tell us, obviously. You were the one trying to argue against case C on purely historical reasons.

Then you're hiding it very well. Its rare to see such poor argumentation from a real scientist.

From someone who just told us

For example, here in Australia, the plants and animals are clearly evolved to deal with the multi-year periodic droughts that have been occurring for the last several million years.They don't simply adapt to geological timescales, they have adapted to to changes that happen from one year to the next.

without acknowledging how long it took them to evolve to be this way, this is quite amusing.

If the climate change is extreme enough, then it can happen. However, as I pointed out, life on Earth is adapted to climate change, because climate has always changed.

Your Australian plants and animals are adapted for the extreme differences they experience year on year. Other plants and animals do not experience such extremes and thus do not have similar adaptations. The fact that some/many plants and animals could survive man-made changes in climate does not mean some/many will not.

The notion that the Earth's climate was somehow stable and has been perturbed through the actions of mankind is rooted in creationist belief systems. It is a religious belief.

That's very interesting. Completely, totally, utterly and comprehensively irrelevant, however. Next strawman?

 

[lomiller]

That is an essay. You still haven't figured out the difference.

This is also an essay with as much weight as any other.

It seems to me the article you link to has a very big headers saying “opinion”. Mine was published in PNAS with no such qualification. Strange that you should think they are equivalent, but then again you did think the Journal Science was “just a magazine”

 

[a_unique_person]

Without examination of whether the temperature record is reliable, you make a catastrophic error.

Also, and this is where you fall down, even if the model is tuned to the entire temperature record, the non-linear chaotic nature of climate means that outside of the calibration period, the model rapidly diverges.

This has been known since Lorenz first tried to model climate on a billiard ball earth.



Certainly. Show me an ice core record which shows changes in carbon dioxide and methane DRIVING (ie PRECEDING) changes in temperature.

Its nearly five years since I first asked you for one and you've failed to answer.

I don't have to. This situation is different, we are injecting a large amount of CO2 into the atmosphere in a very short time.

Which is the story of evolution of Planet Earth. You do believe in the Theory of Evolution don't you?

I said I did. I also pointed out that evolution can be a brutal process.

Because at the moment, you talk about species as fixed things which have never experienced climate variation.

Adaptation (read: survival) is a constant struggle which is the key filter by which evolutionary change occurs, and why all species on planet Earth are evolved to deal with a sometimes rapidly changing climate.

Not at all. Many species use special adaptations and mutually dependent relationships to exploit their particular niche. Disturb that niche, and more opportunistic species that are less specialised will have the advantage. Weeds, for example.

Extinction is also a key result of climate change. Its the story of Life on Earth - Adapt or Die.

Precisely what is going to happen.

Weeds are just plants that humans can't eat or make use of. Unless you're a believer in a mythical past stable climate, then weeds will have just as much opportunity or threat to survive and flourish as the rest of nature.

No, they are usually adapted to exploit disturbance of environments, grow rapidly.

Weedy plants generally share similar adaptations that give them advantages and allow them to proliferate in disturbed environments whose soil or natural vegetative cover has been damaged.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weed

 

[TrueSceptic]

Which 'you' are you talking about here?

I wondered about that too.

Of course, right now some GWSceptics are warning about global cooling or even an LIA because the sun is unusually quiet. Some even say that that means we should make no attempt to reduce CO2 emissions, even though they also claim that the GHG effect is either non-existent or insignificant.

So. The vulcanologists tell you you should evacuate your home because the local volcano is about to go off. You do so. Nothing happens. The next time they tell you... you just ignore them because they've been wrong before?

That seems to be the gist of it, although it needs to be repeated yet again that the 70s global cooling scare was a minority view among scientists.

 

[varwoche]

The notion that the Earth's climate was somehow stable and has been perturbed through the actions of mankind is rooted in creationist belief systems. It is a religious belief.

Geez, and I thought it was a communist conspiracy. Go figure.

 

[mhaze]

Originally posted by Truesceptic:

right now some GWSceptics are warning about global cooling or even an LIA because the sun is unusually quiet
​

NASA holds live media teleconference on the sun Tuesday.

From the press release.

The sun’s current state could result in changing conditions in the solar system.


​

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Diamond
The notion that the Earth's climate was somehow stable and has been perturbed through the actions of mankind is rooted in creationist belief systems. It is a religious belief.
​

No-one is saying that....

Warmers often claim that we must lower CO2 to stabilize Earth's climate.

Thanks for correcting them, however that could become a full time job, and you would likely find as skeptics have, that they have no memory for belief system corrections.

What is the right climate?

 

[TrueSceptic]

Originally posted by Truesceptic:

right now some GWSceptics are warning about global cooling or even an LIA because the sun is unusually quiet
​

NASA holds live media teleconference on the sun Tuesday.

From the press release.

The sun’s current state could result in changing conditions in the solar system.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_14224483df590a3d0d.png[/qimg]
​

That will be interesting, especially as it refers to the solar system, not just the Earth.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Warmers often claim that we must lower CO2 to stabilize Earth's climate.

Reduce our influence, not "stabilise" the "natural" climate.

Thanks for correcting them, however that could become a full time job, and you would likely find as skeptics have, that they have no memory for belief system corrections.

You will remember, of course (or maybe not), that GWSceptics can't decide which of many conflicting ideas to believe, so they presumably forget some of them in a rapid cyclical fashion.

Which of the many are in current memory right now?

 

[lomiller]

That will be interesting, especially as it refers to the solar system, not just the Earth.

If you recall, we have already been over the fact that 0.05% decrease in solar activity isn’t enough to show up over the thermal inertia of the earths oceans. For the solar changes mhaze brings up to have a noticeable effect on the earths climate you need to throw in a lot of positive feedback and wait century or so.

Whatever “conditions” they are talking about it doesn’t seem likely that they mean global temperatures.

You will remember, of course (or maybe not), that GWSceptics can't decide which of many conflicting ideas to believe, so they presumably forget some of them in a rapid cyclical fashion.

Conflicts like the earth needing a high climate sensitivity with lots of positive feedback to explain the effects of solar activity and Milankovitch cycles causing stadials / interstadials. At the same time they need a really low climate sensitivity to say “it isn’t CO2” so they endlessly run back and forth trying to hide the fact their position is completely untenable.

 

[Spud1k]

Warmers often claim that we must lower CO2 to stabilize Earth's climate.

Thanks for correcting them, however that could become a full time job, and you would likely find as skeptics have, that they have no memory for belief system corrections.

That's abusing the semantics somewhat. The people you are talking about are normally referring to short-term stability, i.e. little human-induced change over fifty years or so. Diamond was talking about the variations that occur over geological timescales.

Personally, I'd never refer to the earth system as truly 'stable'. It is far too complex and there are far too many perturbations (both natural and man-made). But that's just me.

If you want real pseudo-religious stuff, there are some people who take things like Gaia theory way too far. Not my cup of tea though.

What is the right climate?

I'd say the sort of one we've enjoyed (on and off) for the last several hundred years. Adaptation is a pain in the butt, especially when we have to worry about entire populations getting displaced. If the current rate of warming carries on (which it almost certainly will), we'll be headed into uncharted territory which is probably best avoided if we can.