Anthopogenic Global Warming Myth or Real ?

There so is a consensus, and the real world is responsible for that. The consensus is scientific and political, heck, it's even industrial. Nobody serious isn't planning for continued global warming.



Next year the movers-and-shakers of the world will gather in Copenhagen to thrash out a global mitigation policy. None of them give a toss about McIntyre, and there's a good reason for that. Not because his contributions have been kept hidden from them but because they are piffle. Just like Watts's photo-gallery, Sweet Sixteen's preening, Singer's data-mining, Crichton's paranoia, or any of the stuff you find so convincing, such as a cold summer in Alaska.

The world moves on, leaving you behind. Do I hear whining coming from easycruise?

Ah, you again make the fatal mistake of extrapolating the proof for GW to the supposed existence of AGW. As for McIntyre, Christy, Spencer, Lindzen, et al., you laughably act like a Sylvia Browne syncophant and ignore all the "misses" and only count the "hits"!
 
Ok... I thank you all for your input.

But... it has hardly made the cause for AGW definitive.

The ONLY thing scientists seem to agree upon is...

1. The Earth is warming
2. We don't really know why
3. We cannot find natural causes
4. Man's activity has increased.. man must be the culprit.

At NO STAGE do any papers say.. well man has done this.. which caused that.. its all speculation.. speculation that has failed at EVERY turn with its predictions !

It all seems to be a "just in case" argument.. which would be fine if we weren't about to sell our economic souls to pay for it !
I think you misunderstand the use of definitive in science. Most science is not definitive. Look at evolution and the attacks made up on it. The "How do you explain this then ...." game will never end, but it doesn't invalidate evolution.

In regards to point 2, there is physical basis for the AGW claim. A lot of people seem to be incapable of understanding the complex science behind it, but that doesn't invalidate it. CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas, which warms the earth, and we are doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Pat Michaels has long been associated with the 'denier' camp, but even he has got sick of being associated with the lunatic fringe it attracts. He says, there is warming, due to CO2, produced by us. His only argument, and the only argument that I accept as a valid one, is the extent of warming that is going to result from such a large increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere.
 
The Physical Evidence of Earth’s Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Cycle

Publiched by the NCPA :

"The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, established in
1983. The NCPA's goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on
the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector. Topics include reforms in health care, taxes, Social Security, welfare,
criminal justice, education and environmental regulation."

Which is where Singer comes in. AGW is the big beast of regulation, and so for Singer (who is a believer in small if any government)
cannot be true.

It's presented a scientific paper, but just look at this crap :

"A striking example of the effect of this 1,500-year climate cycle can be seen in the temperature-sensitive history of wine-growing
in England."

Wine-production in Britain (it's grapes that grow, not wine; wine is produced from grapes) is not temperature sensitive. It declined after
the Norman Conquest because the Normans had a taste for red wine, which they were already producing commercially in France, and it
became a hobby after the Dissolution of the Monasteries by Henry VIII. British wine-production never died out. There just wasn't a
serious demand for it until recently, and although there are hundreds of British vinyards now it's still a niche-market.

"The Romans grew wine grapes in England when they occupied it from the first through the fourth centuries. Aerial photography,
remote sensing and large-scale excavation have recently revealed seven Roman-era vineyards in south central England. One site contains
nearly four miles of bedding trenches that could have supported some 4,000 grapevines."

Sounds impressive, but what does it mean? 4000 grapevines don't take up many hectares, but what we get is "four miles of bedding
trenches". How big a field would that be?

The Romans introduced wine-production in their north-western borderlands because there was a serious demand for it from the legions.
Two pints a day per man, more or less.


Earth Cools In Persistent, 1,500-Year Rhythm, Say Columbia Scientists, Working From Sea Cores

"Earth's climate cools significantly and abruptly every 1,500 years or so in a persistent, regular rhythm, a team led by scientists
at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory reports in the Nov. 14 issue of the journal Science."

Doesn't say anything about the current warming, does it? If you're hoping for a sudden onset of rapid cooling

"The finding of abrupt climate shifts in the modern era adds an important new factor in predicting future global climate change,
he said. And it throws new light on historical events, such as the Little Ice Age, a cold spell that gripped the world in the 17th and 18th
centuries and might prove to be the most recent manifestation of the phenomenon."

you've a while to wait. 1500 years from, say, 1200CE as the last occurrence would be around 2700CE.

Widespread evidence of 1500 yr climate variability in North America during the past 14 000 yr

"There is debate concerning the spatial extent and magnitude of the recently identified 1500 yr climate oscillation. Existing
evidence is largely restricted to the North Atlantic and adjacent landmasses. The spatial extent, magnitude, and effects of these climate
variations within the terrestrial environment during the Holocene have not been established. We show that millennial-scale climate
variability caused changes in vegetation communities across all of North America with a periodicity of 1650 ± 500 yr during the past 14
000 calendar years (cal yr). Times of major transitions identified in pollen records occurred at 600, 1650, 2850, 4030, 6700, 8100, 10
190, 12 900, and 13 800 cal yr B.P., consistent with ice and marine records. We suggest that North Atlantic millennial-scale climate
variability is associated with rearrangements of the atmospheric circulation with far-reaching influences on the climate."

I think you may have found the source of "+/- 500 years".

The last major transition is given as 600 years ago, about 1408, which presumably coincides with the advent of the LIA. Even at the
shortest cycle rate (1000 years) that means we have another 400 years to wait.

Yet predicting global warming while it is occurring is a monumental feat? Hmm, was Singer around 12,000+ years ago?

What happened was that the AGW signal was identified from the noise several decades ago, and further global warming was predicted.
Singer predicted that it wouldn't happen. When it did happen Singer concentrated on claiming that it wasn't, until he was forced to accept
it by events. Only then did he start casting about for alternative explanations.

And he's still firing blanks. Which is why the movers and shakers of the world don't pay him no never-mind.
 
So it will, but at least it will simplify the modelling.

True.

I'll go into it no further than to say clarity does matter. Not just in communicating but in getting your own thoughts straight in your mind.

Ok. I’ll accept that criticism

But with some application of judgement. Science is about identifying promising hypotheses to explain what has been observed and working on them. It's not about outlier observations that might occur. Leave aside what might happen in the next four years and consider what has happened in the last five.

Absolutely. But it’s also about not ignoring data that doesn’t fit your world view. I’ll talk more about this below.

If I've appeared passionate I apologise. I approach this subject in my science aspect.

No need to apologise. You have every right to be passionate. So long as it doesn’t impact on your interpretation of the data.

Scientists don't just observe and wait to see what happens next. The whole point of science is to make sense of observations, to fit them into a system.

The point of science is to hypothesise a system that fits the observations. I know that’s what you meant but your statement could be interpreted as gathering data to fit a preconceived idea. What was it you said “clarity does matter”.

Stripping 20% off the previous record (only two years before) simply shrieks that it's not an outlier. 2005 was itself a bit of a shock, after several years of sustained loss of ice-extent. The Arctic Ocean is telling us something, and as a scientist you should be trying to work out what that is. You don't have to be an expert in the subject to make a judgement.

I totally disagree. Any time you see a massive change in any system that up till now has been changing slowly, you should start thinking outlier. You might be wrong but it’s a good thumb suck first reaction. I know you’re shouting ‘tipping point’ at your monitor right now but see below.

It's in the nature of ice to change imperceptibly and then make a sudden lurch. The term "tipping-point" could have been invented to describe ice-behaviour, and a tipping-point in the Arctic Ocean has been passed, just as tipping-points in iced-up rivers occur every spring. The timescale for an ocean is much longer, but there's still a tipping-point.

I’m sorry, you don’t get to have your cake and eat it too. A tipping point is use whatis’s definition is “the critical point in an evolving situation that leads to a new and irreversible development” (bolding mine). If this system had fallen over some ill defined tipping point then there’s no way the system would (the very next year) show a reversal (or even a plateau). The next five years might make a liar of me but I have my doubts. The true signal of GW is a long slow inexorable decline.

There is no tipping point, not yet at least. 07 should be viewed in the same way as 08. Noise in the system.
 
That's because it's local news. "Cold Summer in Alaska" is not national news even in the US.

Ahem, one of the "coldest", and in the midst of all this warming hysteria, you would think that it would be national news. If if went the other way and it was one of the "warmest", you can make a safe bet it would make the national news.


CapelDodger said:
OK, this is not just an even-numbered year but it's a Presidential Election year, and there's been a financial melt-down. You expect "Coldest Arctic Summer Since 1980" to feature nationally? It may seem very important to you, but put yourself an ordinary person's place. From that perspective it's hardly riveting, is it?

Sure it would be riveting. It would be a contrary data point that would help relieve our fears of the supposedly upcoming horrors of GW, yet it is not mentioned! Ah, perhaps it falls into the old "if it bleeds, it leads" category of news prioritizing, and freezing to death is not as newsworthy as burning to death! :)

CapelDodger}"CT proven". You won't be allowed to forget that said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104463&page=8[/URL]

I'm off there right now.

I went there too. And I exposed you there as well for ignoring the evidence. Funny, I don't remember calling it a conspiracy, but you did and even named a boogyman, Rupert Murdoch! Ah, too funny. But trying to reason with AGW fanatics such as yourself is always a trying task.

As for me, I just think it is a individual newsroom policy decision that stories about increased GW are trumpeted and stories about decreasing GW are suppressed. Why? Well, see the above paragraph.
 
Ok... I thank you all for your input.

No problem.

But... it has hardly made the cause for AGW definitive.

The planet we live on will do that.

The ONLY thing scientists seem to agree upon is...

Apart from Conservation of Energy, do you mean?

1. The Earth is warming

Everybody agrees on that. It's happening where we all live, after all.

2. We don't really know why

Yes we do. It's because of an increased greenhouse effect.

3. We cannot find natural causes

No, we can't.

4. Man's activity has increased.. man must be the culprit.

We're not that stupid. You're stupid to suggest that we are.

At NO STAGE do any papers say.. well man has done this.. which caused that.. its all speculation.. speculation that has failed at EVERY turn with its predictions !

And you're stupid enough to believe that.

It all seems to be a "just in case" argument.. which would be fine if we weren't about to sell our economic souls to pay for it !

And you're stupid enought to believe it's all about taxes.

Didn't you guys just sell your economic soul to bail out Wall Street? How much leverage do you think a soul can take?
 
Ah, you again make the fatal mistake of extrapolating the proof for GW to the supposed existence of AGW. As for McIntyre, Christy, Spencer, Lindzen, et al., you laughably act like a Sylvia Browne syncophant and ignore all the "misses" and only count the "hits"!

There was one prediction - global warming due to an enhanced greenhouse effect - and global warming has ensued. One prediction, one hit. And why not? It was based on established science.

How many predictions have your shrinking band made, and how many have been hits? What are they currently predicting?
 
It's also a long way from here, so why easycruise feels driven to bring it up is a bit of a mystery. As are the shadowy forces he seems to think are manipulating the mass media.

Oh, BTW, actually you were the one to bring up the thought of some sort of conspiracy theory with your mention here of "shadowy forces", as you first did in this post.

My, my, you sure do have an active imagination, don't you? You even came up with a boogeyman too! Ooohh, scary! I bet you tell good campfire stories out in the woods!
 
At NO STAGE do any papers say.. well man has done this.. which caused that.. its all speculation.. speculation that has failed at EVERY turn with its predictions !

It's hardly speculation. Perhaps you haven't been reading the evidence that has been presented. You might argue about the reason, but temperature record, but it has been trending upward steadily.

You can't argue about CO2 being a Greenhouse gas, the physical basis is clear on that point.
 
No need to apologise. You have every right to be passionate. So long as it doesn’t impact on your interpretation of the data.

I am dispassionate. I tried to convey that in a polite and non-confrontational way.

The point of science is to hypothesise a system that fits the observations. I know that’s what you meant but your statement could be interpreted as gathering data to fit a preconceived idea. What was it you said “clarity does matter”.

It could only be interpreted that way by deliberate intent. Like any scientist, I seek the truth. You seem to seek comfort.

I totally disagree. Any time you see a massive change in any system that up till now has been changing slowly, you should start thinking outlier. You might be wrong but it’s a good thumb suck first reaction. I know you’re shouting ‘tipping point’ at your monitor right now but see below.

I was here in 2005, and I didn't claim "tipping point", even though the 2005 event was regarded as remarkable at the time. It could have been an outlier. The 2007 event - 20% lower than 2005, just two summers later - flagged 2005 as not so much an outlier as a precursor.

I’m sorry, you don’t get to have your cake and eat it too. A tipping point is use whatis’s definition is “the critical point in an evolving situation that leads to a new and irreversible development” (bolding mine). If this system had fallen over some ill defined tipping point then there’s no way the system would (the very next year) show a reversal (or even a plateau). The next five years might make a liar of me but I have my doubts. The true signal of GW is a long slow inexorable decline.

There is no tipping point, not yet at least. 07 should be viewed in the same way as 08. Noise in the system.

2008 should be viewed in the context of the last five years, and by summer 2004 observers were already commenting on a sudden and unexpected reduction in Arctic sea-ice. Summer 2005 followed, and 2007 took 20% off that. This is not noise, it's a very obvious signal. Ice is notorious for its tipping-points.
 
The concept or existence of a 1500 year cycle I don't have a problem with. Hell, even one of the Realclimate folks wrote a paper on it. But do you have anything that says definitively it is responsible for the current spate of warming?
Admits to such a cycle but argues it may be today 100 years hence, perhaps 300 years hence. This logic then asks "Why should we believe it is happening today? Could be all this CO2!"

In the absence of specific fingerprints pointing to CO2, though, this turns the method of science upside down.

From our embarassing past:
"We knows she be a witch! "
"There was a two headed frog by her hut".

No need to inquire about a natural explanation, was there?
 
I am dispassionate. I tried to convey that in a polite and non-confrontational way.


You’ve succeeded mostly. I do appreciate the rationality of your conversation.

It could only be interpreted that way by deliberate intent. Like any scientist, I seek the truth. You seem to seek comfort.

Of course - it was deliberate. It was a playful dig at your earlier comments about clarity. I apologise that wasn’t clearer or if you took offence.

I was here in 2005, and I didn't claim "tipping point", even though the 2005 event was regarded as remarkable at the time. It could have been an outlier. The 2007 event - 20% lower than 2005, just two summers later - flagged 2005 as not so much an outlier as a precursor.

But 2005 was only a little lower than 2004 which was only a little lower than 2003 etc. A long steady decrease with one weird result (2007 not 2008) is what I see. If 2008 had showed accelerating loss I would be firmly in your corner but it didn’t. Weird weather event or not it’s data we can’t ignore.

2008 should be viewed in the context of the last five years, and by summer 2004 observers were already commenting on a sudden and unexpected reduction in Arctic sea-ice. Summer 2005 followed, and 2007 took 20% off that. This is not noise, it's a very obvious signal. Ice is notorious for its tipping-points.

Perhaps. Personally I think when we look back in 2020 and draw a straight line of ice loss, 2007 will be well below the line and 2008 will be a little below the line.

My prediction (based on gut feel and some experience in monitoring natural systems) is that we won’t go lower than 2007 till about 2012. What’s your prediction? You’re prediction ice free in 2015 right? So you must be thinking we’ll get below 2007 levels pretty damn soon. 2009? 2010?
 
CapelDodger,

The planet we live on will do that.

By showing it is warming… NOT showing man is causing it

The ONLY thing scientists seem to agree upon is...
Apart from Conservation of Energy, do you mean?

In term of the argument that we are having here.. why mention other things scientists agree on ? That seems disingenuous.

1. The Earth is warming
Everybody agrees on that. It's happening where we all live, after all.

Unless you just copped the coldest winter in Alaska for 20 years or the coldest day in Sydney for 20 years. The last 8 Years have shown NO increases in global temperatures.. has Global warming finished ?

2. We don't really know why
Yes we do. It's because of an increased greenhouse effect.

Is it ? .. and even if it is.. did man cause it.. I’ve said this ad infinitum.. 95 % of greenhouse gas is water vapour !!! We didn’t cause that !

3. We cannot find natural causes
No, we can't.

So blame man ?

4. Man's activity has increased.. man must be the culprit.
We're not that stupid. You're stupid to suggest that we are.

Where did I suggest that ? It is stupid to jump to an inconclusive conclusion though.

At NO STAGE do any papers say.. well man has done this.. which caused that.. its all speculation.. speculation that has failed at EVERY turn with its predictions !
And you're stupid enough to believe that.

Less stupid than accepting the speculation with NO foundation.

It all seems to be a "just in case" argument.. which would be fine if we weren't about to sell our economic souls to pay for it !
And you're stupid enought to believe it's all about taxes.

Didn't you guys just sell your economic soul to bail out Wall Street? How much leverage do you think a soul can take?

If you are to “stupid” to understand from my user name “Aussie thinker” that I come from AUSTRALIA.. Not the USA, maybe you should pay more attention.. we have paid NOTHING to bail out Wall St !

I am talking about destroying economies by applying carbon taxes that wouold do extremely little or nothing to avoid and Global warming that may or may not be taking place.
 
Unless you just copped the coldest winter in Alaska for 20 years or the coldest day in Sydney for 20 years. The last 8 Years have shown NO increases in global temperatures.. has Global warming finished ?

Predicting the hottest October day in 40 years here in Brisbane. Doesn't really mean much does it?

If you are to “stupid” to understand from my user name “Aussie thinker” that I come from AUSTRALIA.. Not the USA, maybe you should pay more attention.. we have paid NOTHING to bail out Wall St !

I am talking about destroying economies by applying carbon taxes that wouold do extremely little or nothing to avoid and Global warming that may or may not be taking place.

Everybody is paying to bail out Wall Street. Our market is down another 3% today.

As for carbon taxes - every long term analysis I've seen says that ultimately we will be better off for them. There'll be some short term pain and some industries might go to the wall, that’s true. But other industries will rise up to take their place. That's what's always happened. Not much work for blacksmiths these days.
 
Last edited:
A Unique Person

It's hardly speculation. Perhaps you haven't been reading the evidence that has been presented. You might argue about the reason, but temperature record, but it has been trending upward steadily.

You can't argue about CO2 being a Greenhouse gas, the physical basis is clear on that point.

While I am not FULLY convinced that GW is taking place ( I am willing to accept), however, if it is .. the “speculation” involved is that man is causing it.

We produce a MINOR amount of the CO2 that is in the atmosphere and the CO2 is a minor proportion of the greenhouse gas that is in the atmosphere.

There is NO definitive link that man is causing GW.. surely something can show it simply ?
 
Capel Dodger

There was one prediction - global warming due to an enhanced greenhouse effect - and global warming has ensued. One prediction, one hit. And why not? It was based on established science.

NO.. that is cart before the horse.. SOME measurments showed that temperature was increasing and the prediction was is was due to greenhouse effect.. completely the other way around and VERY unscientific.

How many predictions have your shrinking band made, and how many have been hits? What are they currently predicting?

I am not making a wild theory.. I don’t require predictions.. but if you like my model predicts this.. Global temperatures will increase and decrease periodically.. IN SPITE OF MAN ….
 
The concept or existence of a 1500 year cycle I don't have a problem with. Hell, even one of the Realclimate folks wrote a paper on it. But do you have anything that says definitively it is responsible for the current spate of warming?

Notice how the denialists ignore the mediaeval warm period when it suits their arguments? If we went through a warm period 700 – 800 years ago and there is a 1500 year climate cycle shouldn’t we be at the coolest part of that cycle not the warmest?

No doubt they try and rationalize the discrepancy as “the length of the cycle is variable”. The problem is to fit with the MWP their cycle would need to be 1500 +/- 750 years, and that makes their error bands as large as the cycle itself. With error bands this large any climate pattern at all would fall within their “cycle”.
 
Umm, no...

MWP = About 800-1300 AD.

So you are wrong. But then isn't it quite impossible for a believer in Mann's Hockey Stick to discuss contrary historical data?

If that means that to prop up the belief you must alter historical facts....

Houston we have a problem.
 
I totally disagree. Any time you see a massive change in any system that up till now has been changing slowly, you should start thinking outlier. You might be wrong but it’s a good thumb suck first reaction. I know you’re shouting ‘tipping point’ at your monitor right now but see below.

What you seem to be missing is that outliers are often not simply random variation, they have occurred for a reason. The chances of an outlier occurring simply from random variation are inversely related to how far away from the expected value that outlier is. So, even if it’s an outlier it’s very unlikely that it’s simply a normal and expected random variation because it's so far from the established norm.

Since 2008 shows similar ice area to 2007, 2007 can’t be an outlier to begin with, so you argument fails on all fronts.
 

Back
Top Bottom