Anthopogenic Global Warming Myth or Real ?

[mhaze]

....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?

Major AGW scientists predict cooling at least until 2015, so Capeldodger stands apostate in the church of Warmology.

 

[lomiller]

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.

There is no speculation that doesn’t have an underlying political motive. If you stick strictly to the science we have an explanation that explains current warming perfectly and explains a large number of otherwise unexplainable things about past climate. This is why nearly every major relevant science body has made some form of statement saying current warming is probably manmade.

It you are going to dismiss an explanation this essential to nearly all current climate research you can’t do it out of hand as you so desperately want to believe. If you want to dismiss it you need an alterative explanation that explains all the same phenomenon. Science will never prove such an alternative explanation doesn’t exist, it simply isn’t in that business, so if you are going to make such demands you have already tossed science out the window.

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.

Now you’re just making stuff up. We are directly responsible for 40% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, and this is backed up by multiple lines of evidence. CO2 is responsible for ~25% of the total greenhouse effect and is the largest greenhouse contributor that has the potential to act as a forcing agent.

 

[lomiller]

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?
[/I]

Odd then that you should complain so loudly Mann’s 1998 paper not showing a MWP when the paper only goes back to 1400…

 

[lomiller]

Major AGW scientists predict cooling at least until 2015,

By that don’t you mean a single model predicts a plateau until 2015 followed by even more rapid warming then any other model predicts?

 

[AOK Tiger]

Lolmiller

There is no speculation that doesn’t have an underlying political motive. If you stick strictly to the science we have an explanation that explains current warming perfectly and explains a large number of otherwise unexplainable things about past climate. This is why nearly every major relevant science body has made some form of statement saying current warming is probably manmade.

“Probably” man made is what worries me. No science has shown HOW yet !

It you are going to dismiss an explanation this essential to nearly all current climate research you can’t do it out of hand as you so desperately want to believe. If you want to dismiss it you need an alterative explanation that explains all the same phenomenon. Science will never prove such an alternative explanation doesn’t exist, it simply isn’t in that business, so if you are going to make such demands you have already tossed science out the window.

I don’t “desperately” want to believe anything.. my version if anything is WORSE.. in that I believe we can do stuff all about climate change ! I would RATHER think we could do something about it !

Now you’re just making stuff up. We are directly responsible for 40% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, and this is backed up by multiple lines of evidence. CO2 is responsible for ~25% of the total greenhouse effect and is the largest greenhouse contributor that has the potential to act as a forcing agent.

CO2 has increased by 40 % since the industrial revolution. But much of this has happened in recent times since the Earth has warmed up. A warmed up Earth actually produces more natural carbon. The 40 % increase is only partially attributable to man. This can be PROVEN by the fact that the rate of increase in CO2 has recently outstripped the rate in increase in man output. Co2 is released naturally when the Earth warms !

CO2 levels have been at much higher levels than today without significant effect for life on earth.

It is VERY disputable what effect CO2 has as a green house gas.. even though it only makes up 5 % of the Earths greenhouse gases it’s effect is higher than that. Scientists do NOT agree on what this effect it .. most sit within the attributable range of 9-30 %.

Increase in CO2 levels have in the past FOLLOWED global warming… they are NOT a precursor to it.

“Forcing” is the most inexplicable part of the AGW theory… I have tried and cannot follow it. It seem to me just as much negative forcing happens as positive forcing.. eg put enough carbon in the atmosphere and cools the Earth !

I’d like to add in another question.. why would the Earth warming up a bit be bad ?.. Eg for every little Island Atoll we lose we gain all of Greenland, Northern Canada, and Siberia for growing crops ?

 

[DogB]

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.

If I can discuss your second point first. 2008 was never going to be a good year. 2007 was so bad that a very high percentage of the ice was thin first year ice. Even under excellent ice building conditions it would take several years to repair the damage of 2007 and I think we both agree we're far from excellent ice building conditions.

Thus using the 2008 extent to confirm the 2007 event is questionable. 2008 was better than 2007 (marginally) which is what you would expect if the system is recovering from an unusual melt event.

Back to your first point. Basically, I completely disagree. We’ve seen seasonal variability of this magnitude before. Gathering reliable data is difficult but it seems on several occasions in the last hundred years this sort of thing has happened before. It’s rare but it does happen. Tell you what, let’s call it an outlier.

 

[a_unique_person]

Lolmiller

“Probably” man made is what worries me. No science has shown HOW yet !
...

“Forcing” is the most inexplicable part of the AGW theory… I have tried and cannot follow it. It seem to me just as much negative forcing happens as positive forcing.. eg put enough carbon in the atmosphere and cools the Earth !

I think you have hit the nail on the head there. It has taken me several years to understand as much as I do about the subject, and I only know the topic to nothing like the depth that a specialist does. It is very complex, but just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean they haven't proved it.

 

[Spud1k]

“Probably” man made is what worries me. No science has shown HOW yet !

Yes it has. AR4WG1, chapter 9. It's all in there.

CO2 has increased by 40 % since the industrial revolution. But much of this has happened in recent times since the Earth has warmed up. A warmed up Earth actually produces more natural carbon. The 40 % increase is only partially attributable to man. This can be PROVEN by the fact that the rate of increase in CO2 has recently outstripped the rate in increase in man output. Co2 is released naturally when the Earth warms !

That's what you call a positive feedback mechanism. CO2 concentrations started rising in the mid 19th century but global temperatures didn't start rising in earnest until about 50 years later. It's possible that the CO2 increases may be partially due to the increases in temperature but if so, it was us who tipped the balance first.

CO2 levels have been at much higher levels than today without significant effect for life on earth.

Says who?

It is VERY disputable what effect CO2 has as a green house gas.. even though it only makes up 5 % of the Earths greenhouse gases it’s effect is higher than that. Scientists do NOT agree on what this effect it .. most sit within the attributable range of 9-30 %.

Got a reference for that? The reason CO2 is such an effective greenhouse gas is down to some very basic physics. It absorbs IR very well but not UV and visible, which given the temperatures of the sun and earth and the resulting blackbody emission functions, makes it much better at trapping upwelling radiation than downwelling.

Increase in CO2 levels have in the past FOLLOWED global warming… they are NOT a precursor to it.

The CO2 came first this time around. That's what puts the 'A' in 'AGW'.

“Forcing” is the most inexplicable part of the AGW theory… I have tried and cannot follow it.

Then in that case I suggest you read more. 'Forcing' applies to anything that will influence climate, be it natural or man made. It's the amount by which something will affect the earth's energy balance when it changes.

It seem to me just as much negative forcing happens as positive forcing.. eg put enough carbon in the atmosphere and cools the Earth !

Where'd you get that one from?

I’d like to add in another question.. why would the Earth warming up a bit be bad ?.. Eg for every little Island Atoll we lose we gain all of Greenland, Northern Canada, and Siberia for growing crops ?

AR4WG2 covers that. While some people may end up better off in a warmer world (such as users of the Northwest Passage), it looks that they'll be in a minority given the amount of drought predicted. Besides, the act of adaptation is going to be a pain for all of us.

 

[a_unique_person]

Major AGW scientists predict cooling at least until 2015, so Capeldodger stands apostate in the church of Warmology.

Some AGW scientists predict. It's a bold statement to make, since they have only just got their new models going. Others disagree.

 

[Spud1k]

It's always interesting to note that many of the GWSkeptics seems to go out of their way to construct this fantastic notion that there is some sort of a party line (verging on creed) when it comes to the science, even to the point where they start believing it themselves. This is evidenced with snide comments such as 'church of Warmology' and 'Warmology disciple'.

If you spent your life listening to the anti-AGW mob, they'd have you believe that the IPCC conclusions are diktats that we all must adhere to. In reality, they are all merely points that the world's foremost experts are in general agreement about (as anyone who is aware of how long they spent arguing over the details will know), put into an easily digestible form for policymakers and the general public. The main reason I keep referring to them here is because they keep getting misrepresented.

It's also worth noting that the reason the hard core of opposing scientists (no names mentioned but I imagine you know who I'm talking about) keep getting shouted down and marginalised is because what they're hawking is invariably bad science. Even when they do have sound results to present, it's always far, far short of what would be required to completely write off AGW or even cause everyone to do a rethink. But they always insist on acting like it is this big paradigm-shifter, so they get all shirty when people don't treat it for the earth-shattering research they think it is, blaming the establishment rather than their own methods.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Important message follows.

Blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah.

Did we all understand that? Good.

Would you care to reiterate your predictions for next year?
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1032348e845dc90780.png[/qimg]

Well, I already have a bet about next year's minimum. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is, or simply make a prediction?

 

[TrueSceptic]

The 1500 year cycle is not a substantial argument to explain current warming. Singer knows that, and he knows that the likes of you won't.

What current warming? There isn't any. It's all based on data from poor surface stations and is distorted by UHI. And anyway, it's been cooling since 2001, or 1998, or whatever.

In any case, how could we doubt Singer's ability to attribute a 30-year effect to a 1500 +/- 500 year cycle?

 

[TrueSceptic]

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

Really? You'll find some who claim it isn't.

2. We don't really know why

Really? There are some who claim all sorts of reasons. There are also mainstream scientists who claim it's caused by increasing CO2.

3. We cannot find natural causes

Really? You'll find GWSceptics, here and elsewhere, claiming all sorts of natural causes.

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

Really? Show us any claim that it is "activity" in general.

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 !

Really? I suggest you go and read some papers and stop speculating!

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 !

Really? Just in case of what?

 

[mhaze]

.....It's also worth noting that the reason the hard core of opposing scientists (no names mentioned but I imagine you know who I'm talking about) keep getting shouted down and marginalised is because what they're hawking is invariably bad science. Even when they do have sound results to present, it's always far, far short of what would be required to completely write off AGW or even cause everyone to do a rethink. But they always insist on acting like it is this big paradigm-shifter, so they get all shirty when people don't treat it for the earth-shattering research they think it is, blaming the establishment rather than their own methods.

If not for a hard core of demonstrably bad science by warmer scientists Mann, Hansen, Jones, etc., you might have a point.

If not for the notable silence by many (but not all) politicians and scientists in the face of lies, distortion and fear factor strategies by Warmer activists, you'd have a point nonetheless.

Considering though how you frame this argument to protect propagandists and shelter bad science (of favored varieties), while painting a broad brush against your supposed opposition, I conclude your argument is ideological, not scientific.

To restate the basics is instructive: It is the far left radical environmental activists who, in a fog of authoritarian controller belief sets, would slap countless restrictions on personal freedoms.

 

[TrueSceptic]

A Unique Person

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.

Minor? 100 of the 384 ppm since 1832? That's 26% of the current total or an increase of 35% over the 1832 level.

(We've actually produced more CO2 than that but not all of it stays in the atmosphere.)

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

You assert there is no link. I suggest that you educate yourself. There is copious material available.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Major AGW scientists predict cooling at least until 2015, so Capeldodger stands apostate in the church of Warmology.

Care to tell us who, and what proportion of the church's congregation they represent?

 

[TrueSceptic]

To restate the basics is instructive: It is the far left radical environmental activists who, in a fog of authoritarian controller belief sets, would slap countless restrictions on personal freedoms.

It''s all down to the commy/lefty/greeny/eco-fascists, who have taken over mainstream science, the mainstream media, and most governments.

But then we knew that. We knew it all along. We were fools to ever think otherwise.

 

[Pixel42]

If not for a hard core of demonstrably bad science by warmer scientists Mann, Hansen, Jones, etc., you might have a point.

Go on then, demonstrate.

Start by demonstrating what is "bad" about this science, by the first scientist you accuse:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7592575.stm

A new study by climate scientists behind the controversial 1998 "hockey stick" graph suggests their earlier analysis was broadly correct.

Michael Mann's team analysed data for the last 2,000 years, and concluded that Northern Hemisphere temperatures now are "anomalously warm".

Different analytical methods give the same result, they report in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. [...]

In their latest study, Dr Mann's group collated more than 1,200 proxy records - the majority from the Northern Hemisphere - and used different statistical methods to analyse their cumulative message.

"We used two different methods that are quite complementary in the assumptions they make about data, so that provides a test of the sensitivity of data to the methods used," he told BBC News.

"We also made use of a far wider network of proxy data than previously available.

"Ten years ago, the availability of data became quite sparse by the time you got back to 1,000 AD, and what we had then was weighted towards tree-ring data; but now you can go back 1,300 years without using tree-ring data at all and still get a verifiable conclusion."

Both analytical methods produced graphs similar to the original hockey stick, though starting further back in time. The "shaft" now extends back to about 700 AD.

The same basic pattern emerged when tree-ring data - whose reliability has been questioned - was excluded from the analysis.

"I think that having this extra data and using more methods to analyse it makes the conclusions more robust," commented Gabi Hegerl from the University of Edinburgh, UK, who was not involved in the research.

 

[mhaze]

Go on then, demonstrate.

Start by demonstrating what is "bad" about this science, by the first scientist you accuse:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7592575.stm

Yawn. But since you insist, http://www.climateaudit.org/

...If a series has a negative correlation to temperature (as about half of the tree ring series do), the test shown above will lead to the exclusion of this series. So this test either intentionally or unintentionally eliminates all the series with negative correlations to gridcell temperature ...
​

Yawn.

 

[Pixel42]

Yawn. But since you insist, http://www.climateaudit.org/

Is that really the best you can do? A denier blog which criticises the guy for the way he double checks that he still gets the same results even if he excludes data that the deniers themselves have questioned? That's beyond pathetic.

So that's Mann vindicated then. Care to try to demonstrate the "demonstrably bad science" of any of the other scientists you slandered?