• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Global Warming and all that stuff.

a_unique_person said:
Varwoche has highlighted reports from scientific studies by scientific bodies as presented in various sources of information.

If you look up the first one, it refers to the National Snow and Ice Data Centre. This is a link to their study of changes in the Antarctic.

http://nsidc.org/sotc/iceshelves.html



Hardly environmental activists, and based on scientific observation and study.

That's the first link. Do you want me to do more work for you?
Click to expand...

What you quoted says nothing about AGW. The few links I went to said nothing about AGW. Perhaps you could find a link in there with evidence which 'disproves' the negative?

Also, I find that YOU sir, have a REAL PROBLEM distinguishing between GW and AGW. You make this mistake AGAIN and AGAIN. I can point to THREAD AFTER THREAD where you make this increadibly dumb mistake REPEATEDLY.

I am going to now make an attempt to prevent this mistake from happening in the future:

GW != AGW

Do you understand now?
 
rockoon said:
What you quoted says nothing about AGW. The few links I went to said nothing about AGW. Perhaps you could find a link in there with evidence which 'disproves' the negative?

Also, I find that YOU sir, have a REAL PROBLEM distinguishing between GW and AGW. You make this mistake AGAIN and AGAIN. I can point to THREAD AFTER THREAD where you make this increadibly dumb mistake REPEATEDLY.

I am going to now make an attempt to prevent this mistake from happening in the future:

GW != AGW

Do you understand now?
Click to expand...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060522150948.htm

Greenhouse gases, ie, CO2. We know that the increase in CO2 is due to human activity.
Therefore, the authors focused especially on relatively recent climatic anomaly known as the "Little Ice Age." During this period (about 1550-1850), immortalized in many paintings of frozen landscapes in Northern Europe, Earth was substantially colder than it is now. This, scientists have concluded, was due largely to reduced solar activity, and just as during true ice ages, the atmospheric carbon level dropped during the Little Ice Age. The authors used this information to estimate how sensitive the carbon dioxide concentration is to temperature, which allowed them to calculate how much the climate-carbon dioxide feedbacks will affect future global warming.
As Marten Scheffer explains, "Although there are still significant uncertainties, our simple data-based approach is consistent with the latest climate-carbon cycle models, which suggest that global warming will be accelerated by the effects of climate change on the rate of carbon dioxide increase. In view of our findings, estimates of future warming that ignore these effects may have to be raised by about 50 percent. We have, in fact, been conservative on several points. For instance, we do not account for the greenhouse effect of methane, which is also known to increase in warm periods."
Click to expand...
 
Looks like somebody didn't read enough links to me. Giant letters are pretty much always a tip-off. I doubt it will help, AUP, but good try anyway.
 
a_unique_person said:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060522150948.htm

Greenhouse gases, ie, CO2. We know that the increase in CO2 is due to human activity.
Click to expand...

I'm reading it, and it says exactly the opposite of your conclusion.

Summary of what it literally says:

It says that the little ice age, it has been concluded, was caused by reduced solar activity and that the colder temperates influenced CO2 levels.

It does not say that CO2 levels influenced temperature, does it? Doesn't it say exactly the opposite? Doesn't it exactly say that temperatures influenced levels and not the other way around, exactly and bluntly?

:confused:

I see a little circular reasoning going on here. You decided that CO2 levels significantly effect temperature and, with a little magic, are pointing to a study which says that temperature significantly effects CO2 levels and that we should be even more alarmed than ever. Hinting that as temperatures rise, CO2 levels will also rise through natural causes. That our warming estimates might be significantly off (low) due to this data.

This study does not at all detail how significant CO2 is at effecting global temperature.. hell.. it doesnt even pretend to! It infact is about the opposite, completely and entirely!

Now you have confused cause with effect.
 
the most confusing part of the whole debate to me is proving that it is human caused. I believe the anti agw people have good points when it comes to that.

However, people on both sides of the issue agree that looking for renewable fuel and creating less pollution is a good idea so i dont see why it is such a huge deal.
 
a_unique_person said:
G-W may be a fact. But I never, ever see a report that includes the role of Mr. Sun and his solar storms in the equation.
Everyone I've seen seems to forget that the earth's warmth comes from Mr. Sun!
Click to expand...
That is factored into the study of climate. The idea that climate scientists don't take into consideration such obvious facts of science always puzzles me.
Click to expand...

Mr Sun and Ms CO2 have been factored in quantitatively since the late 1800's. Mr Sun just doesn't seem to have much kick, given the changes i his output - not that people haven't been looking hard to fine a mechanism. for a long time. and there may still be one out there...

Ms CO2, however, has a clearly understood mechanism, she closes the windows, hangs tapestries, things get warmer inside. so to first order we understand (and have understood) the effects and Mr Sun and Ms CO2 for quite some time.

that said, the things climate scientists force Mr Sun to do in their models is sometimes shameful; he is not always allowed his true energy, and is sometimes even forced to stand in for Mr Volcano and others players when the budget does not allow hiring a full the cast.

in short: while we remain uncertain of second order effects, solar forcing is NOT ignored, it is the variations in solar forcing that are to be compared with variations in CO2 forcing, and those variations due to the sun are (given current physics) relatively small.
 
Last edited:
CapelDodger said:
Kudos to varwoche for maintaining the highest trump in the "consensus" game, amongst others.
Click to expand...

i'll add my continuing thanks to varwoche also.

and noting that consensus is not unanimity, i'd really like to see another list; one of non-contrarian scientific-skeptics and their doubts. there are scientists to be respected signing some of these letters; in 2007 i'd like to find out/understand why, exactly.
 
Since this conversation has bounced all over the place, like a good skeptic forum conversation should, what about the little ice age? I haven't read every GW thread here, not even close. Is it possible that rising CO2 levels caused by human beings has raised the global temperature in the past?

Or at least moderated a cooling trend?
 
CapelDodger said:
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1978534,00.html
Climate change sceptics issued with challenge

I think this story is worth following. If it does get going, here's an example of the rebuttal case

These are claims that need some substantiation, but are, it is said, denied a forum. Professor Thorpe's proposal would serve admirably.
Click to expand...

it might help to clarify who these people are: Thorpe is the head of a UK research council, was at the met office, and will probably return on eday to what is arguably the best meteorology dept in the UK

Piers Corbyn has been selling longish range (month/seasonal) day-specific weather forecasts (based in some trade-secret manner on sunspots) for decades. i expect that he is sincere, but it has never been possible to extract forecasts from him for comparison with other documented forecasts. there is no doubt that he would ' relish the prospect of a debate,' i've seen exploit such opportunities for profile in the past (nothing wrong with that, of course! but he is trying to optimise more than information flow).

but i am surprised he would say "There is no evidence that carbon dioxide is involved in global warming." even if he truly believes it is mostly due to sun spots and empirically-identified trade-secret magnetic field interactions, it seems odd he'd discount basic science, i think it more likely he thinks other things are more important than CO2.

but a structured debate, with pre-event papers and a ground-truth panel would be a wonderful thing (if the science could truly be engaged).
 
I remember well how Pinatubo caused global cooling, and was used by scientist to note GW seemed to change the time it took for the earth to begin waring again. Without the CO2 levels we had, the planet would have become much cooler, and stayed that way longer. (dust/ash blocking out Mr. Sun)

I really can see some major eruptions in the near future, and rather than massive deaths from starvation and cold, we get a moderated climate, due to human caused greenhouse effects.

I know that sounds whack, but a positive spin on what I see as a situation that is not going to change in time. People are not going to stop producing CO2 in time to stop the most dangerous waring effects. Even if it becomes obvious beyond anybodies ability to not accept GW.

Cynical I know, but there it is.
 
Last edited:
I'm a skeptic. Or I wouldn't be here.

So I have two points I need info on.

) The "Hockey stick graph" (HSG) seems to rurn into a "Horse shoe graph" if extended back another few centuries. We've been warmer before, we'll be warmer again, and colder, both inspite of Man's Inhumanity To Mans Environment.

2) All of the info on the graphs up until ~1890 is from proxies, not from thermometers. They each seem to have a built in averaging. Then, in 1890 (+/-) our data becomes 'digital', actual measurments with thermometers. This can be seen on the HSG by noting several wavy lines representing various proxies. While each is general lower than now, the don't agree much at any particular point- some waves are upwards, some down at any particular point. Then they all become one on a steep upward slant in ~1890. I belive that this shows the transition point from analog proxies to digital data from thermometers.

Isn't this changover from analog to digital problemtical? Perhaps in another century it will average out?
 
January 2006 was the coldest winter in Siberia in the last fifty years....maybe all those coolers were right in teh 70's??
 
Texastwister said:
January 2006 was the coldest winter in Siberia in the last fifty years....maybe all those coolers were right in teh 70's??
Click to expand...

That type of comment just makes global warming skeptics look silly. A temperature low for one subregion of the planet? Let's try to keep this discussion to the best arguments.
 
and what are the best arguments? everything people post as sources here seem to be biased....all I know as one who lives and works in Siberia, is that when its unseasonably warm in the states, its unseasonably cold in Siberia.

People repeatedly here say "all credible scientists" say this or that, but I dont believe any of it. The topic of GW (or AGW) has turned so much to the political arena, it can no longer be debated with logical people.
 
Here are some questions:

1. The global mean temperature is projected to rise by 1 and 4C by 2050. If every nation on Earth signed to, and kept to the Kyoto Protocol, by how much would this temperature rise be reduced?

2. The entire nation of the UK decides to abjure all modern technology and return to the Stone Age with immediate effect. How long would it take China to produce all of the carbon dioxide formerly produced by the UK?

3. Michael Mann (lead author of the Hockey Stick) wrote of the proxies used in the reconstructions of past climate that:

CFR methods do not require that a proxy indicator used in the reconstruction exhibit any local correlation with the climate field of interest , but instead make use of both local and nonlocal information by relating predictors (i.e., the long-term proxy climate data) to the temporal variations in the large-scale patterns of the spatial field.
Click to expand...

Does this mean that proxies can be used even if they don't exhibit any response to local climate conditions so long as they correlate to global temperature change?

4. Michael Mann testified to the NAS Panel this year (2006) that he did not calculate the R2 statistic for his reconstruction, whose zero score showed that his model had no statistical skill. He said calculating the R2 statistic would be a "foolish and incorrect thing to do". Was he telling the truth?

5. There have been eight major reconstructions of past climate using multiple proxies. How many of them used bristlecone pines or foxtails?

6. Do the tree rings of bristlecone pines or foxtails correlate to local climate where they grow?

7. Wahl and Ammann produced a study on reconstructions of past climate including the Hockey Stick. What were the R2 results of all of these studies?

8. According to Greenhouse theory, the accumulation of greenhouse gases should cause warming in the polar regions. Has any polar amplification of warming been seen in the Arctic? the Antarctic?

9. How many ice core records show carbon dioxide and methane rise leading temperature rise?




Answers:

1. 0.07C and that assumes that the sensitivity to carbon dioxide doubling is 3C. Most recent studies suggest the sensitivity is much lower than that. The projected reduction in warming is greater than the oscillation of skin temperature every time your heart beats. It is smaller than any modern measurement of global surface temperature.

2. 13 months. China is currently commissioning one new coal fired power plant every week.

3. Yes. Its like magic. Reference Just in case you think Mann is being misquoted, Wahl and Ammann made this statement regarding Mann's method and similar:

These results enhance the validity of the MBH assumption that proxies used in the reconstruction process do not necessarily need to be closely related to local/regional surface temperatures, as long as they register climatic variations that are linked to the empirical patterns of the global temperature field that the MBH method (and other climate field reconstructions) target.
Click to expand...

4. The R2 calculation is in his source code. He lied to the Panel. He did tell them he was "not a statistician" so he's not a complete liar.

5. All of them. Those that don't use the bristlecones explicitly use the Mann PC1 as a proxy. The Mann PC1 is dominated by the bristlecone pines of the Western US. Some studies use both individual BP sites and the Mann PC1. Double accounting for proxies appears to be a common fault in multiproxy studies (unless you think they're doing it deliberately)

6. There is no correlation between local temperature and bristlecone tree growth, so what is it measuring? The growth of those tree stands in the last 150 years was described as "a mystery" by the people who sampled them.

7. All of them were near zero, indicating that they had no more statistical skill for reconstructing past climate than a Magic 8 ball.

8. None. Polyakov et al (2004) concluded that

In summary, if we accept that long-term SAT trends are a reasonable measure of climate change, then we conclude that the data do not
support the hypothesized polar amplification of global warming"
Click to expand...

The great bulk of the Antarctic has cooled over the last 50 years and both the East and West Antarctic Ice Sheets are growing, a reversal of a trend of slow melting that has gone on for several thousand years.

9. None of them. That doesn't stop people from claiming that it could happen. However all of the ice cores show that temperatures fall even as carbon dioxide and methane continue to rise, so the effect is slight, if at all, that greenhouse gases "control" the temperature.

Scores:

7-9 You're actually a skeptic. Wear your badge with pride! You will of course be compared to Holocaust Deniers.
4-6 You're wondering what's going and so are most of us
1-3 You are in a deep sleep. Stay comfortable, and try to stay warm. The nurse will be with you shortly.
0 You are varwoche and I claim my $5
 
Last edited:
Polyakov et al (2004) ??

A quick Google found that Polyakov et al (2004) is associated with vast data on the warming of the Arctic and Antarctic. Are you trolling? That is just dumb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom