Global warming...debunked?

[Peephole]

I find it really interesting to see all you AGW proponents heading out to debunk the information that come from these climate change scientists first. That was the premise of the OP and you have all fallen directly into line. "They must be wrong, so we must debunk" attitude.

But they are wrong. They fabricated the whole story.

Read the damn thread next time.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/11/climate-change-global-warming-mojib-latif

You're saying if holocaust deniers or creationist or 9/11 deniers publish their crap in the news we should just let it pass. Or else we're just commiting "group think." You're a very strange and deluded person.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

But they are wrong. They fabricated the whole story.

Read the damn thread next time.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/11/climate-change-global-warming-mojib-latif

You're saying if holocaust deniers or creationist or 9/11 deniers publish their crap in the news we should just let it pass. Or else we're just commiting "group think." You're a very strange and deluded person.

You are right in that it may be factually incorrect. My point mainly has todo with the OP itself where the confirmation bias is obvious:

can someone debunk this "debunking"?

I know soo little about this subject. I have no idea what to think.

We are asked to debunk without consideration for its contents.

We are then told I know "too little" and have "no idea what to think".
And yet, it must be wrong.

 

[Peephole]

People regularly ask these kinds of questions on this forum, on topics as wide as ghosts, creationism, quackery or 9/11 conspiracy theories. Whether you agree with it or not, AGW is a broadly accepted scientific theory and there's nothing wrong with asking help in debunking the deniers. Parky76's instinct that this article was a load of crap was completely justified.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

In your opinion, ... and you may be right.

In my opinion it is more evidence of groupthink by virtue of confirmation bias, ... and I may be right.

 

[Thunder]

We are asked to debunk without consideration for its contents.

We are then told I know "too little" and have "no idea what to think".
And yet, it must be wrong.

no. it being wrong was not assumed. i asked for info to debunk it. if it was indeed....debunkable.

i, unlike pseudo-skeptics, do have an open mind.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Perhaps, but that is not how it read to me. Moreover, many of those that followed read it the same, imo.

 

[David Wong]

...alarmists...

And by "alarmists" you mean "all of the worlds experts on the subject."

 

[David Wong]

Warmers

And by "warmers" you mean "all of the world's experts on the subject."

 

[David Wong]

One of the scientists quoted, Professor Mojib Latif, has already complained about article.
(sorry can't do links yet, but it was in the uk Guardian newspaper)

"A leading scientist has hit out at misleading newspaper reports that linked his research to claims that the current cold weather undermines the scientific case for manmade global warming.

Mojib Latif, a climate expert at the Leibniz Institute at Kiel University in Germany, said he "cannot understand" reports that used his research to question the scientific consensus on climate change.

He told the Guardian: "It comes as a surprise to me that people would try to use my statements to try to dispute the nature of global warming. I believe in manmade global warming. I have said that if my name was not Mojib Latif it would be global warming."

He added: "There is no doubt within the scientific community that we are affecting the climate, that the climate is changing and responding to our emissions of greenhouse gases."

The Daily Mail is not to be trusted.

On a related note, this video is required viewing:



The comment about global cooling the expert they quote made was in reference to the fact that denialists take his comments out of context.

The deniers have taken his comments and done exactly what he said they would do: lie and lie and lie. Blatant, open, bald-faced.

You'd have to be utterly delusional to support the denialist side. Utterly delusional. What they're doing is so incredibly obvious only intentional ignorance could avoid seeing it.

 

[mhaze]

1920 to 1940 was an upward sweep of the PDO as well. Why wasn't it as warm from 1920 to 1940 as it was from 1970 to 2000?

Because of the additive of the secular trend, which is somewhat overstated in the graph due to the first of the two factors I mentioned, but which nonetheless is acknowledged to exist.

The three obvious components of the secular trend are in (for now unstated and uncertain) percentages solar effects, various effects of man's activities, and a natural movement back to a long term average temperature from the Little Ice Age.

 

[a_unique_person]

I find it really interesting to see all you AGW proponents heading out to debunk the information that come from these climate change scientists first. That was the premise of the OP and you have all fallen directly into line. "They must be wrong, so we must debunk" attitude.

This is far from open minded or scientific imho.

If they stated that the world is continuing to warm through AGW you would all be nodding your heads in the usual agreement and accepting it without question.

More groupthink.

Here we have two (non 'denier' by the way) putting forward some additional and alternate theories that might actually be good news and you first and foremost wish to disbelieve them.

Incredible!

No, misrepresentation of Tsonis' work has been going on for years. Such tricks are standard denier fare. Nothing new here.

 

[lionking]

i doubt the scientific analysis of ANYONE who uses name calling to make an argument.

does labeling people make you feel strong?

actually, what it does is de-humanize people. they stop being individuals with personal points of view, and become part of a monolithic group, that you can easily attack.

So calling people warmers and alarmists shows that someone can not make a proper argument? What would you say about those who called others deniers and denidiots (as some do) and compare them to creationists?

 

[lionking]

A few questions (and call me a denier if you want, it means nothing to me):

Has there a pause in global warming over the past several years?

If so, was this pause predicted by computer models before the fact?

If not, why should I accept, unskeptically, computer modelling which predicts that warming will re-commence at some time in the future?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Because of the additive of the secular trend, which is somewhat overstated in the graph due to the first of the two factors I mentioned, but which nonetheless is acknowledged to exist.

There's the little issue of the negative mode between 1940 and 1975, which was both longer and higher amplitude than the preceding positive period. This should have more than overcome the warming in the preceding positive period. And then's also the question of where the heat came from. It obviously didn't come from a transfer of heat from the oceans, because the oceans have continued to warm.

 

[Meed]

A few questions (and call me a denier if you want, it means nothing to me):

Has there a pause in global warming over the past several years?

No. There has been variation in global mean surface temperatures, like there always is, but no evidence/mechanism to suggest/expect a pause in rising global heat content.

If so, was this pause predicted by computer models before the fact?

I'm not sure to what extent ENSO and PDO cycles are predictable at the moment (I think ENSO is moreso). If there were such predictions (and I have no idea why it matters if they were made by computer models), then they would have been made based on these factors.

But global warming (i.e. positive temperature forcing) predictions are another matter. They aren't concerned with short term GMST variation and don't attempt to predict it.

Are you asking whether the recent temperature has been within the range projected by the IPCC in the past?

If not, why should I accept, unskeptically, computer modelling which predicts that warming will re-commence at some time in the future?

Because (if this were the case), global heat content would still be rising and it's possible for this to happen at the same time as a short term cooling of mean surface temperature.

 

[Corsair 115]

The CBC program Mansbridge One on One had an interview with an Arctic researcher who had part of a research mission on an icebreaker investigating the ice and all involved were surprised by the poor quality of the ice.

Unfortunately, for some reason CBC does not offer episodes of the program available for viewing online.

Well, I retract the remarks above, because after further digging I have found the episode online over at CBC's web site. The links to past episodes wasn't as obvious as it might have been.

The person interviewed was David Barber, Arctic climatologist at the University of Manitoba. The episode page is here. Just click the "Watch the episode" link to load up the video in a pop-up window. It's worth a viewing I think.

Does that mean that the quality of the ice disproves that it is, in fact cold?

Do recall the intent with which the increase in ice coverage is touted: Arctic ice coverage is as large or larger than it used to be, therefore global warming is false!

A thin, mushy ice is not quite the same thing as thick pack ice, is it? Indeed, the fact that there's a lot of thin, mushy ice would explain why the surface coverage, as observed by satellites, has increased. Thin, mushy ice could reasonably be expected to spread out over a larger area more easily than robust, thick ice.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

A thin, mushy ice is not quite the same thing as thick pack ice, is it? Indeed, the fact that there's a lot of thin, mushy ice would explain why the surface coverage, as observed by satellites, has increased. Thin, mushy ice could reasonably be expected to spread out over a larger area more easily than robust, thick ice.

OK.
Now, please remember I am learning on this one..., but it makes no sense to me if the breadth of the ice is bigger than it used to be, it is not colder. What it does suggest is that the level of 'coldness' is broader but not as intense in the centre.
So, we have a situation where it is colder over a larger area, but warmer in the smaller core area.
Assuming this is the case, how do we reconcile this as warming?

Honestly, it makes no sense to me (I am not even sure what I have said makes sense).

 

[Megalodon]

A few questions (and call me a denier if you want, it means nothing to me):

You bloody denier you

Has there a pause in global warming over the past several years?

No, as you can see in this graph, which actually is also on the first page



Three take-home messages:

-Most of the 00's were above the extrapolated trend of 79-99;

-We are now almost exactly where the extrapolated trend of 79-99 put us;

-Computing the 00's into the trend actually increases the rate of warming.

If so, was this pause predicted by computer models before the fact?

Someone will have to show a pause before we start explaining it.

If not, why should I accept, unskeptically, computer modelling which predicts that warming will re-commence at some time in the future?

Because the planet keeps agreeing with the modellers...

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Because the planet keeps agreeing with the modellers...

What!?!
Show us please.

 

[Megalodon]

What!?!
Show us please.

and a good read

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/updates-to-model-data-comparisons/