Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[Trakar]

Still no evidence for your claim. No link to the theory. No predictions. No explanation of how we can tell if it's AGW causing the warming. No science at all.

Certainly this doesn't mean much about "AGW", whatever "it" means. But it says volumes about the people posting about it.

There are a lot of people using the terms "AGW". "global warming" and "climate change", and they use them all as if they all mean the same thing. (they certainly don't of course). And people say a lot of crazy and unscientific things, as if they are some sort of "truth". "It's just a fact."

These are your unsupported and unevidenced assertions.

http://timeforchange.org/cause-and-effect-for-global-warming


These people and organisations actually seem insane in what they claim.
http://www.americanprogress.org/iss...4/3462/the-top-100-effects-of-global-warming/

http://timeforchange.org/about_us.html

http://www.americanprogress.org/about/mission/

Try a science reference instead of personal individual and political advocacy sites if you wish to understand the science from an appropriately scientific website

Perhaps something more along the lines of:

The American Institute of Physics site - http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

NASA site - http://climate.nasa.gov/

IPCC - http://www.ipcc.ch/

American Geophysical Union - http://news.agu.org/press-release/a...revised-position-statement-on-climate-change/

Any reputable scientific organization, I'll be happy to provide more if you have trouble identifying legitimate science organizations.

 

[Trakar]

All this- principally - from an increase in Carbon Dioxide? I doubt it, and so do a lot of Climate Scientists. I mean, it's no wonder that reputable Scientists like Richard Lindzen and Bill Gray think these Global-Warming Alarmists are clowns.

Now...I am not so arrogant as to believe that the Global Warming Alarmists are clowns - I think most are well-meaning people. However, they do demonstrate a basic lack of knowledge as to how Science is performed, and they seem way too influenced by political pressure.

More unsupported assertion, lacking in substantive and compelling scientific, or otherwise reasoned, evidentiary backing.

 

[macdoc]

JG pontificated.....after posting a link from a new ager site...
http://timeforchange.org/effects-of-global-warming

However, they do demonstrate a basic lack of knowledge as to how Science is performed.

as you have constantly

, and they seem way too influenced by political pressure

as you are as well..repuglie shill...how ironic you diss your erratic tree hugger counterpart for the same crap you spew from the right wing.

and you wonder why you are laughed at.

 

[Blue Mountain]

Nice try my friend , your anomaly in your pretty pictures tries to tell the world the arctic is warm .... my problem is that my thermometer said otherwise.

Who should we believe ?

If you were an honest researcher you would also have included all the pretty pictures showing unusual cooling.

Oh come on, you've got to be kidding! Do you even know where Churchill is? It's at 58° North (actually closer to 59 than 58) and has a subarctic climate.

For the benefit of other readers on this thread, a temperature of -24°C at 5:00 PM in late December is normal for Churchill. The long-term average high for December 24 is -21°C, the average low -29°C. 5:00 PM is a full hour and a half after sunset, which occurred at 3:24 PM. (Source: Environment Canada.)

 

[tsig]

do you really think other people do not see your dishonesty? do you really think that is a good way for a debate?
no wonder people laugh about deniers.

Definitely a master quote miner.

 

[lomiller]

If it were a joke, I could understand it. But this belief that "AGW" is a fact and you can't disprove it, it's so unscientific.

The literature says what it says. The researches in the field conclude what they conclude. Both say you are wrong.

No once can force you to believe what's in the published literature, but please don't try to suggest there is anything "scientific" or "skeptical" about ignoring it. No real scientist or skeptic would ever endorse such a position.

 

[lomiller]

.........

We'll need a source for that. There are any number of fraudulent representations of model results out there that certain people seem to have accepted as fact without ever checking to see if there is any validity.

The big first "this is a fraud" flag in this particular graphic is that all the plots seem to conveniently start at the same place. Real model and temperature results would not be expected to do so as model results are free running for a number of years prior to producing results. The second flag is that for some reason the late 90's agree between the two when in fact measured temperatures for 1998 were far above model predictions.

My guess is that wherever you got the graphic shifted the model numbers upward so they "agreed" at the starting point but are in fact several tenths of a degree above the real model results.

Another possibility (also common) is that the model results shown are act
actually for a higher CO2 concentrations that have actually occurred. Most published model runs are done against low medium and high CO2 scenarios. There is a certain group of people who like to ignore this and tell their followers that the "high CO2" scenario is the actual model prediction.

 

[lomiller]

The planet has gone through some severe cycles in the past
And likely will again in the future

The rate of climate change in these "severe cycles" you refer to are still an order of magnitude smaller than what's occurring currently. In fact the last time climate change this rapid is observed in the paleo-climate record was 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs and a good chunk of life on earth went extinct.

 

[macdoc]

The source is the discredited Friends of Science who were tossed out of University of Calgary with prejudice and were disbanded then found new "sponsors" to continue to peddle disinformation .....Tim Ball ring a bell???

Snake oil ...pure and simple.

 

[lomiller]

All this- principally - from an increase in Carbon Dioxide? I doubt it, and so do a lot of Climate Scientists. I mean, it's no wonder that reputable Scientists like Richard Lindzen and Bill Gray think these Global-Warming Alarmists are clowns.

Other than the fact they are sating things you want to believe what makes you think they are "respectable"? Lindzen hasn't published anything of note in nearly 2 decades, and the stuff he was publishing then has long been debunked in the literature.

Grey hasn't published much of interest lately either and even when he was, his focus was very narrow. He's he's only "respectable" on the specific subject of hurricanes, and never researched anything applicable to global climate.

AFAIK Grey's only contribution to the climate debate is that he pointed out wind shear could suppress hurricane formation in a warmer climate. By it;s nature this position accepts that the climate will be warmer. It's also not inconsistent with current evidence that hurricanes will become more severe, but not necessarily more numerous.

 

[Jules Galen]

Other than the fact they are sating things you want to believe what makes you think they are "respectable"? Lindzen hasn't published anything of note in nearly 2 decades, and the stuff he was publishing then has long been debunked in the literature.

Grey hasn't published much of interest lately either and even when he was, his focus was very narrow. He's he's only "respectable" on the specific subject of hurricanes, and never researched anything applicable to global climate.

AFAIK Grey's only contribution to the climate debate is that he pointed out wind shear could suppress hurricane formation in a warmer climate. By it;s nature this position accepts that the climate will be warmer. It's also not inconsistent with current evidence that hurricanes will become more severe, but not necessarily more numerous.

Lindzen has been publishing very regularly over the years and Gray is retired - so I don't expect much from him (e.g., he only published one paper last year). Nevertheless, whether they publish - or not - does not indicate whether or not they know what they are talking about.

And people all over the world are catching on. I mean, a former poster related how Kyoto Protocol had died and Copenhagen Accord was dead on arrival - and this is true. All nations and nationalities are starting to see how much this Global Warming Alarmism is just Hooey - and they are joining together and effectively saying "We don't want it!"

So...until the AGW people can scientifically prove its case, it's the AGW Alarmists against the World - and the world is going to crush the AGW Alarmists if there is not some proof soon. Funny thing...I giggle every time I hear a AGW Alarmist squeal that "...the debate is over!" Yeah...I guess it is, and the world has decided the AGW Alarmists have utterly lost.

Lindzen: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/PublicationsRSL.html

 

[lionking]

I mean, a former poster related how Kyoto Protocol had died and Copenhagen Accord was dead on arrival - and this is true. All nations and nationalities are starting to see how much this Global Warming Alarmism is just Hooey - and they are joining together and effectively saying "We don't want it!"

No. Wrong. The Copenhagen Accord did not succeed because of stupid national self-interest. It had nothing to do with the irrefutable science of AGW.

 

[DC]

Lindzen has been publishing very regularly over the years and Gray is retired - so I don't expect much from him (e.g., he only published one paper last year). Nevertheless, whether they publish - or not - does not indicate whether or not they know what they are talking about.

And people all over the world are catching on. I mean, a former poster related how Kyoto Protocol had died and Copenhagen Accord was dead on arrival - and this is true. All nations and nationalities are starting to see how much this Global Warming Alarmism is just Hooey - and they are joining together and effectively saying "We don't want it!"

So...until the AGW people can scientifically prove its case, it's the AGW Alarmists against the World - and the world is going to crush the AGW Alarmists if there is not some proof soon. Funny thing...I giggle every time I hear a AGW Alarmist squeal that "...the debate is over!" Yeah...I guess it is, and the world has decided the AGW Alarmists have utterly lost.

Lindzen: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/PublicationsRSL.html

you are living in a fantasy world

 

[macdoc]

Lintzen is a joke....is that the best you have JG to refute the mainstream science....

Misrepresentation from Lindzen
Filed under: Climate Science Instrumental Record — gavin @ 6 March 2012

Richard Lindzen is a very special character in the climate debate – very smart, high profile, and with a solid background in atmospheric dynamics. He has, in times past, raised interesting critiques of the mainstream science.

None of them, however, have stood the test of time – but exploring the issues was useful. More recently though, and especially in his more public outings, he spends most of his time misrepresenting the science and is a master at leading people to believe things that are not true without him ever saying them explicitly.

Such a cavalier attitude to analysing and presenting data probably has some lessons for how seriously one should take Lindzen’s comments. I anticipate with interest Lindzen’s corrections of this in future presentations and his apology for misleading his audience last month.

Update: Lindzen did indeed apologise (sort of) though see comments for more discussion.

He's just a paid shill of the fossil interests these days, even his associates at MIT are ashamed of him
....whether you are a shill remains uncertain....paid that is....shill??...of a certainty.

as usual you avoid the uncomfortable reality that the world IS moving on...

UN climate talks end with deal on curbing emissions ... - France 24
www.france24.com/.../20131123-agreement-reached-un-climate-talks-w...‎
Nov 23, 2013 - Climate negotiations in Warsaw drew to a close a day late on Saturday after wealthy and ... on sharing responsibility for climate change and agreeing to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. ... Latest update : 2013-11-24 ...

and China and the US have reached a substantial agreement.....your progress argument is as flawed as your science crap.

Climate change deal: U.S., China sign 'groundbreaking' deal

WASHINGTON – The world’s two biggest polluters have signed what could be a groundbreaking agreement and “call to action” on the fight against escalating climate change.

The United States and China announced Sunday they would accelerate action to reduce greenhouse gases by advancing cooperation on technology, research, conservation, and alternative and renewable energy.

But while the listed actions sound relatively mundane, the words that accompanied the announcement were not. In a joint and quite powerful statement on the dangers of climate change, the two sides said they “consider that the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding climate change constitutes a compelling call to action crucial to having a global impact on climate change.”

covered even by the National Pest one of your right wing rags

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/14/united-stata-china-reach-critical-deal-on-climate-change/

Your attempt to mislead and confuse is failing. Heartland is a joke.
Your sponsors are pulling out and you and your ilk are reduced to tailing after the idjits in the anti-evolution crowd just to woo the ignorant on the right.

Go somewhere else to peddle your snake oil....no buyers here.
Even the likes of Exxon have moved on......

Exxon CEO: Climate Change Poses Significant Risk, but Outcome is ...
breakingenergy.com/.../exxon-ceo-climate-change-poses-significant-risk...‎
May 29, 2013 - ExxonMobil Chief Executive Rex Tillerson acknowledged the risks posed by climate change at the company's annual meeting on May 29,

Move on...there are difficult policy decisions to make and your shrill voice in denial is just something to laugh at, not to listen to.

 

[macdoc]

It's not the sun....

Meanwhile in the science arena which is this thread is purportedly about...

Solar activity not a key cause of climate change, study shows
Dec 22, 2013

Climate change has not been strongly influenced by variations in heat from the sun, a new scientific study shows.
The findings overturn a widely held scientific view that lengthy periods of warm and cold weather in the past might have been caused by periodic fluctuations in solar activity.
Research examining the causes of climate change in the northern hemisphere over the past 1000 years has shown that until the year 1800, the key driver of periodic changes in climate was volcanic eruptions. These tend to prevent sunlight reaching the Earth, causing cool, drier weather. Since 1900, greenhouse gases have been the primary cause of climate change.
The findings show that periods of low sun activity should not be expected to have a large impact on temperatures on Earth, and are expected to improve scientists' understanding and help climate forecasting.
Scientists at the University of Edinburgh carried out the study using records of past temperatures constructed with data from tree rings and other historical sources. They compared this data record with computer-based models of past climate, featuring both significant and minor changes in the sun.
They found that their model of weak changes in the sun gave the best correlation with temperature records, indicating that solar activity has had a minimal impact on temperature in the past millennium.
The study, published in Nature Geoscience, was supported by the Natural Environment Research Council.

http://phys.org/news/2013-12-solar-key-climate.html

 

[Trakar]

The rate of climate change in these "severe cycles" you refer to are still an order of magnitude smaller than what's occurring currently. In fact the last time climate change this rapid is observed in the paleo-climate record was 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs and a good chunk of life on earth went extinct.

And this isn't a given. It seems that climate may have been slowly changing due to increased volcanism prior to the impact that exaggerated the effects of what was already an extinction level event. More and more, it seems that while major impacts certainly contribute to bad times, in times when there aren't other global stressors peaking out, impacts seem to be much more regional in their effects.

The Deccan Traps definitely pulsed out CO2 in a manner that closely parallels humanity's AGW emissions in volume, except the Deccan pulses were actually slower and more gradual in release, coming in pulses spread out over a few million years, but ending up with atmospheric concentrations similar to what we are seeing and expecting in modern emission scenarios.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...-volcano-mass-extinction-environment-science/

http://www.princeton.edu/geosciences/people/keller/pdf/K_17.pdf

 

[Trakar]

Lindzen has been publishing very regularly over the years and Gray is retired - so I don't expect much from him (e.g., he only published one paper last year). Nevertheless, whether they publish - or not - does not indicate whether or not they know what they are talking about.

And people all over the world are catching on. I mean, a former poster related how Kyoto Protocol had died and Copenhagen Accord was dead on arrival - and this is true. All nations and nationalities are starting to see how much this Global Warming Alarmism is just Hooey - and they are joining together and effectively saying "We don't want it!"

So...until the AGW people can scientifically prove its case, it's the AGW Alarmists against the World - and the world is going to crush the AGW Alarmists if there is not some proof soon. Funny thing...I giggle every time I hear a AGW Alarmist squeal that "...the debate is over!" Yeah...I guess it is, and the world has decided the AGW Alarmists have utterly lost.

Lindzen: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/PublicationsRSL.html

You seem disconnected from reality.

http://www.psychologicalscience.org...ember-13/the-subterranean-war-on-science.html

 

[lomiller]

Gray is retired - so I don't expect much from him (e.g., he only published one paper last year). Nevertheless, whether they publish - or not - does not indicate whether or not they know what they are talking about.

If he's retired and never published on the subject of global warming to begin with why would you think he "knows what he's talking about"?

Lindzen has been publishing very regularly over the years and Gray is retired - so I don't expect much from him (e.g., he only published one paper last year). Nevertheless, whether they publish - or not - does not indicate whether or not they know what they are talking about.

He's published plenty of propaganda pieces on the internet. He hasn't published anything of note since the 90's and as I already told those papers have been refuted and debunked in the scientific literature.

Lindzen: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/PublicationsRSL.html

Which of those papers do you think is notable and has significance to the discussion of global climate change? Be specific when you talk about how the papers content supports your position.

(I suspect you won't do this because I doubt you have any idea what's in any of them. Someone just gave you a list, told you "this is the guy to believe" and you never bother to look into any of the "arguments" he advancing to see if they are relevant.)

 

[aleCcowaN]

Retallack, Gregory. "Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling". The University of Chicago. The Journal of Geology.

Soussana, Jean-François, K Klumpp, T Tallec Mitigating livestock greenhouse gas balance through carbon sequestration in grasslands
INRA UR0874, Grassland Ecosystem Research, Clermont-Ferrand, France

Teague, W R; S. L. Dowhowera, S.A. Bakera, N. Haileb, P.B. DeLaunea, D.M. Conovera (2011). "Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie". Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 141, Issues 3–4, May 2011, Pages 310–322 (3–4): 310

RESTORING THE CLIMATE THROUGH CAPTURE
AND STORAGE OF SOIL CARBON THROUGH
HOLISTIC PLANNED GRAZING

This assorted stuff of your propagandistic campaign that you're dropping here once again is hardly related to the topic of this thread. Besides you're spamming papers you've already posted as AGW and AGW-remediation (!) related, that were criticized by us and pretty much torn apart in the general thread. You never replied those analysis and criticism: you simply seize any opportunity to start all over again.

You have domesticated two Wikipedia articles related to your links. One of them relates to your last link above and it says clearly in the talk section «This page was nominated for deletion on March 26 2013. The result of the discussion was delete.»

Strangely, it continues to be there, when in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holistic Management it's stated clearly «This is nothing more than an advertisement masquerading as an article - part of a WP:Walled garden of spam - Allan Savory and Holistic Management International. ukexpat (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC).»

You won't get here a false consensus to support your spam like in the wiki articles you domesticated. Relevant articles about the role of grasslands -and agricultural land as a whole- in their relation to mitigation (as well as their lack of potential for remediation) have been already referred. Anyone interested in the role of agricultural land in climate change mitigation can start by FAO's 2009 Food Security and Agricultural Mitigation in Developing Countries: Options for Capturing Synergies and IPCC's AR4 WG3's chapter on agriculture.

About your third link, here my criticism (undisputed by you): part 1 - part 2. (lots more on the spamming campaign in the same section of that global warming related thread)

 

[aleCcowaN]

I have been around for a long time and have seen it all.

Global warming has always concerned me
Global cooling has always concerned me

The planet has gone through some severe cycles in the past
And likely will again in the future

But mankind makes an error when he thinks he controls the thermostat of planet earth.

I was involved in some of the making of this video ... mainly the placing of weather sensors and flying scientists around the Far North.

Anyone who thinks Global Warming is frightening .... well 40 years ago Global Cooling was plain terrifying.

Back then the scientists did not blame mankind for the Cooling

The modern scientist makes an error when he blames mankind for the "lack of Cooling"

This is a sincere look at the havoc climate change caused back then , I was there , I lived through it , and I am thankful it ended.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KK0RswGQZRw#t=1272

Your text is just more self-referencing and epistemological hedonism on your part and you won't make me waste my time with History Channel's "documentaries" as they're well known for being devoid of scientific and instructional value as everything there is in fact there just for the sake of entertainment and storytelling and not for its intrinsic value. I've provided myself History Channel's piece on Little Ice Age as practice as part of a course on critical thinking, later together with The Great Global Warming Swindle, a much juicier piece of propaganda -juicier for a course on critical thinking-.