Global warming

[a_unique_person]

Ask Hansen...or better, follow up the "code" saga.

Once again, does fiction now count as evidence?

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
Really? It didn't need factual accuracy and scientific proof?
Interesting.....

​

Read the IPCC report.

Yes I have (and agree with you that others should)
It didn't need factual accuracy and scientific proof?
Interesting.....

 

[mhaze]

You are talking about UHI. It's already taken into account.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=110

No. This is not a matter of opinion and the spin does not work.

It is really the first effort to get it right.

 

[David Rodale]

You are talking about UHI. It's already taken into account.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=110

I notice they cite Hansen 2001, interesting.
Try a bit of reading:
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/index.php?s=uhi&submit=Search
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-274.pdf
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/NR-145.pdf
http://www.geography.uc.edu/~kenhinke/uhi/Hinkel&Nelson_JGR-A_2007.pdf
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/88/6/pdf/i1520-0477-88-6-913.pdf
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/UCAR-slides/index.html

Steve McIntyre disagrees with your link's assessment. Would you like to bet who wins? We won't even have to wait 50 years for this. In fact, try reading something different for once, it's good to do. The house of cards is falling.
http://climateaudit.org/
I'll tell you what Unique. You can quote your source all you want. Let's have a friendly wager: within 6 months if Steve McIntyre's efforts are fruitless and he doesn't show conclusively that the surface temperature record is unreliable and erroneous, I will publicly state that I was completely off base and your statement "UHI was already addressed" was correct. However, if he does, you must state your sources are unreliable, not to be trusted and IPCC is a load of dung. Deal?

BTW, as I have asked for evidence for CO2 warming, Steve M does as well. The request is still the same in his words:

I regularly ask readers who are critical of me to provide a citation to a detailed exposition of how doubled CO2 results in 2.5 deg C - in which all arguments and assumptions are pulled together. No one has been able to provide one. I do not suggest that such an exposition is impossible, but the seeming absence of such an exposition really frustrates the debate. Prior to the framing of AR4, I suggested that such an exposition be included but IPCC apparently decided that it was irrelevant.

Linking to IPCC is not evidence. It's not up to us to prove it doesn't exist, but the burden is on you to prove it does.

Finally, I'm wondering if current arctic temperatures and conditions are "unprecedented"? Has the NorthWest Passage ever been navigated before?

 

[mhaze]

Finally, I'm wondering if current arctic temperatures and conditions are "unprecedented"? Has the NorthWest Passage ever been navigated before?

Do ducks quack?

 

[a_unique_person]

Yes I have (and agree with you that others should)
It didn't need factual accuracy and scientific proof?
Interesting.....

It is based on science. Science is not about hard and fast facts that last forever, it's a continual progression from dark towards light. We will never reach the end. Science is full of facts that have subsequently been shown to be wrong. At present, the IPCC is presenting the best science we have on the topic, and it's mostly correct. They'll also tell you how confident they are of the claims they make, and the research they are based on.

 

[a_unique_person]

Linking to IPCC is not evidence. It's not up to us to prove it doesn't exist, but the burden is on you to prove it does.

Lucifuge dreams up a work of fiction, and you ignore him?

The IPCC reports are based on scientific research.

 

[mhaze]

BTW, as I have asked for evidence for CO2 warming, Steve M does as well. The request is still the same in his words:

Quote:
I regularly ask readers who are critical of me to provide a citation to a detailed exposition of how doubled CO2 results in 2.5 deg C - in which all arguments and assumptions are pulled together. No one has been able to provide one. I do not suggest that such an exposition is impossible, but the seeming absence of such an exposition really frustrates the debate. Prior to the framing of AR4, I suggested that such an exposition be included but IPCC apparently decided that it was irrelevant.
​

​

Gavin at Realclimate cannot answer that, he has been asked.

 

[a_unique_person]

I notice they cite Hansen 2001, interesting.
Try a bit of reading:
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/index.php?s=uhi&submit=Search
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-274.pdf
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/NR-145.pdf
http://www.geography.uc.edu/~kenhinke/uhi/Hinkel&Nelson_JGR-A_2007.pdf
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/88/6/pdf/i1520-0477-88-6-913.pdf
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/UCAR-slides/index.html

Steve McIntyre disagrees with your link's assessment. Would you like to bet who wins? We won't even have to wait 50 years for this. In fact, try reading something different for once, it's good to do. The house of cards is falling.
http://climateaudit.org/
I'll tell you what Unique. You can quote your source all you want. Let's have a friendly wager: within 6 months if Steve McIntyre's efforts are fruitless and he doesn't show conclusively that the surface temperature record is unreliable and erroneous, I will publicly state that I was completely off base and your statement "UHI was already addressed" was correct. However, if he does, you must state your sources are unreliable, not to be trusted and IPCC is a load of dung. Deal?

Given that obvious evidence is not agree upon here, it can't be a deal.

BTW, as I have asked for evidence for CO2 warming, Steve M does as well. The request is still the same in his words:


Linking to IPCC is not evidence. It's not up to us to prove it doesn't exist, but the burden is on you to prove it does.

IPCC states the process it used to estimate climate sensitivity.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_TS.pdf

Finally, I'm wondering if current arctic temperatures and conditions are "unprecedented"? Has the NorthWest Passage ever been navigated before?

Apparently not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage

 

[David Rodale]

It is based on science. Science is not about hard and fast facts that last forever, it's a continual progression from dark towards light. We will never reach the end. Science is full of facts that have subsequently been shown to be wrong. At present, the IPCC is presenting the best science we have on the topic, and it's mostly correct. They'll also tell you how confident they are of the claims they make, and the research they are based on.

I thought the "science was settled"?

You are dodging the question. I am contending IPCC is NOT presenting the best science, and in fact ignores science disagreeing with their agenda; this is well documented for which references are available upon request. I'll even go as far to state it is a corrupt institution not wholly based on science, and in fact did not formulate their APM based on the actual scientist's reports. For instance, the hockey stick was not formally reviewed prior to being included in the 2001 TAR, Michael Mann was the lead author for the 'Observed Climate Variability and Change' group in 2001, essentially reviewing his own work and effectively trashed the hundreds of studies preceding his. IPCC is rife with this sort of chicanery. If the hockey stick was "vindicated" as you claim, why have all references to it disappeared in AR4?

Is the current Arctic temperatures and conditions unprecedented, and has the NorthWest passage ever been navigated in previous times?

You will not present us with any paper outlining in detail, the hypothesis of CO2 as the main driver of climate because such a paper does not exist. I and others however have posted articles falsifying the hypothesis as presented by IPCC. Shall we reiterate?

Is the surface temperature record accurate, reliable and honestly presented for public consumption? I contend it is not, believe in due time sadly our scientific institutions will be tainted by it, and public trust in those institutions will plummet.

 

[a_unique_person]

[/indent]
Gavin at Realclimate cannot answer that, he has been asked.

It's not that simple, so there won't ever be a simple answer.

 

[bobdroege7]

I think you pay yer $20,000 and get a ride to who North Pole where you are guarenteed a swim. Its a nuclear powered vessel either a sub or icebreaker. 60-80 years ago maybe no one was sufficiently nuts to want to...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/g...py?id=621039530005&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

Atlantic ocean temperatures.

Sure looks like a cycle. Note that we could discuss what small AGW trend could possibly be overlaid on a cycle-but you can't just ignore the cycle in order to create the biggest boldest AGW number.

Going down that road, AGW does not look alarming .

Geez, at least give me a monitoring station close to the north pole, 51.9 degrees north, hey I've been farther north than that, polar explorer that I am.

 

[bobdroege7]

xx

 

[robinson]

I'm all for Global Warming. I think it is pretty damn cool that we can stave off the next ice age, and open up all kinds of new real estate. Global Cooling, now that would suck.

I keep trying to tell people, if we can keep the planet warm by burning fossil fuels and killing off the forest, then the next time some giant ass volcano goes off, we can stop the next ice age from starting.

(A cloud of volcanic ash and dust blocking out the sun would kill off so much plant life, cause so many fires, that not only would it cool the planet down, it would dramatically increase the CO2 levels, as well as really suck on so many other levels.)

If we have the ability to warm the entire planet up by burning fuel, (and increasing methane production), then we rule the climate, not the other way around. Why the alarmist hue and cry?

 

[a_unique_person]

Bugger Jack, I'm OK?

Australia is just about to experience another year of drought, that has reduced the expected wheat harvest by about 50%.

 

[stevea]

'How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic' answers all the questions one could possibly have. I can't post links yet, so you'll have to Google it. Have a good read!

Well it really doesn't answer any questions except as an appeal to authority (a fallacious argiument form). It's more a list of quips than a argument to reason. Listing some census of scientists has nothing to do with a rational argument.

One glaring minor example of a misleading argument is pointing to modern wineries in S.England. The author apparently didn't realize then most of the wine-grape varieties mentioned at this site are vinifera/labrusca and vinifera/riparea crosses (crosses of N.American and European grapes) which are inherently more cold hardy, yet obviously unavailable during the supposed age warming period. The use of grafted cross-N.American rootstock (almost universal in Europe after the phylloxera epidemic in the 1800s) also impacts the cold hardiness of grapes. Frankly it's relatively unimportant whether the same grape varieties would grow in the same area of S.UK when the argument refers to global climate. The records of the rise and fall of the Viking colonies of Greenland are a less controvertible example of a small region of the N.Atlantic which was considerably warmer within historical times.

This does point to a fundamental problem - that estimates of historical temperature are based on secondary measures which are of arguable accuracy.

==

I agree with the several people on this list who suggest that a display of the evidence and not an appeal to authority of scientists or politicians is necessary to form a convincing argument.

There have been some extreme ANTI-reason arguments in this thread which I find disgusting. Science requires continual skepticism of even the most basic and seemingly reliable foundational "facts". The idea that science is ever settled implies ignorance of the scientific method. The ad hominem, ad verecundium, and ad populum arguments (all well know as false arguments) and the strong use of emotive words to color the discussion is clear evidence that some proponents GW are not able to form a rational argument.

This doesn't weigh either in favor or against the reality of GW, but it does add heat and no light to this discussion.

 

[a_unique_person]

The evidence is all out there, it's just that 99% of the people posting here, including myself, would not be able to understand it. When I read climateaudit and I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

 

[mhaze]

I'm all for Global Warming. I think it is pretty damn cool that we can stave off the next ice age, and open up all kinds of new real estate. Global Cooling, now that would suck.

Global cooling. A world with no bikinis...

We must ACT NOW to be sure that our actions today do not leave this horrid legacy to future generations.

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper
'How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic' answers all the questions one could possibly have. I can't post links yet, so you'll have to Google it. Have a good read!
​

Well it really doesn't answer any questions except as an appeal to authority (a fallacious argiument form). It's more a list of quips than a argument to reason. Listing some census of scientists has nothing to do with a rational argument.

One glaring minor example of a ....

Actually, instead of reading "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" one could of course just read this thread. Reading that sort of script and reciting it isn't really the path to learning or understanding...a bit like reading the Bible for knowledge and wisdom isn't it?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Actually, instead of reading "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" one could of course just read this thread

Right, especially when before my link to the site there were a grand total of... how many posts in the thread? Nearly none? Right.

The records of the rise and fall of the Viking colonies of Greenland are a less controvertible example of a small region of the N.Atlantic which was considerably warmer within historical times.

Don't judge places based on their names. The Yellow Sea is not really yellow and the Democratic Republic of North Korea is everything but free.

Seriously, though, read up on Viking settlements and why they failed. It was not because Greenland had been warm and suddenly cooled. It was because the Vikings flat out refused to adapt to the harsh climate of Greenland. They tried to farm and keep livestock, which failed miserably, and flat out refused to fish with kayaks (or without them) like the Inuits, for unknown reasons.

I'm all for Global Warming. I think it is pretty damn cool that we can stave off the next ice age, and open up all kinds of new real estate. Global Cooling, now that would suck.

False dilemma. Unless, of course, you were being sarcastic. I keep ranting about how no one understands I'm joking when I move onto the Internet, but I'm of course prone to weakness in that field myself.