Global Warming

[nd1baby 0]

Page 1 of this thread- from piratey

 

 

 

We have climate data for more than 30 years. These things are used to determine what the climate was hundreds or thousands of years ago.

 

We aren't talking about a 30-year blip. We're talking about major climate change over the course of many years.

 

Isn't climate change always happening? I mean how could it be climate standstill?

 

Global warming advocates postulated that man made Co2 causes unnatural increases in the world's temperature. The debate is or was whether global warming is caused by man and therefore the weather/climate can be manipulated by increasing/decreasing Co2.

[Parseghians theorem 0]

Against the 30 they've been measuring this warming trend?

 

What is different in terms of measuring a warming trend to just measuring climates and changes?

 

I mean, have we really only been measuring climates since 1983?

[ND3 0]

Isn't climate change always happening? I mean how could it be climate standstill?

 

Global warming advocates postulated that man made Co2 causes unnatural increases in the world's temperature. The debate is or was whether global warming is caused by man and therefore the weather/climate can be manipulated by increasing/decreasing Co2.

 

Yes. It appeared to me that the other posters were downplaying the validity of historical climate data in favor of recent weather patterns, so I felt the need to emphasize that point.

 

All data that we have shows unprecedented recent warming.

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198

 

Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely associated with ~2°C change in the North Atlantic. Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios.

 

*study was received for publication in July 2012

[Rockets Revenge 0]

Things that make you go hmmmmmm.....

 

If large scale global temperature changes are attributed to human industrialization and production of CO2, how did the Ice Age occur prior to human industrialization?

 

Better yet, what fueled the production of CO2 and global warming as the earth transitioned out of the Ice Age? Mastadon farts?

 

If the solution is just to control the ammount of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere why don't we just build a big ole CO2 pump and send it to Venus' atmosphere. After about 30 more years Venus will be cooled enough to sustain human life and we can solve overpopulation too!!

[1qa 0]

Things that make you go hmmmmmm.....

 

If large scale global temperature changes are attributed to human industrialization and production of CO2, how did the Ice Age occur prior to human industrialization?

 

Better yet, what fueled the production of CO2 and global warming as the earth transitioned out of the Ice Age? Mastadon farts?

 

If the solution is just to control the ammount of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere why don't we just build a big ole CO2 pump and send it to Venus' atmosphere. After about 30 more years Venus will be cooled enough to sustain human life and we can solve overpopulation too!!

 

1. Other Ice Ages & Dinosaur Weather - other factors can cause global warming and cooling, but it doesn't mean that humans can't add to the effect.

 

cursory google search on ice ages:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/cause-ice-age.html

 

The issue isn't that these changes happen, it's that the change is happening FAST in geological time (which is usually measured in periods of millions of years, not just a few centuries). It is the RATE of temperature change that is alarming... most species cannot adapt as fast; many may die out without some interventions.

 

Is biological diversity important? Life is such an amazing and complex gift. Nature has produced myriad solutions, and we learn from it every day. I think the projected loss is catatsophically unnecessary.

 

http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/no-hiatus-pause-global-warming-climate-change-heres-why-20140109

 

2. CO2 pump. I hope you are joking. So, accepting CO2 accumulation is the cause, you're saying it is easier to extract CO2 from ocean and air and pump it out of the atmosphere, without generating CO2 in that effort, than to actually just reducing consumption.

 

Given that the Japanese can't even clean-up Fukushima... how do you expect that to happen?

 

I am just waiting for the wars and human cleansing... lose 4 billion to war, disease and poverty, that will slow things down.

Edited January 14, 2014 by 1qa
grammar

[jon33dn 0]

Your response did not really address the fact that the earth does seem to have feedback loops which stabilize the climate within the geological timespan. (Ice ages and warming periods come and go. The earth says so what.)

 

There is a very anti-human element in these climate change philosophies. It's a bit sad.

[piratey 6]

Your response did not really address the fact that the earth does seem to have feedback loops which stabilize the climate within the geological timespan. (Ice ages and warming periods come and go. The earth says so what.)

 

There is a very anti-human element in these climate change philosophies. It's a bit sad.

 

Ding, ding, ding!

 

Someone should follow around these environmental scientists like so:

[ame]

[/ame]

 

I am utterly convinced they are merely reporting to keep their jobs and justify their field of study

[jon33dn 0]

Ding, ding, ding!

 

Someone should follow around these environmental scientists like so:

 

I am utterly convinced they are merely reporting to keep their jobs and justify their field of study

 

I would agree in terms of the alarmists and the governmental agencies that have sized on some of the results to make power grabs. But even a broken clock is right twice a day, and we should not discount VALID data just because of its source. Key being to have skepticism, and an open mind. Remember that co-incidence is not causality, and incomplete understanding of systems makes dramatic actions just as dangerous or more than the problem itself.

[1qa 0]

So, most of you are skeptical about the climate scientists data interpretation, where there is BROAD (> 95% agreement... probably more like 99%), but not skeptical of your assertion that the climate scientists have a secret agenda to hold their positions in academia and get grant money. [\b]

 

Seriously... Most of these people are TENURED ... they have a job for life. For the past 20 years, most of the warming / change advocates have been challenged to explain their interpretations from misleading information from the fossil fuel industry.

 

Scientists, if you actually know any, are largely pain in the *** trained skeptics.

 

I think most of them are competent enough to understand the difference between correlation and causation. Many of the advocates have won Nobel prizes for their discovery and insight on how nature and the universe works... demonstrating or illustrating causation.

 

As for being "anti-human" ... we diminish our Human experience without the richness of life around us.

[jessemoore97 1,295]

So, most of you are skeptical about the climate scientists data interpretation, where there is BROAD (> 95% agreement... probably more like 99%), but not skeptical of your assertion that the climate scientists have a secret agenda to hold their positions in academia and get grant money. [\b]

 

Seriously... Most of these people are TENURED ... they have a job for life. For the past 20 years, most of the warming / change advocates have been challenged to explain their interpretations from misleading information from the fossil fuel industry.

 

Scientists, if you actually know any, are largely pain in the *** trained skeptics.

 

I think most of them are competent enough to understand the difference between correlation and causation. Many of the advocates have won Nobel prizes for their discovery and insight on how nature and the universe works... demonstrating or illustrating causation.

 

As for being "anti-human" ... we diminish our Human experience without the richness of life around us.

 

In the end those scientists were also caught with data that had been falsified or changed to help meet their agenda. As a result there will forever be a specter hanging above their research in many people's minds. If you cannot understand how this makes people firm skeptics of a topic purported to be the absolute truth then I cannot help you.

[piratey 6]

So, most of you are skeptical about the climate scientists data interpretation, where there is BROAD (> 95% agreement... probably more like 99%), but not skeptical of your assertion that the climate scientists have a secret agenda to hold their positions in academia and get grant money. [\b]

 

Seriously... Most of these people are TENURED ... they have a job for life. For the past 20 years, most of the warming / change advocates have been challenged to explain their interpretations from misleading information from the fossil fuel industry.

 

Scientists, if you actually know any, are largely pain in the *** trained skeptics.

 

I think most of them are competent enough to understand the difference between correlation and causation. Many of the advocates have won Nobel prizes for their discovery and insight on how nature and the universe works... demonstrating or illustrating causation.

 

As for being "anti-human" ... we diminish our Human experience without the richness of life around us.

 

http://www.islandbreath.org/2011Year/06/110624snakeoil.jpg

[1qa 0]

Calling me a fraud doesn't prove your point. Ad Hominem

[piratey 6]

Calling me a fraud doesn't prove your point. Ad Hominem

 

Not you...

[jon33dn 0]

So, most of you are skeptical about the climate scientists data interpretation, where there is BROAD (> 95% agreement... probably more like 99%), but not skeptical of your assertion that the climate scientists have a secret agenda to hold their positions in academia and get grant money. [\b]

 

Seriously... Most of these people are TENURED ... they have a job for life. For the past 20 years, most of the warming / change advocates have been challenged to explain their interpretations from misleading information from the fossil fuel industry.

 

Scientists, if you actually know any, are largely pain in the *** trained skeptics.

 

I think most of them are competent enough to understand the difference between correlation and causation. Many of the advocates have won Nobel prizes for their discovery and insight on how nature and the universe works... demonstrating or illustrating causation.

 

As for being "anti-human" ... we diminish our Human experience without the richness of life around us.

 

You might be surprised who around here is a scientist.

 

You also claimed an ad hominem while discounting the criticism of this work as funded by oil companies. So what if it is, the research into climate change is funded by organizations with political interest in seeing it proven... the source is part of the picture, but again, broken clock... 2 times a day... etc...

 

Jesse is right however, some of these scientist have been caught being deceptive regarding the presentation of their data in not one, but two groups of hacked emails... And as sad as that is (much of their mail was normal discussion taken out of context) there were instances of trying to suppress raw data and of intentionally misleading the public. Additionally they have systematically refused FOI and sought to be immune to it, even though their work is publicly funded.

 

This is simply unacceptable for high impact science. These guys have budgets to make sure they have the people to do things right... there is no excuse.

 

The anti-humanism makes it all the more important that the science be totally above board. If you ask me to change my lifestyle you better be able to answer a few skeptical questions... I think that's fair.

[DTCBND03 0]

I'm not sure if humans are causing global warming or cooling. But I'm definitely sure we're impacting the earth in a rapid/unnatural way...starting with the internal combustion engine and petroleum in the 1850s. We can wipe out vast forests, eliminate animal habitats/species, dam up rivers, drain water supplies and consume endless raw materials with our buildings, houses, cars, appliances, clothes, shoes, gadgets, food, etc. All this will eventually have an impact...and likely in a negative way.

 

The flip side is we would need to alter our human lifestyle to return to pre-combustion engine days where we lived more modestly. Or even back to our hunter/gatherer days. This is unrealistic. So the best we can do is hope to slow our impact with "green" energy. But we all know for every one solar panel we install we're consuming 100x more in energy and raw materials.

 

Enjoy it while it lasts...

[piratey 6]

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/01/14/mit-professor-urging-climate-change-activists-to-slow-down/

 

MIT Professor Richard Lindzen is a leading international expert on climate change.

“The changes that have occurred due to global warning are too small to account for,” he told WBZ-TV. “It has nothing to do with global warming, it has to do with where we live.”

Lindzen endorses sensible preparedness and environmental protection, but sees what he terms “catastrophism” in the climate change horror stories.

“Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see their eyes bulge,” he says.

“Even many of the people who are supportive of sounding the global warning alarm, back off from catastophism,” Lindzen said. “It’s the politicians and the green movement that like to portray catastrophe.”

 

And that my friends, has been my point from the start.

[potownhero 0]

Yes. It appeared to me that the other posters were downplaying the validity of historical climate data in favor of recent weather patterns, so I felt the need to emphasize that point.

 

All data that we have shows unprecedented recent warming.

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198

 

 

 

*study was received for publication in July 2012

 

Yeah... and study isn't consistent with the facts.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/11/validity-of-a-reconstruction-of-regional-and-global-temperature-for-the-past-11300-years/

 

Did you consider that if it's proven that the earth does much of this on its own that the funding for these "scientists" will dry up? Follow the money.

[1qa 0]

If you hold Lindzen to be the holder and arbiter of truth, it is fair to also examine Lindzen's line of argument, which is done here. These other scientists argue Lindzen is inconsistent in his argument, and bases conclusions on faulty assumptions:

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-scientists-take-on-Richard-Lindzen.html

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/03/misrepresentation-from-lindzen/comment-page-7/

 

Lindzen even noted his analysis "error" with an apology when it was pointed out...

 

http://repealtheact.org.uk/blog/apology-from-prof-lindzen-for-howard-haydens-nasa-giss-data-interpretation-error#sthash.kc8vHwYW.dpuf

 

“Please accept my sincere apologies for misrepresenting NASA-GISS data. I downloaded temperature data from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt to make a graph in 2009. About a month ago, I went to the same file to get the more recent points and was surprised to find a considerably different data set. The formatting of the data set was the same, and I did not notice that the heading said that the data referred to meteorological stations only. As a consequence, I concluded incorrectly that NASA-GISS had manipulated the data. I am making every effort to correct my error.”

 

Lindzen: “It seems to me to have been an innocent error, given that the URL’s were the same…”

 

So, he suggests an error was made on the GISS server side (not him) that eventually made its way thru to his analysis... but someone with more time and patience found this to be NOT true.

 

[Response: No. This is not true. The met index has always been "Glb.Ts" and the land ocean index is "Glb.Ts+dSST" as far back as anyone can check (and the wayback machine confirms. I don't doubt that Hayden thought he was downloading the same thing, but they did not, do not, and have never had, the same URLs. This was pointed out to lindzen and hayden. This has not so far been acknowledged by either. - gavin]

 

SO... he's been the dishonest, or misleading, commentator on climate change now?

 

As for following the money, Lindzen is now a fellow of the Cato Institute, which is in its own words is

"... a think tank – dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace. Its scholars and analysts conduct independent, nonpartisan research on a wide range of policy issues."

 

Many would question that the Cato institute is "independent" and "non-partisan"

 

If you're going to make accusations against scientists for lining up at the trough for "money" as opposed to science, show me how they materially benefit beyond their salaries... it is SMALL potatoes versus those shareholders who stand to LOSE if consumption behaviors were forced to change.

Edited January 15, 2014 by 1qa

[nd1baby 0]

I wonder if the oil companies made investments in alternative energy. Would be smart just in case and they could certainly afford it.

[1qa 0]

http://monthlyreview.org/2012/05/01/petroleum-and-propaganda

 

One thorough overview of the global climate change denier society ...