yes. next question.

Short term trends do not disprove long term trends.

It stops every winter, then starts again in the spring. next question.

GAT_00: Short term trends do not disprove long term trends.

Every long term trend starts out as a short term trend.

Medium term trends get along well with other medium term trends, go bowling, maybe they catch a show or a ballgame at some point, I dunno...

TheOther: Every long term trend starts out as a short term trend.

And I'm sure there being more CO² in our atmosphere than has been seen for millions of years and the last time we were even close to current levels the temperatures were I think 10C above current temps has nothing to do with any trends.

namatad: strangely enough, the article asked a number of honest scientific questions.
which will be ignored

No, not really. There was a whole lot of "I want people to do things for me and I don't like what I read" in there.

I "know" that al gore and his followers will long be gone when we finally KNOW the answer.

We'll "know" within 20 years when it's another half a degree warmer and we'll really "know" in 50 years when it's two degrees warmer.

namatad: page 7 please (new window)

No, I'm not reading any further when the title is "The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change" and starts off with misquotes from Dr. William Grey. Want to disprove me and science in general? Find something that isn't showing massive bias.

So....

If someone asked this same question in 1970, based solely on the first chart shown, they would possibly conclude that yes, it has stopped. Again, based solely on that chart, they would have been wrong.

GAT_00: misquotes

That should be out of context quotes, not misquotes.

namatad: we will "know" for sure

We'll more than know, we'll be farked and the planet on it's way to uninhabitable for humans.

why do global warming people, only use the period of data which fits their "hypothesis" and ignore periods of data which reject their "cause"

No, I'm ignoring "evidence" from a biased source. He made his "evidence" not worth reading by starting with a title that made me ignore him within 10 words.

Sigh. It's interesting how opinions on global warming are very often in lockstep with what the preferred party tells them to recite. The GOP has successfully managed to get fundies and the white, working poor reciting that global warming is a lie, whether or not they have any knowledge of the issue. Conversely, dems have irritating coffee house hipsters making the same claims with a similar lack of knowledge. What I think is irrelevant - the fact is that a scientific issue has morphed into a purely political one.

/"health care" is a similar phrase that sparks knee-jerk and almost universally uninformed partisan whaargarble

GAT_00: And I'm sure there being more CO2 in our atmosphere than has been seen for millions of years and the last time we were even close to current levels the temperatures were I think 10C above current temps has nothing to do with any trends.

They obviously don't.... According to you, the temperature should be at least 10 degrees higher.... and it isn't. Just maybe co2 levels don't drive temperature. Just maybe the cooling tend has started. Just maybe you're not Mr Knowitall.

Hey, how about looking at it like this: Would you read anything that had a title that was something like "Global Warming is an absolute, proven truth and anyone who doesn't believe it is a farking dumbass?" Even if it proved beyond a doubt that it is happening? Of course not. So why do you expect me to read an article that is the opposite of that?

namatad: a world renowned environmentalist (new window)

He's an author, not an scientist. How about you start finding scientists that prove you right? And try finding more than say 10-12, because I can come back with 1,000.

Oh, and nice citing everything else. You've proved absolutely nothing and are demanding you take everything I say to be true. I'm asking you to actually go find something to read that isn't absolutely biased, take off your little indoctrination, and read it. Your proof already exists. You just refuse to read it.

Non-scientists are non-scientific.

Sweet, time to yank the hybrid drive out of the old Prius and put in a V8.

Why would you post something from the NRO, a purely political publication, and think it has any bearing on the reality of science? If you want to disprove global climate change post thousands of peer reviewed journal papers because that's what global climate change has in its favor.

namatad: strangely enough, the article asked a number of honest scientific questions.

good

namatad: which will be ignored

If they are valid questions, scientists would be (and probably are already) asking them of eachother.

namatad: the people who "believe" in AGW do not allow anyone to question their faith
the people who are against AGW are heretics

We can clearly see your bias in your phrasing here. Is it possible for me to believe that I personally don't have all the answers but choose to place my trust in whatever the current scientific consensus is instead of trying to go against the current?

Why is it that if I believe the majority of experts on a subject instead of a minority I have to be lumped in with those people (if they even exist) who feel so strongly about global warming as to have faith akin to a fundamentalist's belief in god?

namatad: the scientists wish both groups would go away and let them collect data to test theories

If those were the only 2 groups, you would be right. I should think that if the majority of scientists believed CO2 was causing global warming that they would be interested in not just learning about global warming, but also having the non-scientist portion of the world choose to make changes to prevent it. I know if I were a scientist I wouldn't be content to discover the world would end because of a man-made disaster, I'd actually, and I know this is a shocker, try to prevent it.

namatad: me?
I "know" that al gore and his followers will long be gone when we finally KNOW the answer.
History will have the final word on whether they were fear-mongerers or prescient.

You know that do you? You 'KNOW' it? So people who accept scientific consensus believe in it like a religion, but you predict the future with a certainty. You also seem to be the only person, despite not being a scientist, who is able to define when we as a society know something for sure and when we don't. That's a pretty nifty skill.

Abagadro: Non-scientists are non-scientific.

Got a link to a peer-reviewed study to back that up? Thought so.

They really don't know for sure, since the science for tracking and the statistical data are both flawed and developing. So whether global warming exists in reality is a political football being tossed artound by groups that either benefit from it's existance or lack thereof. When in doubt, follow the money.
Next question.

namatad: as to my indoctrination?
my degree is in physics and chemistry, I have years of experimental science under my belt
I understand how science works.
I hate how it has been politicied.

Are you getting a kick, etc.?

And the right-wing war on science continues...

Look, just because the temperature has leveled off for the moment, doesn't invalidate the long-term trend (and calling that line of thinking "idiotic" says more about you than the people you're criticizing). Hell, look at the graph they present, and you'll see that between 1940-1950, the temperature went DOWN! Didn't stop it from going right back up afterwards.

If you are simplistic enough to expect global warming, or any climate change, to be a straight line progression, you have no business talking about climate.

namatad: as to my indoctrination?
my degree is in physics and chemistry, I have years of experimental science under my belt
I understand how science works.


I rather doubt it.

SkinnyHead: True science welcomes disproves dissent, as they already have done for people who deny global warming. Those people normally can't be bothered to actually look at the scientific consensus, though, preferring to cherry pick the one scientist out of ten thousand, usually not a climatologist, who disbelieves in global warming. Half the time, he really doesn't, and the anti-AGW-crowd just misreads his paper.

FTFY.

C.

Most of the talking points are addressed here. With actual, you know, science. (new window)

If you're still confused, the climate guides at NOAA.gov, NASA.gov, royalsociety.org, and the summation at IPCC.ch are very good also.

If you need a more laymans explanation for phenomena try realclimate.org, run by published climatologists with links to the actual scientific studies under explanation.

Can't we just have another Palin thread?

Global Warming/Cooling/Climate change is soooooooo 2006.

Thats weird, I am 29 and I have not seen global warming. I thought we were past the "Man made global warming" scam.

Smackledorfer: namatad: as to my indoctrination?
my degree is in physics and chemistry, I have years of experimental science under my belt
I understand how science works.


I rather doubt it.

Yeah, apparently not understanding basic absorption and re-emission spectra of greenhouse gases, how the concentration increase of such can be traced directly to the efforts of humans, and the known variables mitigating climate change at the moment would indicate that to be a disengenuous statement and maybe outright lie.

Trollmitter:

GAT_00: namatad: page 7 please (new window)

No, I'm not reading any further when the title is "The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change" and starts off with misquotes from Dr. William Grey. Want to disprove me and science in general? Find something that isn't showing massive bias.

Arjibuh: Ignorance redacted.

Why don't you try following the link I provided or going to the pages I suggested? All the result of actual scientific inquery, not someone with an agenda pushing something. (AKA, what namatad linked).

GaryPDX: Boy, that would put a lot of people out of business.

And kill some silly and dangerous legislation.

GaryPDX: Boy, that would put a lot of people out of business.

Yeah, because environmentalists have had a long history of colluding with industries.

SVenus

Sheesh, that idiotic graph again? You got smacked around the last time you posted it for the inaccuracies contained therein. Furthermore, the scientific community has been calling it climate change since the '70s. Finally, it was our last president that had the whitehouse stop using global warming, because it sounded too scary.

At least come up with talking points that have not been shown to be dramatically wrong.

Firstly, in their graph ten years is an insufficient sample size.

Secondly, they started charting just before 1998, an el nino year (which is unusually warm) to make it look like there wasn't an upward trend in temperature.

Thirdly, they say it's hard to dispute their graph. It's actually shockingly easy, and anyone who does ten minutes of Googling can see how dishonest their article is.

Get with it dude, it's now Climate Change so that any way it goes it s still proves it.

Asking 'why is the sky is blue' is also a legitimate scientific question. And ignorance of the reasons why does not mean there is a significant amount of controversy in scientific circles as to the explanation.

Just because a particular person is not aware of the body of work done on a particular point does not mean that the issue has not been addressed by that particular field. Ignorance, no matter how honest or well-meaning, does not mean controversy.

Now where TFA has a very, very good point is regarding transparency and access. The science of ACC is informing a debate that transcends a research world that tends to be unused to direct contact with the general public. That gap needs to be narrowed, and it should have been done long, long ago.

"Now where TFA has a very, very good point is regarding transparency and access. The science of ACC is informing a debate that transcends a research world that tends to be unused to direct contact with the general public. That gap needs to be narrowed, and it should have been done long, long ago."

I'd be more likely to take their NRO message seriously if they hadn't dishonestly posted a chart that starts in an unusually warm el nino year.

Has Global Warming Stopped?

I for one, hope so. I really enjoy cold, wet summers.

Has Global Warming Stopped?

If it has, NRO will be among the first to tell you that it has.

If it hasn't, NRO will be among the first to tell you that it has.

namatad: ow long a trend is enough to disprove the current model? (this is about the science)

First you'll need one with an R² that's at least greater than 1%. As in the case of this "trend" seen in the last 10 years.

bigdavediode: "Now where TFA has a very, very good point is regarding transparency and access. The science of ACC is informing a debate that transcends a research world that tends to be unused to direct contact with the general public. That gap needs to be narrowed, and it should have been done long, long ago."

I'd be more likely to take their NRO message seriously if they hadn't dishonestly posted a chart that starts in an unusually warm el nino year.


I would agree with you if the author had posted it without any caveats, or he was the originator of the argument, or it was the main focus of the article. I think he's just using the example to make a point: "what is a valid falsification period for AGW models?"

The article seems relatively WHARRGARBL-free to my eyes, so maybe I'm willing to give the guy some slack.

"Arjibuh: Ignorance redacted.

Why don't you try following the link I provided or going to the pages I suggested? All the result of actual scientific inquery, not someone with an agenda pushing something. (AKA, what namatad linked)."

I have been reading his link since I posted - its the order of things I guess. Next time don't be such an arrogant jerk.

I am all about cleaning up, getting to clean energy, but what the gov is pushing is a scam.

Both sides have an abundance of "science". That page he gave left a bunch of holes. It poses a supposed "counter-point", then to debunk it it doesn't use science, it just says a bunch of scientists think its wrong. Nice try though. For instance, go read the sections on why the sun causing warming in various ways. Not a lick of science on the page, and none in the links I checked. Just, "The 2007 IPCC report halved the maximum likely influence of solar forcing on warming over the past 250 years from 40% to 20%. This was based on a reanalysis of the likely changes in solar forcing since the 17th century."

And why? The link is broken. I am sure they are unbiased though...

Then last, over and over the report shows volcanic eruptions (which spew more global warming climate changing gases than humans ever have or ever will) causing more change then anything.

Sorry, not converted, heard it all before.

namatad: strangely enough, the article asked a number of honest scientific questions.
which will be ignored

*sigh* no, they didn't. Their arguments are based on ignorance; as ridiculous as someone trying to disprove evolution by asking "If we are descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys around?". You just don't understand enough about climatology to realize how farking stupid they are.

When scientists examine the climate, they look at decades if not centuries of data. This is because long-term trends are often obscured by short-term noise. That the climate has not warmed significantly in the past few years is irrelevant.

It is as if I said "well, it's colder today than it was yesterday, so clearly the global warming theory is false."

A new study released yesterday shows that climate change (or whatever is the proper nomenclature) is largely the result of natural causes, and man has little if any impact whatsoever.


Link (new window)


Sorry, no pretty little graphs. You'll actually have to read.

WTFDYW: It never started
Thread over. From the Weeners, even.

MentalMoment: namatad: ow long a trend is enough to disprove the current model? (this is about the science)

First you'll need one with an R2 that's at least greater than 1%. As in the case of this "trend" seen in the last 10 years.

This "trend" in the article and discussed frequently over the last 10 years is below 0.1% (If I recall prior graphs correctly.)

/Haven't finished coffee.

3 Butt Cheeks:

"A new study released yesterday shows that climate change (or whatever is the proper nomenclature) is largely the result of natural causes, and man has little if any impact whatsoever."

Except anyone who keeps up in the field knows that the satellite estimates that they based this on have been discarded. It turned out the satellites had large error rates because they didn't directly measure the troposphere directly and so mathematical estimates were used.

Since the satellite data was corrected (and now matches land based temperature measurements) this theory was discarded.

Way to keep up to date, though.

namatad: GAT_00: Short term trends do not disprove long term trends.

page 7 please (new window)

please point out which long term trend which you are talking about?
the point of the article was that trends of varying lengths give different answers.
the most important question is: how long a trend is enough to disprove the current model? (this is about the science)
1 day is too short, 1000 years would be CLEAR
what is the number in the middle which you would accept?

yes, 10 years is probably too short, but 20 years? 50?
of course 50 years, would mean that you would never have to say you were "wrong" or get to gloat if you were right ...

:D

The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change!!??

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Wait. I see you are actually defending this and taking it seriously. Hmmm. Lets what a better response would be.

*sadly shakes his head in bemusement*

GaryPDX: Boy, that would put a lot of people out of business.

Like who? Do you think scientists will stop studying the weather if the earth is no longer warming?

Global Cooling is Here

Evidence for Predicting Global Cooling for the Next Three Decades

CONCLUSIONS

Global warming (i.e, the warming since 1977) is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) was not the cause of the warming-it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years.

The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely. (new window)

bigdavediode: 3 Butt Cheeks:

"A new study released yesterday shows that climate change (or whatever is the proper nomenclature) is largely the result of natural causes, and man has little if any impact whatsoever."

Except anyone who keeps up in the field knows that the satellite estimates that they based this on have been discarded. It turned out the satellites had large error rates because they didn't directly measure the troposphere directly and so mathematical estimates were used.

Since the satellite data was corrected (and now matches land based temperature measurements) this theory was discarded.

Way to keep up to date, though.

This data is peer reviewed and accurate. Feel free to disagree with the findings all you wish, however the facts remain the same.

Arjibuh

Erm, all the other links on that page and others going to where they got the information from worked for me. The IPCC one does not because of a restructuring in the information the IPCC did awhile back.

As I said, if the summary from New Scientist is not suficient for you, check the climate guides from the science department websites I pointed you out to. The basis of ACC is high school level chemistry and physics.

Also, there is not really a "both sides" as far as the scientific data goes. Just a bunch of interested parties on one side and scientific data pointing out how the actions of humans are affecting the planet on the other.

Damnhippyfreak: The article seems relatively WHARRGARBL-free to my eyes, so maybe I'm willing to give the guy some slack.

I'd beg to differ since he specifically uses the same 1998 starting year idiocy as every other denialist.

Canyoneer:

"Evidence for Predicting Global Cooling for the Next Three Decades"

Yeah, it's amazing how the trends change if you cherry pick the trend to start to measure from an ICE AGE, or as the NRO article does an EL NINO YEAR.

Please, we're not stupid here. Go sell it somewhere else.

3 Butt:

"This data is peer reviewed and accurate. Feel free to disagree with the findings all you wish, however the facts remain the same."

The peers tossed the paper. It was wrong and based on incorrect data. The data has since been corrected. Would you like citations?

These GW threads are always depressing... So many people so willing to entertain an utterly insane conspiracy theory.

Because in the end, that's what you're doing - All of the world's actual climate scientists, and everyone in an a allied field capable of understanding their models, would have to be co-conspirators in the plot, with only a rag-tag group of economists, meteorologists, petroleum geologists, astrologers, and political pundits capable of seeing, and willing to say, that the emperor has no clothes.

It's exactly as ridiculous as the truthers, or the "vaccines cause autism" nutjobs - certainly all three are alike in depending on compete mistrust of actual scientific experts, but somehow it's actually become a mainstream, respectable position.

What the fark is wrong with you all?

bigdavediode: 3 Butt:

"This data is peer reviewed and accurate. Feel free to disagree with the findings all you wish, however the facts remain the same."

The peers tossed the paper. It was wrong and based on incorrect data. The data has since been corrected. Would you like citations?

Yes, please provide your citations. If it is proven to be false, I like to be informed.

3_Butt_Cheeks: Yes, please provide your citations. If it is proven to be false, I like to be informed

There's a first, write this day down folks, it's a red letter day!

You may want to consider using the time stamp and/or thread stamp as part of a lottery ticket purchase.

3_Butt_Cheeks: A new study released yesterday shows that climate change (or whatever is the proper nomenclature) is largely the result of natural causes, and man has little if any impact whatsoever.

Link (new window)

Sorry, no pretty little graphs. You'll actually have to read.

Went to the CFACT home page. In addition to the 'Pat Boone commends CFACT in WorldNetDaily column' blurb, there's this:

In praise of cages for egg laying hens

I'm agnostic on the ability of science to predict climate very far into the future, but this Birther-shilled/petrochemical industry propaganda is just too silly to take seriously.

This whole "climate change" thing reminds me of the CFC "scares" of the 70s.

Scientists concluded that if we kept on using CFCs, we would destroy the ozone layer.

Critics responded:
"More study needed"
"Scientists disagree, there is no consensus"
"Natural process"
"There is nothing we could do about it anyway"
"Attempts at legislation would hurt industry and the economy"
And a famous one from Ronald Reagan "just wear sunscreen"

Legislatures eventually took the threat seriously and banned CFCs. Over the next decade the CFCs previously released continued to affect the atmosphere, and an ozone hole opened up over the south pole.

Now CFCs in the atmosphere are dropping and the ozone hole has been shrinking. The economy survived and the scientists were proven correct.

Now the same scientists are warning us about the affects of all the CO² we are releasing.

The Response?
"More study needed"
"Scientists disagree, there is no consensus"
"Natural process"
"There is nothing we could do about it anyway"
"Attempts at legislation would hurt industry and the economy"

3 Butt:

"Yes, please provide your citations. If it is proven to be false, I like to be informed."

"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."

Here's a simple link to explain it: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu-lt/

It has links to various sources including NASA.

TheOther: 3_Butt_Cheeks: A new study released yesterday shows that climate change (or whatever is the proper nomenclature) is largely the result of natural causes, and man has little if any impact whatsoever.

Link (new window)

Sorry, no pretty little graphs. You'll actually have to read.

Went to the CFACT home page. In addition to the 'Pat Boone commends CFACT in WorldNetDaily column' blurb, there's this:

In praise of cages for egg laying hens

I'm agnostic on the ability of science to predict climate very far into the future, but this Birther-shilled/petrochemical industry propaganda is just too silly to take seriously.

0/10.

Was that your first try...evar?

Several independent studies find evidence for just two full PDO cycles in the past century: "cool" PDO regimes prevailed from 1890-1924 and again from 1947-1976, while "warm" PDO regimes dominated from 1925-1946 and from 1977 through (at least) the mid-1990's. Shoshiro Minobe has shown that 20th century PDO fluctuations were most energetic in two general periodicities, one from 15-to-25 years, and the other from 50-to-70 years.

Causes for the PDO are not currently known. Likewise, the potential predictability for this climate oscillation are not known. Some climate simulation models produce PDO-like oscillations, although often for different reasons. The mechanisms giving rise to PDO will determine whether skillful decades-long PDO climate predictions are possible. For example, if PDO arises from air-sea interactions that require 10 year ocean adjustment times, then aspects of the phenomenon will (in theory) be predictable at lead times of up to 10 years. Even in the absence of a theoretical understanding, PDO climate information improves season-to-season and year-to-year climate forecasts for North America because of its strong tendency for multi-season and multi-year persistence. From a societal impacts perspective, recognition of PDO is important because it shows that "normal" climate conditions can vary over time periods comparable to the length of a human's lifetime. (new window)

WTFDYW: It never started

Done in one.

bigdavediode: 3 Butt:

"Yes, please provide your citations. If it is proven to be false, I like to be informed."

"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."

Here's a simple link to explain it: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu-lt/

It has links to various sources including NASA.

No no. The report I posted is NEW. It was published, peer reviewed yesterday.

You claimed to have citation refuting this new study.

bigdavediode: The peers tossed the paper. It was wrong and based on incorrect data. The data has since been corrected.

Please, provide the citations you claimed, refuting the evidence released yesterday.

namatad:

"so, I can draw a line through real data proving any position I want."

Yeah, if you're so intellectually incurious as to allow people to start their trends from ice ages or el nino years.

canyoneer: Several independent studies find evidence for just two full PDO cycles in the past century: "cool" PDO regimes prevailed from 1890-1924 and again from 1947-1976, while "warm" PDO regimes dominated from 1925-1946 and from 1977 through (at least) the mid-1990's. Shoshiro Minobe has shown that 20th century PDO fluctuations were most energetic in two general periodicities, one from 15-to-25 years, and the other from 50-to-70 years.

Causes for the PDO are not currently known. Likewise, the potential predictability for this climate oscillation are not known. Some climate simulation models produce PDO-like oscillations, although often for different reasons. The mechanisms giving rise to PDO will determine whether skillful decades-long PDO climate predictions are possible. For example, if PDO arises from air-sea interactions that require 10 year ocean adjustment times, then aspects of the phenomenon will (in theory) be predictable at lead times of up to 10 years. Even in the absence of a theoretical understanding, PDO climate information improves season-to-season and year-to-year climate forecasts for North America because of its strong tendency for multi-season and multi-year persistence. From a societal impacts perspective, recognition of PDO is important because it shows that "normal" climate conditions can vary over time periods comparable to the length of a human's lifetime. (new window)

Translation:

Weather patterns can change over a human life-time, this may seem significant within that time period but is not overall.

canyoneer:

"Several independent studies find evidence for just two full PDO cycles in the past century: "cool" PDO regimes prevailed from 1890-1924 and again from 1947-1976, while "warm" PDO regimes dominated from 1925-1946 and from 1977 through (at least) the mid-1990's. Shoshiro Minobe has shown that 20th century PDO fluctuations were most energetic in two general periodicities, one from 15-to-25 years, and the other from 50-to-70 years."

Give it up, Canyoneer. That's referring to measurements that apply to salmon. Unless you're a salmon, then I stand corrected.

3_Butt_Cheeks: 0/10.

Was that your first try...evar?

I know that it sounds like an Onion article, but there it be.

3 Butt:

"No no. The report I posted is NEW. It was published, peer reviewed yesterday."

Is 2008 yesterday? Because the abstract is from 2008. Perhaps it was just a very, very slow printer? Maybe there was a paper jam that took a year to fix?

"You claimed to have citation refuting this new study."

I've given you at least three. The link I supplied has them right in there. Plus it's easy to understand for the non expert.

that bosnian sniper: Burn98: GaryPDX: Boy, that would put a lot of people out of business.

Like who? Do you think scientists will stop studying the weather if the earth is no longer warming?

No, but it'd put a lot of lobbyists and pundits out on the street for one thing.

How so? Lobbyist will just start lobbying for the other side. Same with pundits.

Gunther: What the fark is wrong with you all?

They're GOP shills that have been told to hate liberals and anything they support, like the further study of climate change?

I mean, isn't that pretty obvious to everyone? Or did you think that the people who come into every thread to scream "ZOMG Obama SEKRIT MUSLIN socialist commie marxist dictator!!!" are really, really concerned about the state of the environment?

bigdavediode: 3 Butt:

"No no. The report I posted is NEW. It was published, peer reviewed yesterday."

Is 2008 yesterday? Because the abstract is from 2008. Perhaps it was just a very, very slow printer? Maybe there was a paper jam that took a year to fix?

"You claimed to have citation refuting this new study."

I've given you at least three. The link I supplied has them right in there. Plus it's easy to understand for the non expert.

Yes, the abstract was from 2008. The study was concluded and published yesterday. From simply reading the article you provided and a precursory google search, I was able to find that the claims you have provided are hardly accepted fact, rather just one theory.

bigdavediode: "That's referring to measurements that apply to salmon. Unless you're a salmon, then I stand corrected."

The Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) is a pattern of Pacific climate variability that shifts phases on at least inter-decadal time scale, usually about 20 to 30 years. The PDO is detected as warm or cool surface waters in the Pacific Ocean, north of 20° N. During a "warm", or "positive", phase, the west Pacific becomes cool and part of the eastern ocean warms; during a "cool" or "negative" phase, the opposite pattern occurs.

The Pacific (inter-)decadal oscillation was named by Steven R. Hare, who noticed it while studying salmon production patterns. Simultaneously the PDO climate pattern was also found by Yuan Zhang. The two groups described the patterns in 1997.[1]

Regime shifts

Although there are several patterns of behavior, the most significant one seems to be in regime shifts between "warm" and "cool" patterns which last 20 to 30 years.

1750: PDO displays an unusually strong oscillation.[2]

1905: After a strong swing, PDO changed to a "warm" phase.

1946: PDO changed to a "cool" phase. [See the blue section of the graph on the right]

1977: PDO changed to a "warm" phase.[3]

1998: PDO index showed several years of "cool" values, but did not remain in that pattern.[4]

2008: The early stages of a cool phase of the basin-wide Pacific Decadal Oscillation.[5]

In all cases in the 1900s, PDO "regime shifts" were related to similar changes in the Tropical ocean.

Related patterns

ENSO tends to lead PDO/IPO cycling.

Shifts in the IPO change the location and strength of ENSO activity. The South Pacific Convergence Zone moves northeast during El Niño and southwest during La Niña events. The same movement takes place during positive IPO and negative IPO phases respectively. (Folland et al., 2002)

Interdecadal temperature variations in China are closely related to those of the NAO and the NPO.

The amplitudes of the NAO and NPO increased in the 1960s and interannual variation patterns changed from 3-4 years to 8-15 years.

The pattern of global warming during the past century changed to cooling during the 1946-1976 PDO "cool" regime.

Sea level rise is affected when large areas of water warm and expand, or cool and contract. (new window)

3_Butt_Cheeks: bigdavediode: 3 Butt:

"No no. The report I posted is NEW. It was published, peer reviewed yesterday."

Is 2008 yesterday? Because the abstract is from 2008. Perhaps it was just a very, very slow printer? Maybe there was a paper jam that took a year to fix?

"You claimed to have citation refuting this new study."

I've given you at least three. The link I supplied has them right in there. Plus it's easy to understand for the non expert.

Yes, the abstract was from 2008. The study was concluded and published yesterday. From simply reading the article you provided and a precursory google search, I was able to find that the claims you have provided are hardly accepted fact, rather just one theory.

And the "findings" you provided are well out of date, and are accounted for in the new study.

3 Butt:

"Yes, the abstract was from 2008. The study was concluded and published yesterday. From simply reading the article you provided and a precursory google search, I was able to find that the claims you have provided are hardly accepted fact, rather just one theory."

LOL. No, sorry buddy. Scientists don't write abstracts a year before they've finished their studies because the abstract has the RESULTS in it.

Additionally they are fact, the satellites now match ground temperature measurements which they did not before. How do you explain that?

You have gotten desperation sweat all over my screen. You need to come and wipe it off.

That McLean, et. al. paper is crap. (new window)

bigdavediode: 3 Butt:

"Yes, the abstract was from 2008. The study was concluded and published yesterday. From simply reading the article you provided and a precursory google search, I was able to find that the claims you have provided are hardly accepted fact, rather just one theory."

LOL. No, sorry buddy. Scientists don't write abstracts a year before they've finished their studies because the abstract has the RESULTS in it.

Additionally they are fact, the satellites now match ground temperature measurements which they did not before. How do you explain that?

You have gotten desperation sweat all over my screen. You need to come and wipe it off.

There is no debating with someone determined to ignore facts, or simply create their own. Enjoy bliss.

3_Butt_Cheeks: Yes, the abstract was from 2008. The study was concluded and published yesterday. From simply reading the article you provided and a precursory google search, I was able to find that the claims you have provided are hardly accepted fact, rather just one theory.

If you are going to discount them on that basis, then you have to discount the study you are pushing as well.

Where would that leave us? Maybe we should look at the scientific consensus instead of one study?

Oh, but you wouldn't like that. It doesn't agree with you.

Canyon:

"The Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) is a pattern of Pacific climate variability that shifts phases on at least inter-decadal time scale, usually about 20 to 30 years. The PDO is detected as warm or cool surface waters in the Pacific Ocean, north of 20° N. During a "warm", or "positive", phase, the west Pacific becomes cool and part of the eastern ocean warms; during a "cool" or "negative" phase, the opposite pattern occurs."

Clearly you have no idea what you're posting about. You are posting about ocean temperatures, not land temperatures. Humans live on land. And even then you're not posting about global average ocean temperatures, but one region's ocean temperatures.

I need to explain this because you're clearly not getting this.

CLEAR CUT TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING!

namatad [TotalFark] 2009-07-25 10:48:47 AM
"why do global warming people, only use the period of data which fits their "hypothesis" and ignore periods of data which reject their "cause""

Why do you only use the period of data which fits your preconceived conclusions and ignore periods of data which disprove your conclusion?

Abagadro: That McLean, et. al. paper is crap. (new window)

Nothing with the McLean name is crap

/VIRTUE MINE HONOR
//ANOTHER FOR HECTOR!

Abagadro -- thanks, that's interesting. Did they even use the corrected satellite data?

Also, from your citation: "Let's start with the SOI data they use and the UAH tropospheric temperature data they use [Note: they explicitly state they're using "lower troposphere" UAH data but the link they give is to mid-troposphere UAH data; it has no effect on the argument]."

That seems to be pretty important to me, as I don't live halfway up the atmosphere.

3_Butt_Cheeks: There is no debating with someone determined to ignore facts, or simply create their own. Enjoy bliss.

It's funny because of who said it.

GAT_00: Short term trends do not disprove long term trends.

You're right, which is why global warming is total crap.

Realclimate has a post debunking the trend ignoring paper now as well. (new window)

bosnian:

"Both sides of this "argument" cherry pick data to favor their own arguments, and insult the other side for doing the same thing."

No, both sides do not. If you had read any of the dozens upon dozens of atmospheric studies you would realize this. Pick any time frame you like, except for el nino years and ice ages, then google the temperature graph and see what I mean.

Don't take my word for it, do it yourself.

When one of you warming alarmists can tell me what the optimum average temperature of the earth is supposed to be, I'll panic. You can't do it. Is is supposed to be cooler than what it is now? Are we already too warm? If you can't tell us then just STFU.

Of course, if I were a scientist getting government grants to study this chicken little crap, I'd find that I need about 30 more years of study and the grants that go along with it. Then I'd just retire and have a good laugh about it.

bigdavediode: "I need to explain this because you're clearly not getting this."

Why, you're an arrogant ass, aren't you?

I'll post Easterbrook's research again, in which he demonstrates the correlation between the PDO index and global average temperatures:

Global climate changes have been far more intense (12 to 20 times as intense in some cases) than the global warming of the past century, and they took place in as little as 20-100 years. Global warming of the past century (0.8° C) is virtually insignificant when compared to the magnitude of at least 10 global climate changes in the past 15,000 years. None of these sudden global climate changes could possibly have been caused by human CO2 input to the atmosphere because they all took place long before anthropogenic CO2 emissions began. The cause of the ten earlier 'natural' climate changes was most likely the same as the cause of global warming from 1977 to 1998.

After several decades of studying alpine glacier fluctuations in the North Cascade Range, my research showed a distinct pattern of glacial advances and retreats (the Glacial Decadal Oscillation, GDO) that correlated well with climate records. In 1992, Mantua published the Pacific Decadal Oscillation curve showing warming and cooling of the Pacific Ocean that correlated remarkably well with glacial fluctuations. Both the GDA and the PDO matched global temperature records and were obviously related (Fig. 4). All but the latest 30 years of changes occurred prior to significant CO2 emissions so they were clearly unrelated to atmospheric CO2.

Now a decade later, the global climate has not warmed 1° F as forecast by the IPCC but has cooled slightly until 2007-08 when global temperatures turned sharply downward. (new window)

Zafler

Thanks. But with all respect, there are scientists who deny it is human caused, and for good reason. Too lazy to link to them, but I was reading about the guy that presented a paper to the EPA, which they promptly dismissed because it did not match "Obama's agenda". So who is biased? Both sides are, and both sides have legitimate and illegitimate claims.

Since you are familiar with the subject, can you address something I am curious about that the newscientist did not mention? The issue of warming on Mars and Jupiter? Is that true? If so, doesn't it suggest the sun has more of a role than climate changers want to admit?

JK8Fan

That's a lot of ignorance captain.

The simplistic answer is that we should try to limit the increase in temperature as much as is feasible, because pretty much everything in the biosphere can only live in a fairly narrow band of temperature/moisture/salinity/etc..

A geologically rapid shift in average temperature, with accompanying changes in precipitation, will cause a negative impact on those varied niches. On the monetary side, there was an economic paper examining adapting versus limiting and it was indicated to be much cheaper to limit than to adapt.

Canyoneer

Any reason you're yammering on about the pacific?

The topic is global warming. Notice the word 'global'.

Canyoneer -- I love how you had to bend the middle line to try and force a correlation. Very entertaining!

JK8Fan: When one of you warming alarmists can tell me what the optimum average temperature of the earth is supposed to be, I'll panic. You can't do it. Is is supposed to be cooler than what it is now? Are we already too warm? If you can't tell us then just STFU.

Of course, if I were a scientist getting government grants to study this chicken little crap, I'd find that I need about 30 more years of study and the grants that go along with it. Then I'd just retire and have a good laugh about it.




This is about as blatant of a straw-man as one can make. First off, climatologists are not making the claim that there is an "optimum average temperature". Second, that there isn't a optimum average global temperature does not say anything about whether ACC exists. And third, what is of primary concern is the rate of temperature change.

Also, Canyoneer:

Why'd you post a graph clearly showing no correlation between the PDO and global warming? Why do you want to disprove your own argument?

You do it a lot.

Bosnian:

"...so you're arguing against my assertion that both sides cherry-pick by telling me to review atmospheric studies and ignore climate deviations such as ice ages and El Nino? Sure, it's easy to "support" an argument as long as you ignore data that at the very least indicates our current understanding of climate change may be imperfect, or at the most indicates our current understanding is mistaken."

Nonsense. Just compare like to like. For example, you can't compare a strong el-nino year to a non-el-nino year as they constantly do. You cannot compare winter temperatures to summer temperatures.

As I said, don't believe me, pick any reasonable length of time, such as the start of the industrial revolution, and see what the chart looks like. Pick 50 years and see what the chart looks like. Pick 500,000 years of CO2 concentrations and see how the current concentrations are massively higher.

Do it yourself, right now. Don't be intellectually lazy.

3_Butt_Cheeks:

There is no debating with someone determined to ignore facts, or simply create their own. Enjoy bliss.

Distilled from the excellent link Abagadro posted, which demonstrates nicely that the article you link to simply cannot, methodologically, conclude the way it does.

The authors of that article conclude by saying that:

"Finally, this study has shown that natural climate forcing associated with ENSO is a major contributor to variability and perhaps recent trends in global temperature, a relationship that is not included in current global climate models."

The paper has two points here:

1: that ENSO (El Nino variations) have a significant effect on temperature variability, and
2: that ENSO is a major contributor to global temperature trends, and that this is not accounted for in "current global climate models".

#1 is pretty banal, El Nino as a factor in temperature variability is well known. We know their is a strong correlation between El Nino and temperature, and this is well accounted for in "current climate models."

#2 is impossible to determine from the authors' methodology.

They state that "The close relationship between ENSO and global temperature, as described in the paper, leaves little room for any warming driven by human carbon dioxide emissions."

But, and this is the important part, the part that is a really strikingly (though not uncommonly) stupid in that paper.

The authors base their findings on an analysis of time derivatives, ie: they examine the differences between 12 month running averages (taken from satellite data), 12 months apart. But, this has the effect of reducing any global temperature trend that might exist to a constant. By using time derivative, any long term trend, in either direction, of any size and of any cause, will not show up in that analysis. This is neatly demonstrated in the Link (new window) where the author introduces a ridiculously fake upward warming trend into their model and gets the exact same result.

If warming is due to PDO then what is causing the upward trend in predicted temperatures that spans the apparent cycles?

And what is the mechanism causing the PDO to exist in the first place?

Predicting future values based on past performance is a bad investment strategy. Especially if it's based solely on something like 'it was up before so it will go up again.' I think the same skepticism applies here.

Damnhippyfreak: And third, what is of primary concern is the rate of temperature change.

The average global temperature has changed far more abruptly than even the most dire global warming predictions multiple times over the course of history. It has even done this as recently as a few hundred years ago in an era known as "The Little Ice Age", prior to the Little Ice Age there was a decade or two of unusually warm weather.

The "rate" of change argument is bogus.

3_Butt_Cheeks

I was able to find that the claims you have provided are hardly accepted fact, rather just one theory.

This alone shows you have no place in a science debate, you have no idea what the words fact or theory actually mean in science.

A fact is an observation. For instance, saying that when I jump up, I fall back down, is a fact.

A theory is a widely accepted explanation for facts that has large amounts of evidence behind it. For instance, gravitation is a theory.

Don't come into a science thread without knowing the very basics of science.

PC LOAD LETTER: JK8Fan: When one of you warming alarmists can tell me what the optimum average temperature of the earth is supposed to be, I'll panic. You can't do it. Is is supposed to be cooler than what it is now? Are we already too warm? If you can't tell us then just STFU.

Of course, if I were a scientist getting government grants to study this chicken little crap, I'd find that I need about 30 more years of study and the grants that go along with it. Then I'd just retire and have a good laugh about it.

Wow, ecology fail all over your post. If you choose to remain ignorant and proud of it, there's not much anyone can do to convince you otherwise.

Ignorance is believing a THEORY that is far from proven. In fact, a theory that many scientists are growing more and more skeptical of. Perhaps you'll just dumbly let the government us this theory to grow their control over our everyday lives, it does give them a good, unprovable, way to do it.

GO ahead, let me know what the optimum temperature is supposed to be. You apparently have bought into the theory 100%. Where are we supposed to be since you are so knowledgeable on the subject?

And no, I don't want a picture of a cute baby polar bear swimming in the ocean.Just answer the question and give me your backing data, please.

Arjibuh: Zafler

Thanks. But with all respect, there are scientists who deny it is human caused, and for good reason. Too lazy to link to them, but I was reading about the guy that presented a paper to the EPA, which they promptly dismissed because it did not match "Obama's agenda". So who is biased? Both sides are, and both sides have legitimate and illegitimate claims.

Since you are familiar with the subject, can you address something I am curious about that the newscientist did not mention? The issue of warming on Mars and Jupiter? Is that true? If so, doesn't it suggest the sun has more of a role than climate changers want to admit?

1. The EPA "paper" was a laughable farce, was not written by a scientist, and used blogs as if they were legitimate scientific sources.

2. The opinions of scientists have no bearing on what the scientific data indicates. On the side of Anthropogenic Climate Change, you have literally hundreds of peer reviewed papers with citations to and from other researchers...on the other side you have people getting paid to engage in denialistic behavior. Some of them were even part of denying the link between smoking and cancer.

3. The New Scientist page has an entire section dedicated to the Mars and Jupiter idiocy. Short answer: No, the Sun was not driving their apparent warming, it was either seasonal or non-existent.

Oh, and the seeming definition of "climate changers" is "people who understand basic scientific data and principles".

Abagadro: That McLean, et. al. paper is crap. (new window)

You should have addressed your post to 3_Butt_Cheeks just in case he doesn't realize that the McLean paper is the one he is championing here.

Zafler: JK8Fan

That's a lot of ignorance captain.

The simplistic answer is that we should try to limit the increase in temperature as much as is feasible, because pretty much everything in the biosphere can only live in a fairly narrow band of temperature/moisture/salinity/etc..

A geologically rapid shift in average temperature, with accompanying changes in precipitation, will cause a negative impact on those varied niches. On the monetary side, there was an economic paper examining adapting versus limiting and it was indicated to be much cheaper to limit than to adapt.

You use your mouth prettier than a $20 whore.

Of course, crap flowed out.

canyoneer: bigdavediode: "I need to explain this because you're clearly not getting this."

Why, you're an arrogant ass, aren't you?

I'll post Easterbrook's research again, in which he demonstrates the correlation between the PDO index and global average temperatures:

Global climate changes have been far more intense (12 to 20 times as intense in some cases) than the global warming of the past century, and they took place in as little as 20-100 years. Global warming of the past century (0.8° C) is virtually insignificant when compared to the magnitude of at least 10 global climate changes in the past 15,000 years. None of these sudden global climate changes could possibly have been caused by human CO2 input to the atmosphere because they all took place long before anthropogenic CO2 emissions began. The cause of the ten earlier 'natural' climate changes was most likely the same as the cause of global warming from 1977 to 1998.


Let's start with pointing out the big faults with the first part you've bolded. Of course nobody is claiming that past global climate changes are due to anthropogenic CO₂. That statement does not say anything about the current attribution of CO₂ forcing. What you are claiming would be akin to pointing out that arson does not exist because naturally-occurring fires exist - an analogy that I believe has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

Realclimate defenestrates that idiotic "suppressed" report. (new window)

Yes, I do know the definition of "defenestrates".

JK8Fan: You use your mouth prettier than a $20 whore.

Of course, crap flowed out.

Being disgusting and mixing metaphors doesn't really do anything to support your completely unsupported arguments.

bigdavediode: "Canyoneer -- I love how you had to bend the middle line to try and force a correlation. Very entertaining!"

That's merely because the middle graph has a somewhat shorter x-axis, and I didn't produce the graph, Don Easterbrook did. I also find it ironic that someone concerned about AGW would quibble with graph scales. After all, the y-axis on every graph used to frighten people about global warming is scaled in tenths of degrees celcius, and therefore the "alarming" rise in temperature is actually quite small, especially compared to past temperature fluctuations during the Holocene. Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the last century.[1][A] (new window) Oooo. Scary! 1 degree Fahrenheit!

I'd like to see the same graphs done with the y-axis scaled in degrees celcius, not tenths of degrees celcius. Then the line would look virtually flat, especially when the x-axis is lengthened to include the last, say 11,000 years. With that perspective, the warming of the last 100 years is insignificant.



Now, do you have any information which would tend to refute the obvious correlation between the PDO, glacial fluctuations, and global average temperature observed by Easterbrook?

randomjsa: The average global temperature has changed far more abruptly than even the most dire global warming predictions multiple times over the course of history

When? (Absent of asteroid strikes)

SkinnyHead [TotalFark] 2009-07-25 12:16:09 PM
"True science welcomes dissent. Fake, politically-driven science is hostile to it."

Ah, I see we have a critic who has decided that Global Warming, as a scientific theory, does not count as 'good science'. Let's take a look through the FARKchives to see what other opinions SkinnyHead holds on the topics of science & evidence shall we?
-SkinnyHead, the Intelligent Design proponent (new window).
-SkinnyHead, the Obama Birth Certificate truther (new window).

... Wow. An ID believer, a Birfer, and Global Warming denialist all rolled into one. Quelle surprise! Aside from Bevets (who also, incidentally, is a Global Warming denialist (new window)) I couldn't imagine anyone more hostile to the process science than SkinnyHead.

Damnhippyfreak: JK8Fan: When one of you warming alarmists can tell me what the optimum average temperature of the earth is supposed to be, I'll panic. You can't do it. Is is supposed to be cooler than what it is now? Are we already too warm? If you can't tell us then just STFU.

Of course, if I were a scientist getting government grants to study this chicken little crap, I'd find that I need about 30 more years of study and the grants that go along with it. Then I'd just retire and have a good laugh about it.

This is about as blatant of a straw-man as one can make. First off, climatologists are not making the claim that there is an "optimum average temperature". Second, that there isn't a optimum average global temperature does not say anything about whether ACC exists. And third, what is of primary concern is the rate of temperature change.

All of your concerns are far from proven, just basic theories. Did you even glance at any of the REALLY long term graph that were posted in this thread? Anyone that can form an absolute conclusion that man is the cause of climate change based on long term data is obviously just blinded by the constant liberal push to gain governmental control over our lives.

I have to admit, whoever came up with the plan to use an unproven theory to tax us to death and limit the use of our most common energy generating fuel source (coal) was a genius.


OK, what rate of CHANGE is good or bad?

randomjsa: Damnhippyfreak: And third, what is of primary concern is the rate of temperature change.

The average global temperature has changed far more abruptly than even the most dire global warming predictions multiple times over the course of history. It has even done this as recently as a few hundred years ago in an era known as "The Little Ice Age", prior to the Little Ice Age there was a decade or two of unusually warm weather.

The "rate" of change argument is bogus.


And what do you believe was the amount of change during the so-called "The Little Ice Age"? The most I've heard as much as 0.2 degrees C. What we're talking about in terms of ACC is a magnitude higher, and relatively sustained, not just for "a decade or two". Be also careful in that I claimed that of primary concern is the rate of temperature change - the amount of change as well as well as a potential for a long-term, baseline shift is of course of concern as well.

canyoneer: bigdavediode: "Canyoneer -- I love how you had to bend the middle line to try and force a correlation. Very entertaining!"

That's merely because the middle graph has a somewhat shorter x-axis, and I didn't produce the graph, Don Easterbrook did. I also find it ironic that someone concerned about AGW would quibble with graph scales. After all, the y-axis on every graph used to frighten people about global warming is scaled in tenths of degrees celcius, and therefore the "alarming" rise in temperature is actually quite small, especially compared to past temperature fluctuations during the Holocene. Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the last century.[1][A] (new window) Oooo. Scary! 1 degree Fahrenheit!

I'd like to see the same graphs done with the y-axis scaled in degrees celcius, not tenths of degrees celcius. Then the line would look virtually flat, especially when the x-axis is lengthened to include the last, say 11,000 years. With that perspective, the warming of the last 100 years is insignificant.



Now, do you have any information which would tend to refute the obvious correlation between the PDO, glacial fluctuations, and global average temperature observed by Easterbrook?

I want to see ONE alarmist make a valid argument against this chart.

namatad: GAT_00: Want to disprove me and science in general? Find something that isn't showing massive bias.

LOL, there is now need for you to read, there is a graph with 7 trend lines of differing periods
it asks a real question

why do global warming people, only use the period of data which fits their "hypothesis" and ignore periods of data which reject their "cause"

GAT_00: We'll "know" within 20 years when it's another half a degree warmer and we'll really "know" in 50 years when it's two degrees warmer.

yes, this is good
in 10 more years, we will have 20 years of data
and will be able to look at the predictions of 1999 and say, great job, meh, or what where they thinking
in 40 more years we will "know" for sure

True, but by then we will have forgotten we were even interested in that, and be on to a new set of crises.... like the one caused by having 16 billion people on a planet that can only reasonably support 4 billion.

Assuming, of course, that the four horsemen haven't been out for a ride by then.

canyoneer: Now, do you have any information which would tend to refute the obvious correlation between the PDO, glacial fluctuations, and global average temperature observed by Easterbrook?

Why are you using a chart about local temperature to disprove global warming?

Your chart clearly is labeled "northern hemisphere". It is not a chart addressing global warming.

You'd think you'd notice these things-- especially after people point them out to you ten or twenty times.

PC LOAD LETTER: JK8Fan: Ignorance is believing a THEORY that is far from proven

Theory. Sigh.

Do I really have to go there? Yeah, I guess I do.

A theory is an explanation of something observed under a given set of conditions.

That's it.

A LAW is a mathematical relationship that holds true under a certain set of conditions.

There's the THEORY of gravitational attraction:

"I deduced that the forces which keep the planets in their orbs must be reciprocally as the squares of their distances from the centers about which they revolve: and thereby compared the force requisite to keep the Moon in her Orb with the force of gravity at the surface of the Earth; and found them answer pretty nearly."[Principia Mathematica]

The LAW behind it is:


Both are true for non-relativistic scenarios.

Einstein showed that this theory does not hold true absolutely, but NASA uses Newtonian physics to describe space flight, not Relativistic.

Everything is a theory. Some theories have laws describing things.

Science isn't "I'm Just A Bill" from Schoolhouse Rock.

FWIW, I am a mechanical engineer, not someone you can post pretty talk and put a formula up and win your argument.

Your post is crap that shows nothing to answer my questions. You are basically changing the subject and trying to show how many "smarts" you have at an attempt to baffle me into seeing things your way. Didn't work. Good attempt. You failed. How's that?

FWIW, I am a mechanical engineer

Then you must be a really crappy one if you use the tired "it's only a theory" nonsense. That, or engineers really don't understand science very well.

MentalMoment: "If warming is due to PDO then what is causing the upward trend in predicted temperatures that spans the apparent cycles? And what is the mechanism causing the PDO to exist in the first place? Predicting future values based on past performance is a bad investment strategy. Especially if it's based solely on something like 'it was up before so it will go up again.' I think the same skepticism applies here."

The upward trend in temperatures during the last 100 years is insignificant, both in degree and persistence. Everyone is thinking in miniscule timeframes, and exaggerating observed variability. Just in the past 12,000 years, there have been much more dramatic variations in temperature and climate, and that's saying nothing about the past 2 million years. I think the idea that human activities in the last 150 years or so have radically altered - or will radically alter - the Earth's climate is ridiculous. It betrays a lack of perspective and typical human vanity.

Given that the PDO obviously affects global climate in a much more significant way than CO2 concentrations, and that the mecahnisms influencing the PDO are completely unknown, one would think atmospheric scientists would be humbled. Obviously they know far less than they don't know.

JK8Fan: I want to see ONE alarmist make a valid argument against this chart.

Er, it's an artificially shifted graph, from a group with a, and whose investors have, vested interest in muddying the waters? (new window)

JK8Fan: Damnhippyfreak: JK8Fan: When one of you warming alarmists can tell me what the optimum average temperature of the earth is supposed to be, I'll panic. You can't do it. Is is supposed to be cooler than what it is now? Are we already too warm? If you can't tell us then just STFU.

Of course, if I were a scientist getting government grants to study this chicken little crap, I'd find that I need about 30 more years of study and the grants that go along with it. Then I'd just retire and have a good laugh about it.

This is about as blatant of a straw-man as one can make. First off, climatologists are not making the claim that there is an "optimum average temperature". Second, that there isn't a optimum average global temperature does not say anything about whether ACC exists. And third, what is of primary concern is the rate of temperature change.

All of your concerns are far from proven, just basic theories. Did you even glance at any of the REALLY long term graph that were posted in this thread? Anyone that can form an absolute conclusion that man is the cause of climate change based on long term data is obviously just blinded by the constant liberal push to gain governmental control over our lives.

I have to admit, whoever came up with the plan to use an unproven theory to tax us to death and limit the use of our most common energy generating fuel source (coal) was a genius.


OK, what rate of CHANGE is good or bad?


First off, let me quickly note that the idea of "proven" and "absolute conclusion" isn't all that common in today's science - be careful that you're not relying on an absurd standard of proof. I would also caution you to learn what "theory" means in a scientific context. It does your argument, such as it is, no service to misuse these terms. What is of concern is whether the preponderance of the science done on the topic is sufficient for immediate policy changes to be enacted. Such is the case.

As for the rate of change, I can give you some pointers there. Much of past baseline changes has been measured over geologic time - more to do with changes over thousands of years and longer. What is of worry is that the current rate of change is beyond which current systems - both human and the ecosystems upon which we depend - are able to adapt without losing too much integrity and resilience. There isn't an exact number, if that's what you're looking for, but think about the principles instead.

JK8Fan: FWIW, I am a mechanical engineer, not someone you can post pretty talk and put a formula up and win your argument.

Well, nobody's accusing you of being an English teacher, that's for damn sure.

A mechanical engineering degree has absolutely no relevance to expertise about global warming, or science. Engineers are not scientists. They're definitely not climatologists.

Why do you eagerly embrace canyoneer's graph that only even purports to show northern hemisphere variation as a disproof of global warming?

post from New Republic. Not even worth reading. No it hasn't you are confusing weather with climate you dimbulb. Take some climatology courses and get back to me you idiot.

The biggest problem with the AGW debate right now is not the science (which is far from settled or complete, but only time and more data will cure that problem) but rather the absurd politics behind forcing developed countries to drastically reduce emissions while India and China are ramping them up.

Essentially, we are saying it doesn't matter if the other half of the world's population replaces and exceeeds our emissions as long as we can offshore our pollution prouction and feel less guilty. To add insult to injury, they will building factories to produce the components of green technology, because they can do so without the energy taxes and labor costs the same companies here will pay.

All that climate change legislation in the U.S. will accomplish is moving energy consumption overseas so that we can close down what's left of our domestic manufacturing sector. It's hard to see how they can plan on charging energy taxes to domestic firms without also taxing foreign firms that sell goods in the U.S., but as usual, they are either too dim to see that, or have planned to do it without telling people up front that's what's coming.

And even if heavy tariffs are imposed, China and India now have domestic consumption that will rapidly outpace our own total CO2 output. And they are not sold on the clinate change idea and won't be for a long time, if ever.

canyoneer: Given that the PDO obviously affects global climate in a much more significant way than CO2 concentrations,

That's not a given. That's an assertion. By you. With no proof. You've cited one paper with a model that's been demonstrated to be faulty. You've cited another chart that confines itself to the 'northern hemisphere', and are trying to use it to argue about global warming.

You disprove yourself constantly. It's neat!

Animatronik: Essentially, we are saying it doesn't matter if the other half of the world's population replaces and exceeeds our emissions as long as we can offshore our pollution prouction and feel less guilty. To add insult to injury, they will building factories to produce the components of green technology, because they can do so without the energy taxes and labor costs the same companies here will pay.

Are you aware of how we reduced global CFC emissions?

Obdicut: You disprove yourself constantly. It's neat!

Yeah, I think that's why he started bugging out whenever Team Climate Change^TM showed up. He got mocked a few times about it, and then would vanish whenever they would show up in a thread.

Big Foot

the Loch Ness Monster

Man made global warming

what do these three things have in common?

Nobody has any proof that they exist but lots of people believe that they do.

canyoneer: The upward trend in temperatures during the last 100 years is insignificant, both in degree and persistence.

And unexplained. Have you ever tried to figure out how much energy is required to increase Earth's atmosphere by 1°C?

One calculation I've seen has it at 10e20 Joules of energy to raise the temperature of the entire atmosphere by about 1 degree Celsius.

That's a lot of energy. And has to come from somewhere. Can't ignore the first law of thermodynamics.

JK8Fan: I want to see ONE alarmist make a valid argument against this chart.


Let me give a stab at it. First off, the chart seems fine. It's simply what conclusions you attempt to draw off it that are of concern. I don't think anyone, much less climatologists are trying to contend that Earth's climate has somehow remained static - who the heck do you think derived that data in the first place?

Second, as I've already noted in other posts, changes over geologic time are much less of a concern due to a greater leeway for adaptation. Earth's climate has never been static, of course, but it has either occurred over a time scale in which ecosystems have been able to adapt. That or simply we haven't been around in our current form - a catastrophic climatic change would have different effects on our current globalized, industrial society than say, relative isolated proto-hominid groups.

If you wish to examine what all the concern is about, note that projections are somewhere around an increase of 0.2 degrees per decade, then look at the scale on that graph.

canyoneer: Now, do you have any information which would tend to refute the obvious correlation between the PDO, glacial fluctuations, and global average temperature observed by Easterbrook?

While the PDO correlations are interesting what do they prove? Since correlation does not equal causation, is it possible that global warming is causing the PDO fluctuations and not the other way around?

Your information is interesting, but it is far from the "big picture". It reminds me of the "global cooling" media sensation of the 70s. There some scientists were looking at one aspect of weather change. They noted that this one aspect, if not countered by other factors, might lead to another ice age. Of course there were and are many other factors that contribute to the global climate. Nevertheless, major media outlets hyped the idea that we were headed for the next ice age. A proposition real scientists thought highly unlikely.

So your information, while interesting, only looks at one factor, does not establish cause and effect, and may only document one effect of global warming. It does not represent mainstream scientific thought, it is just one piece of the puzzle.

I would make no attempt to refute your data. I only point out that it does not fully explain climate, and does not disprove the CO² link to climate change.

Obdicut: Animatronik: Essentially, we are saying it doesn't matter if the other half of the world's population replaces and exceeeds our emissions as long as we can offshore our pollution prouction and feel less guilty. To add insult to injury, they will building factories to produce the components of green technology, because they can do so without the energy taxes and labor costs the same companies here will pay.

Are you aware of how we reduced global CFC emissions?

There's no comparison between the costs of reducing acid rain pollution or CFC's and the costs for reducing CO2. It's like comparing ants to elephants.

Also, you may have noticed that the compounds that replace CFCs are much more potent greenhouse gases (1000s of times more so than CO2), which means that things made in asia alone containing these products will soon be significant contributors to the AGW problem supposedly.

So there's just no winning in your universe, is there?

SkinnyHead: True science welcomes dissent. Fake, politically-driven science is hostile to it.

well descent is highest form of patriotic

nicksteel: Big Foot

the Loch Ness Monster

Man made global warming

what do these three things have in common?

Nobody has any proof that they exist but lots of people believe that they do.

One of those things is not like the other ones! Can you tell which one it is?

hint: One of those things represents the current thinking of leading scientists.

Actually there is very little debate anymore that global warming exists. Because there is a lot of evidence it exists. The debate now centers over what causes it.

Animatronik: The biggest problem with the AGW debate right now is not the science (which is far from settled or complete, but only time and more data will cure that problem) but rather the absurd politics behind forcing developed countries to drastically reduce emissions while India and China are ramping them up.

Essentially, we are saying it doesn't matter if the other half of the world's population replaces and exceeeds our emissions as long as we can offshore our pollution prouction and feel less guilty. To add insult to injury, they will building factories to produce the components of green technology, because they can do so without the energy taxes and labor costs the same companies here will pay.

All that climate change legislation in the U.S. will accomplish is moving energy consumption overseas so that we can close down what's left of our domestic manufacturing sector. It's hard to see how they can plan on charging energy taxes to domestic firms without also taxing foreign firms that sell goods in the U.S., but as usual, they are either too dim to see that, or have planned to do it without telling people up front that's what's coming.

And even if heavy tariffs are imposed, China and India now have domestic consumption that will rapidly outpace our own total CO2 output. And they are not sold on the clinate change idea and won't be for a long time, if ever.


Good points. I think everyone agrees that the task is to get everyone to the table. But to do requires us to look at it from the point of view of developing nations as well. From what I understand, from their perspective, it is us in the developed nations that have caused much of this problem in the first place - that we, as the ones that have polluted the most in the past, are now somehow claiming the high ground in calling for others to cut down, and furthermore without committing to any reductions ourselves. One can understand how this seems hypocritical at best - our intransigence on this subject is driving developing nations away from the table.

In addition to this, there is the perception that the calls for controls on emissions is nothing more than another attempt at something resembling neo-colonialism or outright imperialism - not surprising given the recent and not-so-recent past.

Burn98: The debate now centers over what causes it. on the best way to mitigate the impact of human activity in causing it, and at what rate.

FTFY.

3_Butt_Cheeks: A new study released yesterday shows that climate change (or whatever is the proper nomenclature) is largely the result of natural causes, and man has little if any impact whatsoever.


Link (new window)


Sorry, no pretty little graphs. You'll actually have to read.

There are plenty of pretty graphs if you read the actual article... That said, I'm not climate scientists, but I read through what I could understand. Perhaps the most striking thing I noted about this paper is that they are *NOT* saying what you insinuate. They are showing the SOI and ENSO are strong forcing functions of the GTTA. They are claiming to invalidate all previous research, but that a new forcing function must be added to existing models as it has a significant effect on the GTTA. This effect, however, appears to be a forcing function on the noise, not the signal. In other words, it disturbs the GTTA upward and downward as the effects of SOI and ENSO are dispersed through the southern troposphere.

Someone in climate sciences is free to critique my analysis of the paper...

The oceans are turning into acid because they're absorbing too much CO2. You're going to wish that global warming was all that you had to worry about.

SkinnyHead: 
Do you know the difference between data-driven disagreement and agenda-based astroturfing?

SVenus: i278.photobucket.com

Let's look at that image again, shall we?



Hmm, why does that graph have two x-axis labels? Why is one not in the font the rest of the chart is?

Animatronik: There's no comparison between the costs of reducing acid rain pollution or CFC's and the costs for reducing CO2. It's like comparing ants to elephants.

Yes. Ants are comparable to elephants.

Animatronik: Also, you may have noticed that the compounds that replace CFCs are much more potent greenhouse gases (1000s of times more so than CO2), which means that things made in asia alone containing these products will soon be significant contributors to the AGW problem supposedly.

So there's just no winning in your universe, is there?

My universe? I'd think that sentence would apply more to your version of reality, where we can't win because OMG China!

What things do you think replaced CFCs, and are you somehow under the impression that we reduced CFCs to reduce global warming, not to stop the erosion of the ozone layer?

We worked with China and India on reduction of CFCs; we allowed them, in particular, to keep growing their use of CFCs for a decade while we worked on non-CFC dependent technology.

We can do the same with CO2.

This is not a 70s hair-band question.

Animatronik: It's hard to see how they can plan on charging energy taxes to domestic firms without also taxing foreign firms that sell goods in the U.S., but as usual, they are either too dim to see that, or have planned to do it without telling people up front that's what's coming.


Hm. Be careful here. The fact is that current WTO regulations do allow for participating nations to create tariffs and quotas in order to protect the environment. In addition, one can reformulate the debate to say that nations that do not have some sort of regulatory scheme are subsidizing production - that they are not paying the full costs of production, including environmental costs.

The issues and mechanisms for doing so have been and are being discussed in a lively and active debate. You're not doing it, of course, but be careful not to confuse "it's hard to see how" with "I don't know how".

Burn98: nicksteel: Big Foot

the Loch Ness Monster

Man made global warming

what do these three things have in common?

Nobody has any proof that they exist but lots of people believe that they do.

One of those things is not like the other ones! Can you tell which one it is?

hint: One of those things represents the current thinking of leading scientists.

Actually there is very little debate anymore that global warming exists. Because there is a lot of evidence it exists. The debate now centers over what causes it.

wow!! Way to NOT pay attention!!! What part of Man made global warming confused you?????

I was researching this very issue and I stumbled across this little gem of a scientific paper. The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period Which, proves nothing whatsoever about climatic change, but does show why scientist need to learn to write.

Sample:

Transport and/or sources of dust (e.g., particles, calcium, magnesium, potassium) and species of marine origin (e.g., sodium, chloride, methanesulfonate) to central Greenland increased during the LIA. Nitrate sources (e.g., lightning, soil exhalation) decreased during the LIA. Ammonium outliers in Summit ice cores have been interpreted as northern high-latitude biomass-burning events [ Taylor et al., 1992; Whitlow et al., 1994] based on their association with other chemical products of biomass-burning [ Legrand et al., 1992]. Ammonium peaked both at the onset and at the end of the LIA.

MentalMoment: "And unexplained. Have you ever tried to figure out how much energy is required to increase Earth's atmosphere by 1°C? One calculation I've seen has it at 10e20 Joules of energy to raise the temperature of the entire atmosphere by about 1 degree Celsius. That's a lot of energy. And has to come from somewhere. Can't ignore the first law of thermodynamics."

And where did that energy come from in 8,000 BC? How about during the Roman Climate Optimum? The Medieval Warm Period? Clearly there have been warm periods in the past with little or no forcing by human activities. So, why does the (relatively mild) warming of the last 100 years have to be caused by human activities?

You know, increased CO2 concentration may, in fact, cause a small rise in global average temperatures. But that increased concentration may not necessarily be responsible for all the (historically insignificant) warming observed in the last 100 years. In fact, it may be such a small effect that it is irrelevant in overall climate.

Pielke thinks the role of CO2 has been overstated. (new window)

Even the degree of recent warming is not established.

A number of scientists and scientific organizations have expressed concern about the possible deterioration of the land surface observing network.[17][18][19][20] Climate scientist Roger A. Pielke has stated that he has identified a number of sites where poorly sited stations in sparse regions "will introduce spatially unrepresentative data into the analyses."[21] The metadata needed to quantify the uncertainty from poorly sited stations does not currently exist. Pielke has called for a similar documentation effort for the rest of the world.[22] (new window)

Corvus: nicksteel: wow!! Way to NOT pay attention!!! What part of Man made global warming confused you?????

There is proof CO2 causes green house effect.

There is proof man has released an unprecedented amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

So what do you think has not been proven exactly?

yes, there IS proof that CO2 causes a green house effect IN PLASTIC BOTTLES.

Damnhippyfreak: "Of course nobody is claiming that past global climate changes are due to anthropogenic CO2. That statement does not say anything about the current attribution of CO2 forcing. What you are claiming would be akin to pointing out that arson does not exist because naturally-occurring fires exist."

Let's flip your analogy on its head:

"What you are claiming would be akin to pointing out that naturally-occurring fires must be caused by arson."

that bosnian sniper 2009-07-25 01:18:30 PM

bigdavediode: namatad:

"so, I can draw a line through real data proving any position I want."

Yeah, if you're so intellectually incurious as to allow people to start their trends from ice ages or el nino years.

Perhaps you would like to posit a rational, unbiased set of data to study and from which draw conclusions?

Both sides of this "argument" cherry pick data to favor their own arguments, and insult the other side for doing the same thing. It's scientifically irresponsible and hypocritical. That's what happens when the politics of an issue supercede the science.

You see, scientists like money. Money is what keeps them doing their research and experimentation. This money comes from the private sector, by private donors and corporations, or the public sector in the form of government funding. If that money stops coming, the scientists are out of work. When a given issue becomes a matter of public policy (and necessarily political), scientists' public and private funding becomes at stake, and scientists' first goal is always to keep working.

Can I copy this and use it in the next Christian bashing thread? You know, where people invariably say how the church is just currupt and about money, while science is pure and unbiased

/Snort
//loves science, knows its faults/limitations.

ITT people discuss things they had to google.

nicksteel: yes, there IS proof that CO2 causes a green house effect IN PLASTIC BOTTLES.

Uh, in a previous post you were in agreement that greenhouse warming is happening, but insisting that it isn't manmade. Are you now saying that the greenhouse effect hasn't been established?

Sgt. Pepper: nicksteel: yes, there IS proof that CO2 causes a green house effect IN PLASTIC BOTTLES.

Uh, in a previous post you were in agreement that greenhouse warming is happening, but insisting that it isn't manmade. Are you now saying that the greenhouse effect hasn't been established?

what previous post?

canyoneer: Damnhippyfreak: "Of course nobody is claiming that past global climate changes are due to anthropogenic CO2. That statement does not say anything about the current attribution of CO2 forcing. What you are claiming would be akin to pointing out that arson does not exist because naturally-occurring fires exist."

Let's flip your analogy on its head:

"What you are claiming would be akin to pointing out that naturally-occurring fires must be caused by arson."


Except that I'm not the one claiming such. The argument you quoted and bolded is the one making a claim based purely on the existence of historical change. That one can correctly state the inverse of a statement does not mean that the other side of the debate holds that view - a rather obvious point.

Global Warming isn't real. Here's a fun fact, the Earths climate changes over time. Crazy huh? Science = the only occupation where being wrong all the time is considered triumphant.

Corvus: nicksteel: Corvus: nicksteel: wow!! Way to NOT pay attention!!! What part of Man made global warming confused you?????

There is proof CO2 causes green house effect.

There is proof man has released an unprecedented amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

So what do you think has not been proven exactly?

yes, there IS proof that CO2 causes a green house effect IN PLASTIC BOTTLES.

But it is. You don't understand how controlled experiments work?

Are you against scientific method? Or do you not understand it?


So are you saying CO2 is not a green house gas?


you asked for the proof. I showed it to you.

Once again I ask you


So what do you think has not been proven exactly?

Why are you not able to answer that?

You think magic fairies take out co2 from the atmosphere?


Please explain your proof that in the atmosphere c02 magical does not work like it works everywhere else.


I would love to hear this theory.

But instead you will probably respond with an attack because you guys are so afraid to death about making this discussion about science.

What experiment was conducted where all of the conditions that impact our climate were duplicated and that showed that CO2 is causing the temperature to increase?

ceejayoz: SVenus: i278.photobucket.com

Let's look at that image again, shall we?

Hmm, why does that graph have two x-axis labels? Why is one not in the font the rest of the chart is?

Hasn't CO2 been going up pretty much monotonically for all that time? It doesn't seem to be particularly misleading to label it like that. My question would be the choice of the trend line - you could just as easily draw a straight line through it, the amount of points outside the standard variation is small enough it looks like a bad piece of overfitting to draw the curves on. CO2 isn't the only component of the climate, so you expect quite a large scatter depending on the changing contribution from other factors. As variation is tending towards the low side currently you can draw graphs to make it look like it is slowing down, just like in 1998 you could draw graphs that made it look like climate change was accelerating. That is why you draw trend lines through multiple decades to get a reasonable idea of where things are going, rather than only pay attention to the last five or so years of data and try to use that in isolation.

From physical experiments we expect the response to increased CO2 to largely be linear over the range we might are likely to see in the next century or so, unless there is a change in the magnitude of the various feedbacks for some reason.

I don't understand global warming deniers. How does one discount the massive impact that human industry has had on the planet's atmosphere? To hear them tell it, the Earth's atmosphere and climate would hardly be any different had human beings never evolved and started pumping billions of tonnes of chemicals and gases into the air, which is just a patently silly notion no matter how you look at it.

vertiaset: I was researching this very issue and I stumbled across this little gem of a scientific paper. The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period Which, proves nothing whatsoever about climatic change, but does show why scientist need to learn to write.

Sample:

Transport and/or sources of dust (e.g., particles, calcium, magnesium, potassium) and species of marine origin (e.g., sodium, chloride, methanesulfonate) to central Greenland increased during the LIA. Nitrate sources (e.g., lightning, soil exhalation) decreased during the LIA. Ammonium outliers in Summit ice cores have been interpreted as northern high-latitude biomass-burning events [ Taylor et al., 1992; Whitlow et al., 1994] based on their association with other chemical products of biomass-burning [ Legrand et al., 1992]. Ammonium peaked both at the onset and at the end of the LIA.


Yeeesh. That's atrocious. But it should be noted that there are two notable constraints that tend to produce such a concentrated text. First is the occasionally extreme word and space limits put upon articles - the first thing to get chopped off or compressed in my experience is the introduction. Second, is the fact that you have to pay to get your paper published - you want to make sure you get as much bang for your buck as you can.

All that being said, it's still overly-complex writing.

TheGreatZarquon: I don't understand global warming deniers. How does one discount the massive impact that human industry has had on the planet's atmosphere? To hear them tell it, the Earth's atmosphere and climate would hardly be any different had human beings never evolved and started pumping billions of tonnes of chemicals and gases into the air, which is just a patently silly notion no matter how you look at it.

massive impact??? Are you aware of the small percentage of CO2 that in put into the atmosphere because of man?????????????????

nicksteel: Burn98: nicksteel: Big Foot

the Loch Ness Monster

Man made global warming

what do these three things have in common?

Nobody has any proof that they exist but lots of people believe that they do.

One of those things is not like the other ones! Can you tell which one it is?

hint: One of those things represents the current thinking of leading scientists.

Actually there is very little debate anymore that global warming exists. Because there is a lot of evidence it exists. The debate now centers over what causes it.

wow!! Way to NOT pay attention!!! What part of Man made global warming confused you?????

I am not confused. The "man made" part still represents the current thinking of leading scientists.

But it appears that my mention of the debate over the cause, has confused you. Sorry that additional information distracted you from the main issue. I will try not to confuse you with extra facts again.

nicksteel: What experiment was conducted where all of the conditions that impact our climate were duplicated and that showed that CO2 is causing the temperature to increase?

Go ask that question at a global warming conference, in person.

And bring a device that turns laughter into electricity, you'll be able to power a small city.

Kumana Wanalaia: nicksteel: What experiment was conducted where all of the conditions that impact our climate were duplicated and that showed that CO2 is causing the temperature to increase?

Go ask that question at a global warming conference, in person.

And bring a device that turns laughter into electricity, you'll be able to power a small city.

is that what passes for an intelligent response in your neighborhood??

SkinnyHead: True science welcomes dissent. Fake, politically-driven science is hostile to it.

Actually that's not true. The politics of science welcome dissent (but only as it is backed by evidence). True science only welcomes new data.

Of course, if I had a nickle for every time you said something that superficially sounds good but is substantively empty, I'd have to invent a new number just to be able to tell people how much money I had.

nicksteel: Kumana Wanalaia: nicksteel: What experiment was conducted where all of the conditions that impact our climate were duplicated and that showed that CO2 is causing the temperature to increase?

Go ask that question at a global warming conference, in person.

And bring a device that turns laughter into electricity, you'll be able to power a small city.

is that what passes for an intelligent response in your neighborhood??

Why would I waste an intelligent response on an idiot like you?

Troll get insults.

Welcome to the internet.

Corvus: nicksteel: massive impact??? Are you aware of the small percentage of CO2 that in put into the atmosphere because of man?????????????????

And the DEFORESTATION that has contributed to less co2 sinks.


So what takes up this additional co2 that you now admit exists?

The Trees we've cut down?

Please tell us what magically reduces this "small" percentage?

Why can't you answer any of our questions?

on your world are trees the only major contributor to CO2 absorption?

Trolls*

Kumana Wanalaia: nicksteel: Kumana Wanalaia: nicksteel: What experiment was conducted where all of the conditions that impact our climate were duplicated and that showed that CO2 is causing the temperature to increase?

Go ask that question at a global warming conference, in person.

And bring a device that turns laughter into electricity, you'll be able to power a small city.

is that what passes for an intelligent response in your neighborhood??

Why would I waste an intelligent response on an idiot like you?

Troll get insults.

Welcome to the internet.

Is that what passes as an insult in your neighborhood??

nicksteel: What experiment was conducted where all of the conditions that impact our climate were duplicated and that showed that CO2 is causing the temperature to increase?

Have you ever wondered why Venus has higher high temperatures than Mercury, even though Venus is twice as far away from the sun?

LordZorch: Simple physics proves that CO2 cannot drive global temperatures.

And gravity makes things fall up.

nicksteel: Kumana Wanalaia: nicksteel: What experiment was conducted where all of the conditions that impact our climate were duplicated and that showed that CO2 is causing the temperature to increase?

Go ask that question at a global warming conference, in person.

And bring a device that turns laughter into electricity, you'll be able to power a small city.

is that what passes for an intelligent response in your neighborhood??


I'm sorry to say that if you want an intelligent response, it would be a lot easier if you presented an intelligent question.

And this is compounded by the fact that the reason why your statement was absurd to the point of ridicule has been pointed out to you repeatedly in the past.

nicksteel: what previous post?

In your 2009-07-25 02:44:03 PM you imply that you think warming has happened, but it isn't manmade. You put "manmade" in bold to emphasize the distinction.

Also, you've dodged my very simple question. I can give it to ya in an easy yes/no format if that helps. Do you think that:

A: The planet hasn't been warming.
B: The greenhouse effect happens.
C: The greenhouse effect happens, but warming is due to natural causes.

or

D: (insert your own views here)

Kome: nicksteel: What experiment was conducted where all of the conditions that impact our climate were duplicated and that showed that CO2 is causing the temperature to increase?

Have you ever wondered why Venus has higher high temperatures than Mercury, even though Venus is twice as far away from the sun?

Did you even read my question?? Or are you of the opinion that the conditions that impact the climate on Venus and Mercury are the same conditions that we have on earth?

nicksteel: TheGreatZarquon: I don't understand global warming deniers. How does one discount the massive impact that human industry has had on the planet's atmosphere? To hear them tell it, the Earth's atmosphere and climate would hardly be any different had human beings never evolved and started pumping billions of tonnes of chemicals and gases into the air, which is just a patently silly notion no matter how you look at it.

massive impact??? Are you aware of the small percentage of CO2 that in put into the atmosphere because of man?????????????????

More than a dozen question marks mean serious business, eh?

It's more than just co2. It's everything that comes out of a smokestack, muffler, industrial plant or power generating station. It's heavy industry in countries with little to no environmental regulations. It's billions of cars on the road, megatons of sewage dumped into rivers and oceans, massive deforestation and pollution on a scale never before seen in the entire history of the planet Earth. I defy anyone to tell me that all of the above combined makes such a minuscule impact on the environment that it can be ignored when considering climate change.

nicksteel: Kome: nicksteel: What experiment was conducted where all of the conditions that impact our climate were duplicated and that showed that CO2 is causing the temperature to increase?

Have you ever wondered why Venus has higher high temperatures than Mercury, even though Venus is twice as far away from the sun?

Did you even read my question?? Or are you of the opinion that the conditions that impact the climate on Venus and Mercury are the same conditions that we have on earth?

Wow, and I thought I was throwing you a soft ball. Guess that'll teach me to assume you have a high school education.

TheGreatZarquon: nicksteel: TheGreatZarquon: I don't understand global warming deniers. How does one discount the massive impact that human industry has had on the planet's atmosphere? To hear them tell it, the Earth's atmosphere and climate would hardly be any different had human beings never evolved and started pumping billions of tonnes of chemicals and gases into the air, which is just a patently silly notion no matter how you look at it.

massive impact??? Are you aware of the small percentage of CO2 that in put into the atmosphere because of man?????????????????

More than a dozen question marks mean serious business, eh?

It's more than just co2. It's everything that comes out of a smokestack, muffler, industrial plant or power generating station. It's heavy industry in countries with little to no environmental regulations. It's billions of cars on the road, megatons of sewage dumped into rivers and oceans, massive deforestation and pollution on a scale never before seen in the entire history of the planet Earth. I defy anyone to tell me that all of the above combined makes such a minuscule impact on the environment that it can be ignored when considering climate change.

but not one of the green weenies who is going around screaming that the sky is falling is blaming this "disaster" on anything but CO2. Everybody (but you) is blaming our problems on CO2.

namatad: the scientists wish both groups would go away and let them collect data to test theories
========================================

Um, no. Scientists have showed time and time again (like Evolution!) that Global Warming is 100% truth.

Yet conservatives latch onto conspiracy theories with both.

nicksteel: Kome: nicksteel: What experiment was conducted where all of the conditions that impact our climate were duplicated and that showed that CO2 is causing the temperature to increase?

Have you ever wondered why Venus has higher high temperatures than Mercury, even though Venus is twice as far away from the sun?

Did you even read my question?? Or are you of the opinion that the conditions that impact the climate on Venus and Mercury are the same conditions that we have on earth?




So are you in all honestly wondering why there has not been a physical experiment in which all the "conditions that impact our climate", with it's global (and larger) scale, and chaos-inducing levels of complexity have not been duplicated?

I'm going to sum up this entire online debate with one image, courtesy of XKCD:

Kome: nicksteel: Kome: nicksteel: What experiment was conducted where all of the conditions that impact our climate were duplicated and that showed that CO2 is causing the temperature to increase?

Have you ever wondered why Venus has higher high temperatures than Mercury, even though Venus is twice as far away from the sun?

Did you even read my question?? Or are you of the opinion that the conditions that impact the climate on Venus and Mercury are the same conditions that we have on earth?

Wow, and I thought I was throwing you a soft ball. Guess that'll teach me to assume you have a high school education.

LOL, You must still be in high school because your "answer" did not address my question at all. I guess I didn't make that point clear in my last post.

Corvus: You asked for the experiments where they tested all the factors and I told you about them. Everyone know about them showing you are very uneducated about the subject.

In his world, no experiment is valid. Any experiment has to be done in a duplicate universe in order to mimic all the conditions of the real universe, otherwise it is invalid. Since we have no identical alternate universe to perform experiments in, no experiment is valid.

Now are you going to ignore us every time you are shown to be wrong?

Do you really need to ask that question?

canyoneer: And where did that energy come from in 8,000 BC?

Asteroid strike. Sudden release of frozen hydrates. Just possibilities of course. Still, energy doesn't spontaneously create.

We've gone from claims that temperatures will decrease to any increase can be ignored. And now, any increase is due to poor measurements.

How does any of this support the view that all recent warming has been due to PDO and that we should now expect temperatures to decrease in the immediate future?

Thrag: Corvus: You asked for the experiments where they tested all the factors and I told you about them. Everyone know about them showing you are very uneducated about the subject.

In his world, no experiment is valid. Any experiment has to be done in a duplicate universe in order to mimic all the conditions of the real universe, otherwise it is invalid. Since we have no identical alternate universe to perform experiments in, no experiment is valid.

Now are you going to ignore us every time you are shown to be wrong?

Do you really need to ask that question?

Yeah, lil nicky has been smacked around as much as "my graph starts at absolute zero" Brockster, and his predecessor SPitzer wannabe.

As a side effect of archiving threads with good climate change information in them, I have a number of said smack downs readily available.