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??