If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   Less Arctic sea ice = more US blizzards, therefore polar bears will be roaming Oklahoma by next Christmas   (content.usatoday.com) divider line 330
    More: Interesting, Arctic ice, Arctic, polar bears, lead author, climate variability, air masses, National Academy of Sciences, Arctic Ocean  
•       •       •

5477 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Feb 2012 at 12:01 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



330 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-29 03:04:57 PM

chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: chimp_ninja: nicksteel: Still waiting, scooter. Or did you realize that your statement does nothing but reveal your ignorance concerning this topic?

Shockingly, I sometimes do other things than wait for your replies, which might explain no response during the gigantic lapse of ~58 minutes between your posts.

You're looking at calculated energy balance forcings, normalized to area. Greenhouse gases contribute ~+2W/m2 of additional heating in the late 1990s, compared to 1950s levels. This is readily demonstrated by spectroscopic measurements. (See, for example, this paper from GRL.) Comparison to other factors that impact the energy balance (irradiance changes, volcanic aerosols, etc.) shows that the greenhouse forcings are larger and more consistent. Simple measurement of air concentrations as a function of time shows that greenhouse forcings will continue to grow, whereas we have no reason to believe that volcanic forcings, etc. will change significantly on a decadal time scale.

This is a cause of climate change, not an outcome, and the argument is not made by correlation.

Yes, it is made by correlation, you just do not have the intelligence to realize it.

Please explain. I thought I was clear. Be detailed.


You have not proven a causation, all you have done is compare the numbers. You cannot just show some numbers and shout of GREENHOUSE GASES and expect to get away with it. As Professor Christy said, we live on a planet with a complex weather system.

seriously, are you really THAT ignorant or is this an act? I am perfectly willing to accept the idea that you are at least that ignorant.
 
2012-02-29 03:12:47 PM

Damnhippyfreak: It's a good reason to avoid news sources that tend towards hyperbole and stick closer to the science.


You mean avoid just about anything less precise than Scientific American or NOAA's website, I presume.
 
2012-02-29 03:25:31 PM

chuckufarlie: You have not proven a causation, all you have done is compare the numbers. You cannot just show some numbers and shout of GREENHOUSE GASES and expect to get away with it.


Significant increases in an energy input to the climate system will result in higher temperatures. This is fairly old science, and demonstrated quite well by 1981. Shindell, et al. covers this in more detail in a more recent publication.

The measurements cited above show the magnitude of the excess energy being dissipated into the air near the earth's surface. This is also called "warming", unless you're claiming that conservation of energy somehow does not apply.

If you have an issue with Shindell's work (or the other works summarized for you), feel free to share it. But putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "Nuh uh!" is the definition of denial, and you're looking especially guilty of it today.
 
2012-02-29 03:27:14 PM
I love this topic. Everyone's a skilled scientist and the conclusions are always objective and free of politics. I mean after all, no one has anything to gain by cap and trade...wink wink.

Anyone want to bet me that we'll be panicking about Global Cooling 15 years from now?
 
2012-02-29 03:32:12 PM

Phobos_: How Geologists view Global Warming


A small sample of how geologists and paleoecologists view the wisdom of precipitating rapid carbon cycle perturbations:

Benton, M. J., and R. J. Twitchett (2003), How to kill (almost) all life: the end-Permian extinction event, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18(7), 358-365, doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00093-4.

Brennecka, G. A., A. D. Herrmann, T. J. Algeo, and A. D. Anbar (2011), Rapid expansion of oceanic anoxia immediately before the end-Permian mass extinction, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(43), 17631 -17634, doi:10.1073/pnas.1106039108.

Clapham, M. E., and J. L. Payne (2011), Acidification, anoxia, and extinction: A multiple logistic regression analysis of extinction selectivity during the Middle and Late Permian, Geology, 39(11), 1059 -1062, doi:10.1130/G32230.1.

Georgiev, S., H. J. Stein, J. L. Hannah, B. Bingen, H. M. Weiss, and S. Piasecki (2011), Hot acidic Late Permian seas stifle life in record time, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 310(3-4), 389-400, doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2011.08.010.

Hautmann, M., M. J. Benton, and A. Tomašových (2008), Catastrophic ocean acidification at the Triassic-Jurassic boundary, Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie - Abhandlungen, 249(1), 119-127, doi:10.1127/0077-7749/2008/0249-0119.

Kiessling, W., and C. Simpson (2011), On the potential for ocean acidification to be a general cause of ancient reef crises, Global Change Biology, 17(1), 56-67, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02204.x.

Mayhew, P. J., G. B. Jenkins, and T. G. Benton (2008), A long-term association between global temperature and biodiversity, origination and extinction in the fossil record, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 275(1630), 47 -53, doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.1302.

Montenegro, A., P. Spence, K. J. Meissner, M. Eby, M. J. Melchin, and S. T. Johnston (2011), Climate simulations of the Permian-Triassic boundary: Ocean acidification and the extinction event, Paleoceanography, 26, 19 PP., doi:201110.1029/2010PA002058.

Payne, J. L., D. J. Lehrmann, J. Wei, M. J. Orchard, D. P. Schrag, and A. H. Knoll (2004), Large Perturbations of the Carbon Cycle During Recovery from the End-Permian Extinction, Science, 305(5683), 506 -509, doi:10.1126/science.1097023.

Payne, J. L., A. V. Turchyn, A. Paytan, D. J. DePaolo, D. J. Lehrmann, M. Yu, and J. Wei (2010), Calcium isotope constraints on the end-Permian mass extinction, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(19), 8543 -8548, doi:10.1073/pnas.0914065107.

Pelejero, C., E. Calvo, and O. Hoegh-Guldberg (2010), Paleo-perspectives on ocean acidification, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25(6), 332-344, doi:10.1016/j.tree.2010.02.002.

Rampino, M. R. (2010), Mass extinctions of life and catastrophic flood basalt volcanism, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(15), 6555 -6556, doi:10.1073/pnas.1002478107.

Ruhl, M., N. R. Bonis, G.-J. Reichart, J. S. S. Damsté, and W. M. Kürschner (2011), Atmospheric Carbon Injection Linked to End-Triassic Mass Extinction, Science, 333(6041), 430 -434, doi:10.1126/science.1204255.

Shen, S. et al. (2011), Calibrating the End-Permian Mass Extinction, Science, doi:10.1126/science.1213454.

Whiteside, J. H., and P. D. Ward (2011), Ammonoid diversity and disparity track episodes of chaotic carbon cycling during the early Mesozoic, Geology, doi:10.1130/G31401.1.

Whiteside, J. H., P. E. Olsen, T. Eglinton, M. E. Brookfield, and R. N. Sambrotto (2010), Compound-specific carbon isotopes from Earth's largest flood basalt eruptions directly linked to the end-Triassic mass extinction, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(15), 6721 -6725, doi:10.1073/pnas.1001706107.
 
2012-02-29 03:38:46 PM

canyoneer: Damnhippyfreak: It's a good reason to avoid news sources that tend towards hyperbole and stick closer to the science.

You mean avoid just about anything less precise than Scientific American or NOAA's website, I presume.



Even those are a bit iffy on occasion, and certainly pale in comparison to the actual scientific literature. If you find yourself somewhat frustrated by hyperbole, it's a good idea to get as close to the actual source - the scientific literature - as you can instead of relying on second or third-hand accounts. That said, I think good science journalism exists out there - but you gotta look for it.
 
2012-02-29 03:49:46 PM
I look foreward to the new polar bear hunting season comming to Oklahoma,,,,excellent!!!!
 
2012-02-29 03:53:05 PM

I sound fat: Is it so foriegn that someone may have a mind that is changeable?


On some issues, no - there is no right answer for lots of stuff, or there isn't enough evidence to say one way or the other.

To have a changeable mind on something where there is plenty of evidence and it all points in one direction, and even someone really farking dim can follow the basic facts - greenhouse gas effect works, see Venus and the fact the Earth isn't a ball of ice, plus you can easily replicate the basic effect in a lab; we know humans are increasing CO2 in the atmosphere by a significant amount, either by summing up coal/oil/gas burning, or looking at the ~60 years of clear and regular increases in the atmosphere we have on record), so at that point unless you have a solid understanding of all the science involved so you can seriously challenge it, or there are credible opposing views from experts that aren't obviously and easily traceable to be funded by an industry organisation that is spewing obvious propaganda, then you accept the scientists are correct until they are proven otherwise, just like you rely on other achievements of science to keep you alive in a thousand other ways every day.

What if scientists are wrong about the speed of light or electricity? You could get run into by someone who hasn't see that traffic light in time. What if they are wrong about gravity? You should hold on tight to something secure at all times just in case. What if they are wrong about pasteurisation killing germs? You could get killed by the next latte you drink. What if they are wrong about antibiotics working? Walking about among lots of other people could be extremely dangerous if they were. Or maybe Hawking Radiation doesn't exist? If so those micro black holes that might form when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere could destroy the earth at any moment.

Why is your skepticism about science appear in one particular sphere of its operation, in a discipline with very little scientific uncertainty (certainly until you get into the detail, but all disciplines apart from certain parts of Mathematics there will always be details and minor effects and differences to models that slowly will be clarified and improved on) - essentially the physics of the greenhouse effect was laid out by Arrhenius in the late 19th century, although he wrote it off as unimportant for a long time to come as the amount of CO2 humanity was putting out at the time was far less than 1% of what we do now. Nothing has overturned that, just refined it - confirming that there is no real saturation effect, and estimating the various feedbacks and other confounding factors to more accurately judge the overall impact and speed any change will occur for any given change in CO2 concentration.

Seriously the "best" opposition to the science has been the idea that somehow cosmic rays cause a similar effect, and that presumably the measurable effect of CO2 on absorbing and trapping IR radiation doesn't happen, although no explanation of why. Or equally some historical pattern of temperature change is extrapolated to show it is "natural" (often while changing the date axis to a different scale half way through the graph to make the pattern look more regular), again without any commentary to explain why physics randomly breaks down in this one particular area, and also without explaining what causes the "natural" pattern they found. If any of these ideas sounds like science to you, it suggests you don't even understand what science is, and why it has worked, and will continue to work, even when some people stand to lose lots of money and try to buy the truth, in the end they will fail, although as with the cigarette manufacturers gullible tools like you might help them kill a few million people in the meantime.
 
2012-02-29 04:09:50 PM

Jon Snow: Phobos_: How Geologists view Global Warming

A small sample of how geologists and paleoecologists view the wisdom of precipitating rapid carbon cycle perturbations:

Benton, M. J., and R. J. Twitchett (2003), How to kill (almost) all life: the end-Permian extinction event, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18(7), 358-365, doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00093-4.

Brennecka, G. A., A. D. Herrmann, T. J. Algeo, and A. D. Anbar (2011), Rapid expansion of oceanic anoxia immediately before the end-Permian mass extinction, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(43), 17631 -17634, doi:10.1073/pnas.1106039108.

Clapham, M. E., and J. L. Payne (2011), Acidification, anoxia, and extinction: A multiple logistic regression analysis of extinction selectivity during the Middle and Late Permian, Geology, 39(11), 1059 -1062, doi:10.1130/G32230.1.

Georgiev, S., H. J. Stein, J. L. Hannah, B. Bingen, H. M. Weiss, and S. Piasecki (2011), Hot acidic Late Permian seas stifle life in record time, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 310(3-4), 389-400, doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2011.08.010.

Hautmann, M., M. J. Benton, and A. Tomašových (2008), Catastrophic ocean acidification at the Triassic-Jurassic boundary, Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie - Abhandlungen, 249(1), 119-127, doi:10.1127/0077-7749/2008/0249-0119.

Kiessling, W., and C. Simpson (2011), On the potential for ocean acidification to be a general cause of ancient reef crises, Global Change Biology, 17(1), 56-67, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02204.x.

Mayhew, P. J., G. B. Jenkins, and T. G. Benton (2008), A long-term association between global temperature and biodiversity, origination and extinction in the fossil record, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 275(1630), 47 -53, doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.1302.

Montenegro, A., P. Spence, K. J. Meissner, M. Eby, M. J. Melchin, and S. T. Johnston (2011), Climate simulations of the Permian-Triassic boundary: Ocean acidification and the extinction event, Pale ...


You are hilarious - you post a bibliography as if that has any validity. You are not teaching a college course on line, skippy, you are participating in an on line discussion. Should we read all of those works and then get back to you??

In the words of the great Bugs Bunny "What a maroon!"
 
2012-02-29 04:25:25 PM

chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: You have not proven a causation, all you have done is compare the numbers. You cannot just show some numbers and shout of GREENHOUSE GASES and expect to get away with it.

Significant increases in an energy input to the climate system will result in higher temperatures. This is fairly old science, and demonstrated quite well by 1981. Shindell, et al. covers this in more detail in a more recent publication.

The measurements cited above show the magnitude of the excess energy being dissipated into the air near the earth's surface. This is also called "warming", unless you're claiming that conservation of energy somehow does not apply.

If you have an issue with Shindell's work (or the other works summarized for you), feel free to share it. But putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "Nuh uh!" is the definition of denial, and you're looking especially guilty of it today.


sorry but you have proven nothing. There are many factors that drive temperature and you have not proven that the other factors had no bearing. You have not proven how much of the increase is due to greenhouse gases. You have not proven if the increase in temperature was driven by an increase in CO2 or vice versa.

Hell, you cannot even prove what the actual temperature was prior to 1850 because that is all based on proxy data and the margin of error for the proxy data is just about as large as the amount of change in the temperature since 1850.

You cannot explain why that the temperature drops in a decade that had the greatest amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere.

You have faith - you have a religion. Some people are absolutely convinced that bigfoot is real. They have no proof either.
 
2012-02-29 04:26:07 PM

xria: To have a changeable mind on something where there is plenty of evidence and it all points in one direction, and even someone really farking dim can follow the basic facts


Well there it is.
The rhetoricists have arranged the basic facts such that to not agree with them is tantamount to being called "really farking dim" or some such.

People will do anything and say anything and agree to anything that enhances their career standing, draws currency their way, and secures their professional positions.

Never argue with professional philosophers whose very material existence depends upon you being wrong and them being right; you will lose every time.

/Because they are IRREFUTABLE, like the pope, and just a zealous in their faith.
 
2012-02-29 04:31:50 PM
In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

If this HIGHLY QUALIFIED scientist is not convinced, why are YOU?
 
2012-02-29 04:34:46 PM

chuckufarlie: If you have an issue with Shindell's work


Or Joe Schmo's or Tommy Lasorda's work, for that matter. It hardly matters what anyone thinks of anyone's work, since professional opinion is, in the end, extremely political and subjective. You might as well be citing the Lives of the Saints to support this imaginary theory that this change is caused by humans, when all reality-based evidence points to natural cycles, including celestial and cosmic, as contributing factors. Combine that with the truth that Earth climate has swung in the past on scales most people cannot imagine and there's plenty of room for reasonable doubt to creep in and explode these carefully airtight arguments like the Hindenburg. You fail in the art of persuasion because the material facts fart in your general direction.

Never have so many zealots been recruited to steal so much wealth from their fellow creatures than at this point in human history.
 
2012-02-29 04:37:14 PM

chuckufarlie: GREENHOUSE GASES


Greenhouse gasses and hockey stick graphs, Ooga-booga!

/See-oh-two killed my father, prepare to die.
 
2012-02-29 04:39:51 PM
I'm sure that Peter Gleick can forge some documents in word to prevent this.
 
2012-02-29 04:44:28 PM

Wook: I mean after all, no one has anything to gain by cap and trade...wink wink.


I would like to find out what some university professor or guy working in a lab has to gain by cap and trade. The conspiracies cooked up by the right-wing are always so grandiose and awe-inspiring, but the end-game they claim the conspiracy is working toward is always so disappointingly small-minded. Why bother pushing toward a cap-and-trade system if you already control the world's governments, scientists, and media outlets? Couldn't you use that influence to, I don't know, wrangle some no-bid contracts or something? There are easier ways to turn a buck.

The one-world-government conspiracy theorists are at least thinking on the appropriate scale, but they tend to forget that in order to establish the conspiracy you basically need to have a one-world-government already.
 
2012-02-29 04:52:55 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: I would like to find out what some university professor or guy working in a lab has to gain by cap and trade.


How about a job?
It's similar to how salmon know where to go upstream to spawn. They sense the scent of the research grant and consulting money in the political atmosphere and gravitate toward it or toward others with access to it. It's all about proximity to the money. The better the data look, the more airtight the argument, the better the earnings and career security potential.
 
2012-02-29 05:02:51 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: How about a job?


Except a few climate scientists could make millions by exposing the supposed conspiracy for the oil companies. Far more lucrative then trying to squeeze money out of typically crappy grants, which will require a lot of accounting as to how you are spending your grant money, and generally won't leave much for your salary.

Why hasn't a single climate scientist done this? Perhaps because there is no conspiracy.

Here's another thing: If the world accepts that the climate scientists are right, their grant money pretty much goes away. Money would shift to engineers that have to come up with cleaner ways to produce energy, for example. In short, the people that are keeping the grant money flowing to the climate scientists are people like you.

The idea that this is all some grab for grant money and climate scientists are using that to buy up the world's supply of yachts is ridiculous.
 
2012-02-29 05:03:04 PM

chuckufarlie: Hell, you cannot even prove what the actual temperature was prior to 1850 because that is all based on proxy data and the margin of error for the proxy data is just about as large as the amount of change in the temperature since 1850.


Scroll up.

www.pnas.org

Uncertainties are the shaded regions. Reading the publication linked above should clarify.

chuckufarlie: There are many factors that drive temperature and you have not proven that the other factors had no bearing. You have not proven how much of the increase is due to greenhouse gases. You have not proven if the increase in temperature was driven by an increase in CO2 or vice versa.


Your inability to understand what was presented to you is not equivalent to it being incorrect. For example, the NASA work I referenced explicitly considers the other factors driving temperature, and gives their magnitude as a function of time. It quantifies the fraction of the energy imbalance due to greenhouse gases. It shows the mechanism by which greenhouse gases drive temperature.

chuckufarlie: You have not proven if the increase in temperature was driven by an increase in CO2 or vice versa.


By the way, this relationship can work in both directions, at least on a decadal time scale. (Mutual positive feedback.) Caillon explains this in a useful 2003 article from the journal Science.

chuckufarlie: You cannot explain why that the temperature drops in a decade that had the greatest amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere.


This graph is useful on so many levels.

i39.tinypic.com

chuckufarlie: In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

If this HIGHLY QUALIFIED scientist is not convinced, why are YOU?


He won his Nobel for work on superconducting solids. I fail to see what bearing this has on climate. There's a term for retired scientists who no longer do research but yell about fields outside their expertise, you know.

But let's say you consider a scientist's opinion to be a valid way to assess science. What does this chart show you?

wotsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com

(Data is from this paper, published in Eos.)

You are taking the opinion of one retired solid-state physicist as incontrovertible, but willing to ignore 97% of publishing scientists with relevant expertise. That says something about you.
 
2012-02-29 05:03:32 PM
So doing anything to fix what may be a huge problem is worse than just letting the corporate world go about it's business of raping and polluting the earth to make a buck? Because the scientists have the possibility of some sort of financial gain from this somehow? What about the corporations that are already making Billions to continue polluting our air and oceans? Why is it so bad to want a better world for future generations? I'm not even going to go into he bogus science the deniers use to make us think they know how the world works when most of their info comes from Corporate sponsored websites. Because I know I will just get a headache from banging my head up against the walls of bogus science and fear for the economy the deniers like to throw around.
 
2012-02-29 05:09:56 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: The better the data look, the more airtight the argument, the better the earnings and career security potential.


If you're trying to scare people, I don't think this is a good angle.

snarfyboy: Here's another thing: If the world accepts that the climate scientists are right, their grant money pretty much goes away. Money would shift to engineers that have to come up with cleaner ways to produce energy, for example. In short, the people that are keeping the grant money flowing to the climate scientists are people like you.


Exactly. If there really was a global conspiracy to permanently ensconce climate research, I doubt the publications would look like this. There's no serious debate on the big picture issues. Work has shifted to regional projections, nailing down magnitudes and mechanisms more exactly, and crafting technically-feasible solutions. There's plenty of debate, but it's more like "Group A says stabilization at 550 ppmv should be the goal. Group B says the worst-case estimates at 550 ppmv are too risky despite their low probabilities, and recommends stabilization at 500 ppmv."
 
2012-02-29 05:16:03 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: They sense the scent of the research grant


Everybody point and laugh at the person who doesn't understand funding.

HotIgneous Intruder: The better the data look, the more airtight the argument, the better the earnings and career security potential.


If you're interested in really squeezing every last bit of funding you can out of something and have no compunction against fraud, the best play to make is to claim that we're completely unsure of what's going on, and need to vastly increase funding to all possible facets of the issue in order to cover our bases, and to keep this up for as long as possible, never arriving at an answer.

The absolute stupidest thing to do is arrive swiftly at a cross-discipline consensus pointing largely at a single culprit with a relatively straightforward solution. The solar-climate folks should be doing anything but agreeing that it's largely GHGs driving the warming. The ocean-climate folks should be doing anything but agreeing that it's largely GHGs driving the warming. The orbital mechanics folks should be doing anything but agreeing that it's largely GHGs driving the warming. Etc.

Yet that's exactly what has happened.

Agreeing on the problem and recognizing the solution in a matter of decades- well before the serious aspects of the problem had a chance to manifest- is exactly the wrong way to go about securing that sweet, sweet gubmint loot, if you're an international cabal of greedy commie scientist types.

You're a conspiracy theorist, and not a particularly bright or original one.

But then again, you seem to think that we don't know what causes glaciation cycles, and that anyone who has the gall to provide evidence of something is guilty of delusions of religious infallibility, so...
 
2012-02-29 05:26:06 PM

chimp_ninja: HotIgneous Intruder: The better the data look, the more airtight the argument, the better the earnings and career security potential.

If you're trying to scare people, I don't think this is a good angle.

snarfyboy: Here's another thing: If the world accepts that the climate scientists are right, their grant money pretty much goes away. Money would shift to engineers that have to come up with cleaner ways to produce energy, for example. In short, the people that are keeping the grant money flowing to the climate scientists are people like you.

Exactly. If there really was a global conspiracy to permanently ensconce climate research, I doubt the publications would look like this. There's no serious debate on the big picture issues. Work has shifted to regional projections, nailing down magnitudes and mechanisms more exactly, and crafting technically-feasible solutions. There's plenty of debate, but it's more like "Group A says stabilization at 550 ppmv should be the goal. Group B says the worst-case estimates at 550 ppmv are too risky despite their low probabilities, and recommends stabilization at 500 ppmv."


I love reading these articles because they actually link to sources and show how many scientists are in agreement about the issue. Unlike most of the deniers links with nothing more than in most cases one non-climatology scientists opinion.The scientists who claim there is no problem seem to be a very small but even more vocal group. But if you listen to the deniers it's that huge majority that are the ones gonna make huge amounts of money by claiming there is a problem. Not the few really vocal deniers.
 
2012-02-29 05:29:12 PM
In 1994, Nature magazine published a study of mine in which we estimated the
underlying rate at which the world was warming by removing the impacts of volcanoes and El Niños (Christy and McNider 1994.) This was important to do because in that particular 15-year period (1979-1993) there were some significant volcanic cooling episodes and strong El Niños that convoluted what would have been the underlying trend. The result of that study indicated the underlying trend for 1979-1993 was +0.09 °C/decade which at the time was one third the rate of warming that should have been occurring according to estimates by climate model simulations.

I have repeated that study for this testimony with data which now cover 32 years as shown above (1979-2010.) In an interesting result, the new underlying trend remains a modest +0.09 C/decade for the global tropospheric temperature, which is still only one third of the average rate the climate models project for the current era (+0.26°C/decade.)

There is no evidence of acceleration in this trend. This evidence strongly suggests that climate model simulations on average are simply too sensitive to increasing greenhouse gases and thus overstate the warming of the climate system
(see below under climate sensitivity.) This is an example of a model simulation (i.e. hypothesis) which can provide a "prediction" to test: that "prediction" being the rate at which the Earth's atmosphere should be warming in the current era. In this case, the model-average rate of warming fails the test.

John R. Christy, PhD
The University of Alabama in Huntsville
House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Power
8 March 2011,
 
2012-02-29 05:31:24 PM

chuckufarlie: In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

If this HIGHLY QUALIFIED scientist is not convinced, why are YOU?



Because he has a degree in mechanical engineering not climate science. Who as was stated above got his Nobel prize in "experimental discoveries regarding tunnelling phenomena in ... superconductors". Not climate science.
 
2012-02-29 05:37:15 PM

lokisbong: Because he has a degree in mechanical engineering not climate science. Who as was stated above got his Nobel prize in "experimental discoveries regarding tunnelling phenomena in ... superconductors". Not climate science.


Right. It's not like extremely intelligent professionals from other fields can see through the lies and the liars who tell them, no-sir-ee.

/Hint: They see the lies at face value and aren't afraid to say the emperor is naked because they're not climate scientists and don't have a personal stake in the mass delusion.
 
2012-02-29 05:39:38 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Right. It's not like extremely intelligent professionals from other fields can see through the lies and the liars who tell them, no-sir-ee.

/Hint: They see the lies at face value and aren't afraid to say the emperor is naked because they're not climate scientists and don't have a personal stake in the mass delusion.


Then he should have no problem presenting the evidence that shows they are lying.

Oh wait, he hasn't?

I wonder why?
 
2012-02-29 05:41:06 PM

lokisbong: I love reading these articles because they actually link to sources and show how many scientists are in agreement about the issue. Unlike most of the deniers links with nothing more than in most cases one non-climatology scientists opinion.


Refs:
Benton, M. J., and R. J. Twitchett (2003), How to kill (almost) all life: the end-Permian extinction event, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18(7), 358-365, doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00093-4.

Brennecka, G. A., A. D. Herrmann, T. J. Algeo, and A. D. Anbar (2011), Rapid expansion of oceanic anoxia immediately before the end-Permian mass extinction, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(43), 17631 -17634, doi:10.1073/pnas.1106039108.

Clapham, M. E., and J. L. Payne (2011), Acidification, anoxia, and extinction: A multiple logistic regression analysis of extinction selectivity during the Middle and Late Permian, Geology, 39(11), 1059 -1062, doi:10.1130/G32230.1.

Georgiev, S., H. J. Stein, J. L. Hannah, B. Bingen, H. M. Weiss, and S. Piasecki (2011), Hot acidic Late Permian seas stifle life in record time, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 310(3-4), 389-400, doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2011.08.010.

Hautmann, M., M. J. Benton, and A. Tomašových (2008), Catastrophic ocean acidification at the Triassic-Jurassic boundary, Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie - Abhandlungen, 249(1), 119-127, doi:10.1127/0077-7749/2008/0249-0119.

Kiessling, W., and C. Simpson (2011), On the potential for ocean acidification to be a general cause of ancient reef crises, Global Change Biology, 17(1), 56-67, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02204.x.

Mayhew, P. J., G. B. Jenkins, and T. G. Benton (2008), A long-term association between global temperature and biodiversity, origination and extinction in the fossil record, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 275(1630), 47 -53, doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.1302.

Montenegro, A., P. Spence, K. J. Meissner, M. Eby, M. J. Melchin, and S. T. Johnston (2011), Climate simulations of the Permian-Triassic boundary: Ocean acidification and the extinction event, Pale ...
(new window)
 
2012-02-29 05:43:53 PM

snarfyboy: Then he should have no problem presenting the evidence that shows they are lying.

Oh wait, he hasn't?

I wonder why?


Proof that something is not so?
Are you a witch? Please prove you're not.

/Rhetorical STRATAGEM! The old "prove the negative" ploy, a favorite among zealots throughout history.
 
2012-02-29 05:44:12 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Right. It's not like extremely intelligent professionals from other fields can see through the lies and the liars who tell them, no-sir-ee. /Hint: They see the lies at face value and aren't afraid to say the emperor is naked because they're not climate scientists and don't have a personal stake in the mass delusion.


By this logic, I look forward to you asking Tawakkol Karman her opinion. She's a very bright woman with a Nobel on her shelf, and even less stake in climate science than Giaever.

You're actually arguing that less professional expertise makes you more of an expert on a topic. Look how dumb you are.
 
2012-02-29 05:44:29 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: personal stake in the mass delusion


So what is your personal stake in the denial of this " mass delusion"? How much do you get paid to spew your ideas and opinions? I bet it is at least as much as the vast majority of scientist who say there is actually a problem. My only stake in this debate is a less polluted world and maybe not worrying about things like the fish in the oceans not dying off from over acidification of their habitats.
 
2012-02-29 05:46:00 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: snarfyboy: Then he should have no problem presenting the evidence that shows they are lying.

Oh wait, he hasn't?

I wonder why?

Proof that something is not so? Are you a witch? Please prove you're not. /Rhetorical STRATAGEM! The old "prove the negative" ploy, a favorite among zealots throughout history.


He's asserting that thousands of scientists are lying. Maybe he shouldn't say these things if he can't prove them.
 
2012-02-29 05:48:12 PM

Jon Snow: The absolute stupidest thing to do is arrive swiftly at a cross-discipline consensus pointing largely at a single culprit with a relatively straightforward solution. The solar-climate folks should be doing anything but agreeing that it's largely GHGs driving the warming. The ocean-climate folks should be doing anything but agreeing that it's largely GHGs driving the warming. The orbital mechanics folks should be doing anything but agreeing that it's largely GHGs driving the warming. Etc.

Yet that's exactly what has happened.

Agreeing on the problem and recognizing the solution in a matter of decades- well before the serious aspects of the problem had a chance to manifest- is exactly the wrong way to go about securing that sweet, sweet gubmint loot, if you're an international cabal of greedy commie scientist types.


Well, there is another way...quickly come to a "consensus" that there is no problem. That'll get you cash from those corporations who would be hurt most by environmental regulations (Big Oil, etc.)
 
2012-02-29 05:49:57 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Proof that something is not so?
Are you a witch? Please prove you're not.

/Rhetorical STRATAGEM! The old "prove the negative" ploy, a favorite among zealots throughout history.


So... you're saying that their lying isn't so? You've just disproved your own argument silly.

If they are falsifying information, it should be easy for him to prove.

See, here's the argument you are giving so much validity:

Climate Scientists: "The earth is warming from CO2. Here's a butt-load of evidence we have on it."

Ivar Giaever: "Nuh-uh!"


In the real world, this is not science, it's playground antics.
 
2012-02-29 05:51:01 PM

lokisbong: HotIgneous Intruder: personal stake in the mass delusion

So what is your personal stake in the denial of this " mass delusion"? How much do you get paid to spew your ideas and opinions? I bet it is at least as much as the vast majority of scientist who say there is actually a problem. My only stake in this debate is a less polluted world and maybe not worrying about things like the fish in the oceans not dying off from over acidification of their habitats.


No stake at all in this, except to put my country on a more sensible, intelligent, sustainable path and fight the AGW liars until there's no breath left in my body or I get tired of doing so. The logical end to admitting AGW is real is nothing less than a disaster of social engineering. Go engineer your own family and planet and leave us alone. The Earth recycles and doesn't need your help, thanks!

Vast majorities of any given group have proved again and again that their agreement is bad news for humans and other living things.

You can stop burning fossil fuels and using products that are produced, grown, processed, or transported using fossil fuels any time you want. Let the rest of us know how that works out for you!
 
2012-02-29 05:54:59 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: lokisbong: I love reading these articles because they actually link to sources and show how many scientists are in agreement about the issue. Unlike most of the deniers links with nothing more than in most cases one non-climatology scientists opinion.

Refs: To a page titled Internet Medieval Sourcebook Saints' Lives from Fordham University the Jesuit University of New York
What the Fark does that have to do with the debate here? wtf kind of retarded troll trick is that?
Way to go troll! you just made youself look even stupider than your previous debate had.

 
2012-02-29 05:56:30 PM

lokisbong: HotIgneous Intruder: lokisbong: I love reading these articles because they actually link to sources and show how many scientists are in agreement about the issue. Unlike most of the deniers links with nothing more than in most cases one non-climatology scientists opinion.


Refs: To a page titled Internet Medieval Sourcebook Saints' Lives from Fordham University the Jesuit University of New York
What the Fark does that have to do with the debate here? wtf kind of retarded troll trick is that?
Way to go troll! you just made youself look even stupider than your previous debate had.
/ Oops messed up the the html stuff.
 
2012-02-29 06:00:32 PM

snarfyboy: If they are falsifying information, it should be easy for him to prove.


Nobody, including him, said the evidence is false. It's the absence of evidence that exposes the lie. You can't prove a negative.

But there's plenty of paleoclimatological and geological evidence that these changes have happened in the past without human causation. Who was producing the CO2 to cause the warming 13,000 years ago, which caused the Laurentide glaciers to melt and the sea levels to rise 300 feet and form the Chesapeake Bay and close the land bridge across the Bering Strait? And that's just the most recent interglacial warming period, which we're in the middle of right NOW.

It's easy to call bullshiat on these people when you study a little Earth history.
Using 150 years of weather data to draw such conclusions is like using the past 36 days to try to make sense of the last 15,000 years of weather: You cannot do it and claim to be a legitimate rational scientist. But these folks are part of a cult, so zealotry and fervor are their balliwick. See also: The inquisition.

Go ahead and disagree with them and see what they say and how they treat you.
Just go ahead. Do it as a thought exercise, even if you disagree with me.
 
2012-02-29 06:03:02 PM

lokisbong: What the Fark does that have to do with the debate here?


Sense of irony much?
[Punchline for the Aspergery set: The AGW crowd are like priests and inquisitors who violently attack anyone who disagrees with them. The parallels are really striking and amazing. Check it out.]

/Paging Herr Doktor Asperger...
 
2012-02-29 06:03:27 PM

chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: Hell, you cannot even prove what the actual temperature was prior to 1850 because that is all based on proxy data and the margin of error for the proxy data is just about as large as the amount of change in the temperature since 1850.

Scroll up.

[www.pnas.org image 424x440]

Uncertainties are the shaded regions. Reading the publication linked above should clarify.

chuckufarlie: There are many factors that drive temperature and you have not proven that the other factors had no bearing. You have not proven how much of the increase is due to greenhouse gases. You have not proven if the increase in temperature was driven by an increase in CO2 or vice versa.

Your inability to understand what was presented to you is not equivalent to it being incorrect. For example, the NASA work I referenced explicitly considers the other factors driving temperature, and gives their magnitude as a function of time. It quantifies the fraction of the energy imbalance due to greenhouse gases. It shows the mechanism by which greenhouse gases drive temperature.

chuckufarlie: You have not proven if the increase in temperature was driven by an increase in CO2 or vice versa.

By the way, this relationship can work in both directions, at least on a decadal time scale. (Mutual positive feedback.) Caillon explains this in a useful 2003 article from the journal Science.

chuckufarlie: You cannot explain why that the temperature drops in a decade that had the greatest amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere.

This graph is useful on so many levels.

[i39.tinypic.com image 500x341]

chuckufarlie: In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, ...


The fact that you believe that I am ignoring anybody tells me a lot about you. To be honest, it reinforces my opinion of you.

As for the credibility of the scientist mentioned above, whether he is retired or not does not mean a damned thing. I do realize that you feel it necessary to demean and belittle any scientist who disagrees with you. That just displays your remarkable lack of maturity.
 
2012-02-29 06:04:31 PM

nicksteel: I have repeated that study for this testimony with data which now cover 32 years as shown above (1979-2010.) In an interesting result, the new underlying trend remains a modest +0.09 C/decade for the global tropospheric temperature, which is still only one third of the average rate the climate models project for the current era (+0.26°C/decade.)


As an FYI to anyone who doesn't have the time to try to make sense of nicksteel's copypasta, this refers to John Christy's Congressional testimony, wherein he thought he demonstrated that the warming trend we've experienced is less than what it should be by just removing the the tropical SST trend from the temp data, under the ostensible intent of trying to filter out the impact of ENSO.

If this strikes you as odd, it should. ENSO contributes essentially nothing to multidecadal trends (though it has a large impact on interannual variability), and removing the trend from SSTs is necessarily removing the anthropogenic warming contribution within it from the larger data set.

In other words, in order to justify his belief that global warming wasn't happening as much as we think it should, Christy just ignores part of the warming completely.

A more appropriate method of removing the influence of ENSO in order to look at the anthropogenic trend would have followed Thompson et al. 2009 or done something like Foster and Rahmstorf 2011, but that wouldn't give the answer Christy sought out to prove.

i44.tinypic.com
 
2012-02-29 06:09:55 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: lokisbong: What the Fark does that have to do with the debate here?

Sense of irony much?
[Punchline for the Aspergery set: The AGW crowd are like priests and inquisitors who violently attack anyone who disagrees with them. The parallels are really striking and amazing. Check it out.]

/Paging Herr Doktor Asperger...


What the f#ck are you talking about? Trolling us with a link that says one thing and goes to a religious college that has nothing to do with the debate other than you assertion that the believers are part of some kind of AGW church proves nothing other than you are a douchebag troll! And bringing up Aspergers is yet more immature playground antics. Especially since you know nothing about me. Do you often feel persecuted or picked on? If you would act sane that might not be such an issue.
 
2012-02-29 06:12:39 PM

lokisbong: has nothing to do with the debate other than you assertion


It makes a perfectly valid point about how the fervor of the AGW advocates is and has become a religious cause, driven my money and access to money.
YMMV, but if you don't "get it," then you don't "get it" and it went WHOOSH, over your head.
 
2012-02-29 06:13:53 PM

lokisbong: If you would act sane that might not be such an issue.


Right. Call your opponent insane.
That's an old rhetorical trick as well.
Just give up. You're wrong and you're defending liars.
 
2012-02-29 06:17:44 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: snarfyboy: If they are falsifying information, it should be easy for him to prove.

Nobody, including him, said the evidence is false. It's the absence of evidence that exposes the lie. You can't prove a negative.

But there's plenty of paleoclimatological and geological evidence that these changes have happened in the past without human causation. Who was producing the CO2 to cause the warming 13,000 years ago, which caused the Laurentide glaciers to melt and the sea levels to rise 300 feet and form the Chesapeake Bay and close the land bridge across the Bering Strait? And that's just the most recent interglacial warming period, which we're in the middle of right NOW.

It's easy to call bullshiat on these people when you study a little Earth history.
Using 150 years of weather data to draw such conclusions is like using the past 36 days to try to make sense of the last 15,000 years of weather: You cannot do it and claim to be a legitimate rational scientist. But these folks are part of a cult, so zealotry and fervor are their balliwick. See also: The inquisition.

Go ahead and disagree with them and see what they say and how they treat you.
Just go ahead. Do it as a thought exercise, even if you disagree with me.



There's a huge flaw in your reasoning here. That other processes that affect temperature exist does not somehow exclude the existence of anthropogenic climate change. There are quite a few processes that work concurrently at different scales that can affect temperature, and they are not somehow mutually exclusive. You've had it explained to you repeatedly that cycles of Pleistocene glaciation are due to orbital forcing. How does the mere existence of this process somehow exclude changes due to anthropogenic climate change?

I'm sure you've had this analogy provided to you before, but what you're arguing is akin to arguing that arson can't exist because natural forest fires have existed in the past.
 
2012-02-29 06:18:27 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: But there's plenty of paleoclimatological and geological evidence that these changes have happened in the past without human causation. Who was producing the CO2 to cause the warming 13,000 years ago, which caused the Laurentide glaciers to melt and the sea levels to rise 300 feet and form the Chesapeake Bay and close the land bridge across the Bering Strait? And that's just the most recent interglacial warming period, which we're in the middle of right NOW.


This is why people treat you with disdain.

When you first made this claim, I happily provided you with the answer, and discussed it with you in a polite fashion. You thanked for me the information. Twice.

Months later, you're pretending that no one has explained this to you.

What is wrong with you?

Glaciation cycling is paced by changes in orbital forcing, and CO2 acts as a feedback for that initial change. The paleo record and EMICs can explicitly demonstrate this.

This isn't terribly difficult to understand.
 
2012-02-29 06:20:01 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: But there's plenty of paleoclimatological and geological evidence that these changes have happened in the past without human causation. Who was producing the CO2 to cause the warming 13,000 years ago, which caused the Laurentide glaciers to melt and the sea levels to rise 300 feet and form the Chesapeake Bay and close the land bridge across the Bering Strait? And that's just the most recent interglacial warming period, which we're in the middle of right NOW.


This is why people treat you with disdain.

When you first made this claim, I happily provided you with the answer, and discussed it with you in a polite fashion. You thanked for me the information. Twice.

Months later, you're pretending that no one has explained this to you.

What is wrong with you?

Glaciation cycling is paced by changes in orbital forcing, and CO2 acts as a feedback for that initial change. The paleo record and EMICs can explicitly demonstrate this.

This isn't terribly difficult to understand.
 
2012-02-29 06:20:33 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Nobody, including him, said the evidence is false. It's the absence of evidence that exposes the lie.


First, you are contradicting your self. "The evidence is false" .. "the absence of evidence". Which is it. I detect flailing.

Second, you did in fact claim that they are lying:

HotIgneous Intruder: Right. It's not like extremely intelligent professionals from other fields can see through the lies and the liars who tell them, no-sir-ee.


This also implies that he is "seeing through their lies"

HotIgneous Intruder: You can't prove a negative.


This is not a philosophical argument about the existence of God. That tactic doesn't work in science. The earth is either warming, it is staying the relatively the same, or it is cooling. None of these are a "negative position". If he does not believe the evidence that shows that the earth is warming, then he needs to provide evidence that it is actually staying the same, or cooling. Simple as that. If he has evidence that they are providing false evidence, that can be proven too, by either showing documents demonstrating the intentional falsifying of evidence, or by presenting the "actual evidence".

If he agrees that it is warming, then there is something causing it to warm. Climate scientists have evidence that it is primarily a rise in CO2. If he has evidence that it is something else, he can provide it. The Earth simply doesn't warm up by itself for no reason. Or do you also have issues with the laws of thermodynamics?
 
2012-02-29 06:24:16 PM

Jon Snow: Months later, you're pretending that no one has explained this to you.

What is wrong with you?


He probably thinks I wasn't there for that exchange and that he can use it on me. (I was)
 
2012-02-29 06:24:28 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: lokisbong: If you would act sane that might not be such an issue.

Right. Call your opponent insane.
That's an old rhetorical trick as well.
Just give up. You're wrong and you're defending liars.


You assert I have aspergers and Don't expect me to have a retort? I simply replied to your statements in a way normal people might understand. Feeling persecuted for your beliefs is a sign of insanity when nobody is actually persecuting you. I can see logic (new window) and reason (new window) are not in your vocabulary.
 
Displayed 50 of 330 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report