British TV recently put out a program showing the fallacies of Al Gore's documentary. It pointed out that increased CO2 production is a result of global warming and not the cause. The greatest CO2 producer on earth is the ocean. During periods of solar activity, the ocean puts out large volumes of CO2. Moreover, if CO2 was the cause, increased levels should lead global warming periods. However, the ice core record shows just the opposite. The culprit; Our very own sun. The program is more than one hour long, but is worth watching: The web site is : www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxttv2C6B8pU. If that doesn't work, I'm sure a google search will turn it up.
Global Warming Hysteria
by metatron 262 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Abaddon
Qcmbr
Abaddon - why do you suggest that just because people don't toil through your extremely long posts and post a point by point argument that somehow that discounts them or their thoughts?
Maybe my comprehension of 'discussion' is different to you. If someone is discussing something with another and chooses not to reply or mumbles into their sleeve, their thoughts are not so much discounted as unknown. If they broadly summarise ("well, despite all that you're wrong"), but refuse to go into the details of WHY they think the other is wrong, then again their exact thoughts are not so much discounted as unknown.
In both instances it is the choice of the person restricting their responses to not engage fully in the debate. This is fine, but sometimes they want their contribution to be taken as being of equivalent worth to someone who is more engaged in the discussion, without any of the effort. This is not fine.Obviously you can't be arrogant enough to think that only you have read the evidence and only you have the correct interpretation but you sound as though you are.
Maybe I wouldn't sound like I sound if some people did not regulary show they really, and I do mean really have no idea about the facts involved in a topic. Last week on another AGW thread some posters seemed to have no idea why CO2 producing fuels derived from crops that are planted and grow (absorbing CO2) and are then used (releasing CO2) are better than fossil fuels (where the CO2 being released is not part of a cycle where there is no net increase in CO2 levels). Despite this, such people they were sure they were right about AGW being bullshit and thousands of experts are wrong. And I'm arrogant? Yeah...
On other topics people will claim (for example) that evolution is impossible as it involves randomness; again this displays a profound misunderstanding of what the process of evolution is. Despite this, such people they are sure they were right about Evolution being bullshit and thousands of experts are wrong. And I'm arrogant? Yeah...
I also KNOW many of the counter arguments about subjects I like discussing, and know both sides of the argument (I assure you I'd be one hell of a Creationist, in fact, I was) Prehaps unfairly I have a sense of enuui when I have the same old tired points raised in defense of an opinion, points which I know a little research by the person using them would have rendered redundant.
Your research and wisdom is constantly filtered through your disdain and ends up confusing your message - when I read your posts I can't work out whether you actually care about the points you make or whether you just want to be nasty to people who don't agree.
When I have a discussion with someone who ignores they have insufficient knowledge of a subject to challenge the consensus of scientific opinion, and who shows this by what they say and how they say it, and yet they are unwilling to conceed that the value of their opinion is altered by their lack of knowledge or sometimes to even accept documented facts that show their opinion is demonstrably wrong, I am bothered by the bullshit, arrogance and complacence displayed. Bad me.
If you care about your points it would be welcome to deliver them with grace and respect, if you just want to play biggest bully in the playground then how can you expect to be taken seriously? If every time you talk to someone you end each sentence with a slap to the face you can't expect people who disagree with you to stay and take abuse - I think you mistake your supposed zeal for the truth as an excuse for vitriol. You could be much more persuasive and helpful if you stop typing after you make your point and before you write the slam.
Sometimes you are right. Sometimes by saying this you ignore that it is the person on the other side of the argument who is showing misplaced confidence. I suppose human nature means very few people like this being pointed out, but please show me where I have falsely said someone is showing their lack of knowledge about a subject. As for grace and respect, the point I made earlier stands; how can someone using 'facts' a, b and c as reasons for an opinion credibly ignore these facts being refuted without a response? It shows no respect to the person they are discussing an issue with, and no respect to themsleves either, as they are carrying on with an opinion whose justification has been questioned, which we ALL know (not you maybe as you never were) as xJW's is not a good thing.
1/ The sun is not stable in its output of material, the study of sunspots (as an indicator of sun activity) correlates very closely with temperature fluctuations.
Yes, but this doesn't disprove AGW as the sun's forcings are included and at best come up 65% short of the required level to explain what is happening. See beack up the thread or I'll supply a link.
2/ CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas that doesn't seem to have the impact of water vapour on global temperature.
This is a very cunningly presented red herring by the anti-AGW lobby. Discussion about why we see climate change revolves around those forcings which are changing as logically a forcing that isn't changing can't produce change. Whilst water vapour is undeniably (no one denies it in the AGW lobby) the largest greenhouse 'gas', it isn't changing. Thus water vapour's larger overall role is irrelevent as it is static.
3/ CO2 concentrations seem to match temperature change with a considerable time lag (measured n hundresd of years)rather than as a precursor. Short term temperature fluctuations(over the course of tens of years) are very volatile which argue that other things bear much greater influence on temperature than the gradual increase in CO2 levels. If CO2 was more influential it would have a dampening effect on volatility (just as living by the sea reduces temperature fluctuations in the micro climate.)
Whether CO2 lag does invaldates AGW is disputed; http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13. Please let me know what you disagree with in this article.
4/ Temperature change has only been very accurately mapped in the last 150 years, before that we have to rely on more abstract methods such as ice core samples. With this small sample of data we extrapolate far too much IMO - this earth has been through several cycles and is due for another ice age on the geological clock - that means that far more influential forces than greenhouse gases are moving conditions towards an overall cooling. When the earth gets hotter than it is now (and it has been so we are told) then something exerts a cooling effect that reverses the trend. Our ability to affect short term global temperatures by minute additions of a minor greenhouse gas is somewhat implausible.
Please define 'small sample' and tell me what would for you represent a large enough sample for a reliable result. I answer you this way as I feel knowing the extent of the statistical database supporting the argument you're opposing would be illuminating for you, and setting a standard of what WOULD be good enough would stop 'standard creep'. It's a bit like asking someone 'what would prove evolution to you'. I might not be able to prove something to you, but if you define your standards required for certainty I can see whether any evidence would be sufficient.
5/ When temperature change is discussed it is almost exclusively discussed in terms of how bad things will get (malaria will spread, storms will increase, cities will sink, food will get scarcer etc..) This is mythmaking the very thing that religion gets a bum rap for. In times of global change there are winners and losers yet it is portrayed as though all will suffer. If the world was getting cooler then would the argument swing round that we'd all be better off, more land would be available for building or more crops would be available? Research grants don't follow optimistic news.
I agree sometimes the presentation of data is sensationalised. This is typically done on both sides of the debate, but if you dig into reputable and well-supported assesments of impacts (see IPCC v4) you will notice a lack of sensational claims. It is also irrelevent to whether AGW is true or not.
6/ The short term effects of pretending we can keep the global temperature stable despite all the geological, atmospheric and solar effects will reduce the will to solve far more realistic and desirable aims - the extention of modern development and living standards to those sorely in need. Why spend billions on trying to stop ocean levels rising millimeters like some modern day Canute when rather we could educate and develop the threatened peoples so that if catastrophe arrives they have the resources to save themselves?
No one of any credible reputation would pretend 'we can keep the global temperature stable' other than by controlling AGW. If we control AGW we can sit back and enjoy the slow, gradual and unavoidable climate change due to solar, orbital and other natural forcings; it's not like there is an alternative. If you look at IPCCv4 you will see that a variety of scenarios as regards the spread of development are made. Duplicating the route 'we' in the West took is not neccesarily the best model for future development. China is already suffering extreme problems with pollution in general in some areas and is now seeking to avoid the same mistakes we made. If AGW is as factual as contended, the developing world is part of the solution. Recall ALL UK emissions = 2 years of growth in India and China. Fortunately they are smart and negotiate well and will not let themselves be consigned to a developmental slow lane.
7/ The real problem of our human impact upon the world is our rape of its natural resources (in particular the animals and plants) and our lack of effort to live in harmony with our environment and each other. Throwing money at reducing carbon emissions seems to aim at the wrong target, we should stuff trying to twiddle with things we barely understand and try and apply the lessons we have learnt IMO.
What, like don't release pollutants (recall something can be a natural thing in nature but in too high a concentration can have damaging effects) willy-nilly without knowing their effects? Like use renewable resources with no possibility of cartels like OPEC? I like this, we agree on something.
As such I feel that the global hysteria that the media ferments regarding a minor temperature change in the next 50 years that is not only unproven (didn't global temperatures drop between 1940 and 1970?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global-blended-temp-pg.gif is a nice little graph. Put a trend line on it. To me it shows a clear rise that can be explained by AGW, with natural forcing causing fluctuations away from the clear trend that in no way invalidates AGW.
but stops us from focusing on improving our world for all life. Reducing fuel consumption is great if it brings greater health, wealth and happiness to people - it's a disaster if all it does is condemn the under developed countries populations to short , impoverished lives of toil but meet some made up target on a politicians desk.
Engendering a love of our planet is worthwhile and desirable, creating a sense of fear and helplessness regarding an invisible gas is not. I reject the expenditure of money used on such bizarre projects as carbon offsetting when people are starving - we pretend to save them from a flood in 50 years time while denying them the means to educate and feed themselves now.
All based on you assuming you are right, and you are now the one sensationalisng the issue, which I had gathered you objected to other people doing.
I think your time would be far beter spent objecting to the billions being spent on millitary expenditure. We have been conned into keeping millitary expenditure at Cold War levels, where we were prepared to fight a massive foe to the death in a new era where the 'enemy' can be fought far more cost-effectively for a lower cost... as long as you avoid invading countries on a pretext and having to install an Army of occupation which may have been avoided had the removal of Saddam been done slower, with the agreement and participation of other Arabic countries as well as clear unequivocal UN sanction.
To sum up I'm sure we are trying to solve the wrong thing, I think we are focusing on a non-existing problem (global temperature change is not a problem), we are demonising an element on the periodic table (one that boosts plant growth in increased concentrations),
Errr... CO2 isn't an element but I know what you mean...
we are confusing environmentalism and our need to care for our beautiful planet with global cycles and solar fluctuations and we are using science to scare people and force behaviour - to the potential detriment of those in dire need (by diverting funds and trying to reduce economic development which is currently driven by abundant fossil fuels).
All based on you assuming you are right.
I haven't cited reams of study or data simply because the data is available for all to read and make up their own mind - I just wish to sum up the conclusions I have so far come to (and I don't have a fixed position - for me the argument isn't over.)
Mmmmm... Qc, why do you think it's okay for YOU to argue this way and say 'the data is available for all to read and make up their own mind', yet expect others (including the majority of qualified sceintists, a fact which has not be rebutted by the anti-AGW crowd) to supply data? You wouldn't accept their arguments if I said (and it is true) 'the data is available for all to read and make up their own mind'. If you don't like supporting your arguments fine, just don't try to make it sound reasonable.
This last point aside thank you for a well considered post.
-
Qcmbr
Abaddon - since I took the liberty to critique you harshly it would be remiss of me not to publically point out that your response to my post was ... well astounding - I'm impressed because I was reading your response with some trepidation and by the end was reading with interest. I enjoyed what you said. Thank you.
I hope for all our sakes that global warming isn't caused by us nor that any of the dire predictions come true, I'm utterly gutted by our apparent powerlessness to stop pollution at a rate beyond our planets ability to clean up, I'm ashamed by how little political will exists to extend real aid and trade to developing countries and above all I agree that our thirst for war is a tragedy. The one thing however, that brings me hope is that collectively we have survived all this world or our own natures have thrown at us so far, science solved our global food crisis, science and dedicated health workers have cured many illnesses and science has made our lives easier and finally we have education on an unparalleled level now which seems the greatest hope for all. I think we'll make it. -
Abaddon
Frank
Frank Claim Three
"There has been no catastrophic warming recorded."
Abaddon Refutation
Straw man. Define 'catastrophic'. For ice cubes -0.01 degrees C to + 0.01 degrees C is pretty catastrophic.
Frank Rebutal (part)
OK, I can play that game, define overwhelming consensus!
Abaddon Response (part)
Easy; the opinion of the National Science Academies of the US, UK, Germany, France, Canada, Italy, Russia, Japan, China, India and Brazil seems a pretty good concensus.
The paper by Oreskes http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
The retraction by Dr. Peiser, who authored a paper widely cited by AGW cynics which said the research by Oreskes was wrong and only 30% of scientists held a pro AGW opinion; he now states; "an overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Peiser. Can you explain why so many anti-AGW websites cite the original Peiser paper and not his subsequent climb-down? I am curious.
Frank Rebutal (rest)
Catastrophic in reference to the recent past is probably a poor choice of words although it clearly means in keeping with the Myth being promulgated, namely "rising at a rapid unprecedented rate".
Abaddon Response (rest)
Your evasion aside, you seem to grant that the phrasing used ('catastrophic') was a 'poor choice'... maybe a misrepresentation? Or straw man? At risk of making a point of it, is it that hard to say 'golly, you have a point there, that is a very misleading way to phrase it'.
And temperature "rising at a rapid unprecedented rate" is not a myth. If it IS, then you will be able to show me figures that show temperature increases like (scale of and duration in which it occured) those on the following graph have occured before in absense of solar, volcanic, orbital or other natural forcing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
It's not happened in the past 2,000;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
... but hell, myths are EASY to disprove, so over to you.
So much so far for anti-AGW claims. The arguments made to support that 'AGW claims are myths' do NOT stand up to examination.
Frank Claim Four
MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
Abaddon Refutation
SixfNine has covered this very well.
Frank Rebutal (part)
Actually the the Mann et al graph used by IPCC shows a gradual decline in the global temperature for the past 900 years then the sudden increase.
I don't think 6of9 covered this at all. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/130204/2313220/post.ashx#2313220 provides a Red Herring if it is meant to deal with the 10 Myths presented by FOS.
The paper quoted is a fanciful list of supposed arguments against Mann's Hockey Stick Graph by the Website entitled REAL CLIMATE http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11
Nowhere does 6of9 give credit to the source used, but you do not point that out but you take great pains in sifting through my posts that are full of hyperlinks and point out items I may have overlooked listing the citation or giving credit. That is just the type of unscientific approach the community of doomsday sayers use in fomenting this hysteria. Birds of a feather!
Abaddon Response (part)
Oh purlease; this is pathetic. You carelessly ommit fair attributation of data and then rather than apologising you falsely claim another person also did it and ask me why I didn't check up on their attributations.
Frank, SixofNine DID include his source. It's the one I would have quoted (and in fact have elsewhere). Look at his post under 'Filed under'. Paleoclimate is a link.
You also show you've not bothered to even read it; it is not 'a fanciful list of supposed arguments against Mann's Hockey Stick Graph' but, rather, ones in favour of the graph BY Mann. And 'fanciful' is easy to type, howabout actaully responding to the points, or is that too much effort? You want the same value of opinion but don;t want to work for it? Ha...!
Frank Rebutal (part)
The truth is as the Myth above states that the historical proxy data of the Hockey Stick graph with its unconventional shell came for the last 100 years data proves nothing more than it's authors wanted it to prove.
Abaddon Response (part)
If you had read the material supplied by SixofNine or this http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121 you would realise that OTHER authors have found the same using different methodology, thus the above claim is unsupported by fact. The lay term for this is 'big fat lie'.
Frank Rebutal (part)
FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age.
Abaddon Response (part)
You seem to have missed this paragraph which shows LIA and other natural variations appear in reconstructions that also show recent rapid rises.
Some proxy-based reconstructions suggest greater variability than others. This greater variability may be attributable to different emphases in seasonal and spatial emphasis (see Jones and Mann, 2004; Rutherford et al, 2004; Cook et al, 2004). However, even for those reconstructions which suggest a colder "Little Ice Age" and greater variability in general in past centuries, such as that of Esper et al (2002), late 20th century hemispheric warmth is still found to be anomalous in the context of the reconstruction (see Cook et al, 2004).
Frank Rebutal (part)
Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
Abaddon Response (part)
The 40-70 drop was a NATURAL trend explained by NATURAL forcing. Current trends are NOT explainable by natural forcings. I fail to see why, if AGW is such a contrived argument, you have failed time and time again to show what forcings explain recent rapid rises. Is it the sun? The orbit? Come on Frank... show me the scintilating good science and alternative hypothesis for current trends. What... there isn't one? And despite having no alternative explanation you'll indulge in the repetition of misrepresentative and just all-out WRONG arguments? Why?
Frank Rebutal (part)
The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.
Abaddon Response (part)
If you had read the material supplied you would realise that other studies showing the current rapid trend authors have found the same using different methodology, thus the above claim is unsupported by fact.
Frank Rebutal (rest)
This Hockey Stick Graph is really quite miraculous as John Daly pointed out. In the 1990 IPCC report they used this commonly accepted temperature graph for the past 1000 years:
However with the Third assessment (TAR-2000) the IPCC adopted the new Mann graph Watchtower style without so much as an apology for misleading us all with the old graph above.
Abaddon Response (rest)
As all the data agrees that there is a recent rapid rise, and as this is what the hockey sticks shows, and as Mann HAS responded to criticism (despite you falsely claiming otherwise), I do not see any need for apologies for misleading data unless you feel like it, as the misleading data, clearly and demonsrably in these posts is coming from YOU. You claim Six plagerised when he cited his source, and then post a series of claims that any one who read the article cited by SixofNine would not have made, as some of the claims are demonstably falsified by the quoted article.
You are also STILL arguing about years old data and ignoring the latest data WHICH STILL SUPPORTS AGW. This so reminds me of Creationists using 'irreducable complexity' arguments that were refuted years ago (as they don't know they were refuted as they don't attempt to get an impartial view).
I'll do myth 3 another day.
-
Frank75
Frank
I am sorry you object to defending the arguments you advanced in favour of AGW cynicism.
Statements like this that attempt to characterise my position are transparent.
Frank: Articles have been written on Orbital Cycles and Ocean Currents as forcings for Global Warmings as well. Any of these separately or all together are more plausible causes than CO2 levels caused by man.
Unsupported claim, vague, undefined. You can do better than that; show me a peer-reviewed paper that supports this claim.
THAT is an alternative scenario? LOL. What you quoted is a different attribution of principle CAUSE, not a dispute over the immediate reality of human-caused climate change. The author of this holds;
The points I have raised, even the polar bear, all support my position as a skeptic. Everything that the AGW lobby, while being "far from unanimous" has to say or contribute to the HYSTERIA, can and has been challenged by reputable scientists using the same data.
Even the Real Climate website principle author Gavin Schmidt has been challenge on his CO2 AGW modeling by Jeffrey Glassman's paper on THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE. His paper provides the "supported claim" you asked for back here
There Glassman shows that the solubility of CO2 of earths oceans diminishes as water temperature rises. When he puts the Vostok ice core data on a graph the correlation is easily seen.
It has been shown in other research papers that the Ocean is a sink for CO2 and yet others see it as a contributor to Atmospheric CO2. The contention now is that the oceans do both, depending on their temperature.
Not stating anything in the absolute here, (this is Glassmans paper) insights like this prove that we still have a long way to go in determining exactly what processes are at work, and what should be done if anything. So as individuals we have a right and responsibility to remain skeptical until such time as a clearer perspective is gradually revealed.
Glassman concludes:
CARBON DIOXIDE SHOULD NO LONGER DRIVE PUBLIC POLICY The discovery that the Vostok CO2 record is an effect of the oceanic solubility pump has profound effects on the science and on public policy.
Over those 420,000 years, warm ocean water has regulated the concentration of CO2 by release of this gas into the atmosphere. Because there is no trace of build–up of CO2 from forest fires, volcanoes, or the oceans themselves, cold waters must be scrubbing CO2 out of the air. Since there is no difference between man-made and natural CO2, anthropogenic CO2 is sure to meet the same fate.
To the extent that the analyst’s Vostok temperature trace represents a global atmosphere temperature, so does the concentration of CO2. Thus, CO2 is a proxy for global temperature, and attempting to control global temperatures by regulating anthropogenic CO2 is unfounded, futile, and wasteful.
Glassmans observations on the GCM's (the fanciful Global Climate Models) being proffered by so called experts are a must read for anyone who is yet undecided about the AGW CO2 hysteria.
Frank said: What is disputed is the causality of the warming. One camp insists on dwelling on the human component. Do humans have an impact on the environment, YES. That is impossible to deny.
Does this impact or footprint play a role in the warming trend that we are observing? Possibly! So let's apply the scientific method to that hypothesis!
No "we" do not deny Global Warming, but merely contest that Global warming is caused by CO2 levels (at all, in part or let alone just those emitted by mankind) HERE
Rather than falsely characterising my position, you could provide some facts yourself about your position that AGW is a fact and the all important CO2 plays the dominant roll. If I am not allowed to use biased sources like FOS then you are not permited to use Real Climate! Deal?
Abaddon: Say someone says "I don't believe in x" and gives ten reasons why. Say those ten reasons for disbelief are shown to be erroneous. Logically it should make the person basing their disbelief reconsider their stance, if those reasons were the REAL reasons they didn't believe in something.
I never advanced the 10 myths as an absolute position of mine firstly, secondly nowhere have you proved those myths to be erroneous! You merely dismissed them as lies. However you feel that I am somehow required to do so.
You are in the sandbox playing army soldier with the other kids playing cops and robbers. Have you always had a hard time getting along with your peers? Relationships? Divorced by any chance?
How can you contend my belief when right from the start my position and others has clearly been one of a skeptic due to the hysteria? Such skepticism only being reinforced by the 10 myths authored by scientists as qualified if not more so than the "Real Climate Project" contributors most of whom are hardly even 30.
I am glad, however, that you finally are going to look at the fact, that unless you rebut my points, some of the reasons you have for doubting AGW are unfounded.
I think the above statement of yours is the best proof for disbelief in AGW. You see, if the universe revolves around you as you contend then the scientific models are completely wrong!
My not responding to your every comment is not a refusal to respond. I'll bet you were a Dub elder once with logic like that, if not well on your way to being one.
Likewise my failure to address your rebuttal does not make doubt of AGW unfounded, anymore than your refusal to comment on, say, Allegre's recent position change on AGW makes your reason for AGW belief unfounded.
And consensus?
The very person who you quote (who reanalyses the same data set as the oft-cited Oreskes) concludes "Undoubtedly, sceptical scientists are a small minority." Thank you for proving my point regarding consensus.
Peisers personal statement in an email aside, (which says nothing other than his opinion, an opinion that is nowhere found on his website) His paper that reviewed the many flaws of Oreskes paper dealt with the provably dishonest statements. You are the one who has made the argument about credibility either lending to or taking away from the positions being made. Rather than plucking his the statement above, you should see that his personal view (which is in no way backed up with reference or quantified) only bolsters his rebuttal of Oreskes paper. He still maintains that Oreskes drew conclusions and made outright claims from the 928 articles that are provably not there, in fact coming from thin air. Even though he admits a majority believe in human causality, he points out that there is still no consensus, in fact "consensus is far from unanimous".
Peiser:
Despite all claims to the contrary, there is a small community of sceptical researchers that remains extremely active. Hardly a week goes by without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory.
But as long as the possible impacts of global warming remain uncertain, the public is justified to keep an open mind. How decision-makers deal with these scientific uncertainties is another matter. But it is vital for the health and integrity of science that critical evaluation and scepticism are not scorned or curbed for political reasons.
Then we get on your merry go round over the Mann et al HS graph:
Abaddon Response
*sigh* I have clearly stated that Mann et. al.'s graph is acknowledged as being contentious. I clearly state I think there are forcings that explain the MWP and LIA. Steve McIntyre, who was one of the biggest critics of the HS graph says;
If the HS were wrong, 2xCO2 is still an issue.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=709
I am not defending Mann; I am defending AGW. you brought the hockey stick into the discussion.
Abaddon: I am beginning to see why BAtold me not to waste my time with you. At least this is public and people can read and inform themselves.
You had the nerve to go at me about 6of9's rebuttal of my posting of the FOS 10 myths, (actually you only pointed to his straw man of the HS graph being the linchpin for AGW) when you knew very well that the 10 myths were very laughably different than the ones put up by FOS. In fact those 10 strawman myths (if I may) do nothing to address the issues FOS has raised. At any rate I did refute his rebuttal
I am the one who should "sigh*. Where have you admitted the HS graph is contentious? That would be a good start, even for you.
How can you say you are not defending this graph when it is part of the IPCC report? In 2000 the report postured a 66% certitude, then replaced an accepted temperature model of the past 1000 years with the Mann et al HS graph.
You cannot argue that my use of a paper or citing an source requires that I accept everything an author of a paper states, or even what an author has done or said in the past, and then exempt yourself!
Abaddon: Until you 'antis' come up with more credible references ... I'll not hold my breath. Although I would enjoy a decent debate about the scientific claims made on either side I doubt any of you will oblige me. HERE
Frank75: What pisses me off is how those who dispute Al Gores very profitable I might add, docufiction are called names like "Global Warming deniers". As if they are denying the holocaust! The truth is it is not as cut and dried as that at all. The voices in the back, and many learned and respected voices I might add are not denying that the earth is and has been warming for millennia, because that is undeniable from the scientific data. What they are doing is asking for scientific proof that greenhouse gases are to blame and that the principle cause is CO2 from humanities footprint which is actually very small. HERE
I am not "Anti GW", I am opposed to the hysteria and religious hysteria at that. All I have said from the beginning is it is not as cut and dried as the IPCC report and persons such as yourself claim it to be.
In the POST where you lay out your viewpoint and include the weblink to "Real Climate" to a page disputing the relevancy of pointing to the ICE AGE scare of the 70's is a case in point. Real Climate project has a list of pro AGW agenda scientists including Mann who is listed number two on the contributors page with Gavin Schmidt as number one. These two have been primarily attacking the scientists who disagree with their conclusions.
For you to definitively herald this "project" (which seems to be the source of your few references) as the supreme opinion is your choice, but to cast aspersions to the Big Oil agenda which is patently false at the likes of FOS or the Frazer Institute is hypocritical.
As one of the principle IPCC GCM modelers Gavin Schmidt has openly admitted that he has left out input data from alternate forcings such as cosmic rays. http://www.rawls.org/Global_warming_omitted_var.htm
NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt recently justified leaving cosmic radiation out of NASA models on the grounds that the effect is not needed. “[T]here is no obvious need for ‘new’ or unknown physics to explain what [is] going on,” he explains to science fiction writer Jerry Pournelle (at Pournelle’s website). Earth to NASA: it isn’t enough to tweak your model to fit the historical temperature record. You have to fit ALL the data, including the evidence that cosmic radiation produces cloud cover. If you leave out a real effect, your model is WRONG. Warming that ought to be attributed to solar activity gets misattributed to greenhouse gases, and whatever predictions you make on the basis of those exaggerated warming effects are lies.
These lies are intentional. The goal is to have a grounds for demanding the curtailment of human activity. That is the founding stone of environmental religion. Environmentalists see man as displacing nature, and in this contest, they side with nature. As the self-appointed representatives of a natural world that cannot speak for itself, they see all human impacts as by definition bad, and the interdiction of human impacts as necessarily good, regardless of whether the pretext for curtailing human activity is honest or dishonest.
Gavin Schmidt’s rejection of proper scientific principles is just one example.
Not everyone shares your affection for the science of the authors of your Real Climate Project
Frank75
-
5go
100 post later and I still say wait for the dust storm. They'll change there mind when reality hits hits them and cover them in dirt again !
Or maybe we run out of oil which will make this whole argument mute anyway ! funny how the solution the both problem of global warming and energy shortages is the same. We can do it know or be forced to later people. Later never turn out well. It would suck if europe what am I saying they already beat us, ok asia oops they did to, china nope they are as well. I guess we'll be following them then. So much for leading the world.
-
Abaddon
Frank
Statements like this that attempt to characterise my position are transparent.
You characterise your own position very well Frank.
The points I have raised, even the polar bear, all support my position as a skeptic. Everything that the AGW lobby, while being "far from unanimous" has to say or contribute to the HYSTERIA, can and has been challenged by reputable scientists using the same data.
Oh really? Your points consist of anecdotal evidence (polar bears), misunderstandings (water vapour) fallacious arguments (the UN proved AGW) or supposed faults in a handful of papers, typically older ones (the HS).
- You ignore the vast majority (your own references agree) of scientists agree with AGW.
- You ignore that there is no credible alternative explanantion.
- You ignore things like CO2 solubility are actually already in the calculations supporting AGW (although the use of Glassman tries hard to make it look like this has been overlooked, it hasn't).
- You ignore that the papers typically attacked by AGW cycnics are normally old, and that more recent papers reaching the same general conclusions are generally ignored by AGW cynics (if you read only AGW cynics you would think Mann's graph was the end of the argument, such is the distorted view normally given).
- You ignore the evidence casting reasonable doubts on the credibility of many anti-AGW scientists.
- You ignore people who attack AGW data like the HS saying things like 'even if the HS is wrong 2xCO2 is a problem'.
I never advanced the 10 myths as an absolute position of mine firstly,
No, you advanced them to support your argument and then when they were questioned ignored that some of the arguements supporting your position were of questionable validity.
That hardly displays genuine engagement in a discussion.
Aren't the 'facts' supporting your postion important to you? Why is crying 'well, they're not MY positon even though I quoted them' a more attractive propostion to you than accepting your research wasn't up to scratch? As some of those claims you posted are DEFINATIVELY FALSE (like the one stating sea-levels have not risen nor have polar temperatures) it seems refusing to admit error is the most important thing for you. Not the facts.
secondly nowhere have you proved those myths to be erroneous! You merely dismissed them as lies.
Why mischaracterise what I said when by going back a few pages any idiot can see that is what you are doing?
Actually, as the pro-AGW arguments (the so-called myths) are what YOU are trying to prove erroneous, it is YOU who need to prove they the myths are erroneous. I have been showing that the claims made by AGW cycnics are erroneous or fallacious. Simple, eh?
To condense the 'myths' you listed and prevent you having to go back a few pages, and show that YOU are lying by saying "You merely dismissed them as lies.";
You claim "Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate." is a myth.
I have posted data showing temperatures ARE rising at unprecidented rates. You need to show the data is in error (no, not Mann again, his general conclusions are supported by many studies since) and/or that there are other periods with similar rapid warming. I have also shown the AGW cynic argument you use ignopres that, unlike now, MWP and LIA are explainable by natural forcings, and that urban heat islands have a minute effect on the figures, not invalidating AGW and rubbishing the claims to the contrary you support, and that the arguments you borrow use sloppy, unscientific fallacious language ('catastrophic').
You claim "The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase." is a myth.
I have shown that Mann's conclusions are supported by the most recent papers published a decade later, that the attack on his data has largely been rebutted, and that when data is posted proving this you don't bother reading it.
You claim "Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth." is a myth.
The increase in CO2 atmospheric concentration is undisputed, this indisputably adds to the heat-capacity of the atmosphere, the Earth's temperature has unarguably changed beyond what can be explained by natural forcings. Some myth. Your additonal claims (like Glassman which you're using to support the above) are simply unsupported; http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6809/abs/408184a0.html. This paper shows how the very cycle you try and claim invalidates AGW is a/ already known by climate scientists and incorporated in their calculations and b/ may actually make things worse at some point.
You claim that "CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas" is a myth.
You fail to show a credible scintific article or projection of climate change which ignores water vapour, and thus this argument is fallacious. You also seem to not realise that as water vapour's role is static, and CO2's isn't, CO2 IS more important than water vapour when discussing claimate change at this time even if water vapour is the major greenhouse contributor. I don't need to cite anything to prove this, it is logically self-evident.
You claim "Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming" is a myth,
Thus far you have failed to provide any references so I can rebutt specific arguments, but as MANY different models (incorporting solar variability and albedo despite your claims to the contrary) support the same general conclusions, why not just admit you're wrong and save us both time and trouble?
You claim "The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming" is a myth.
It is actually a straw man; show me where the UN claim they proved it. They have gone from a claim of 'likely' (65% probability I think) to 'very likely' (90%) between IPCC v3 and IPCC v4.
You claim "CO2 is a pollutant" is a myth.
In fact this is just semantics as (for example) Selinium is just as natural as CO2 but can be damaging in high enough concentrations, just as CO2 can be, and would then be thought of as a pollutant.
You claim "Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes." is a myth.
No such absolute claim has been made by any representative body that supports AGW, for example, the UN; please show otherwise, failure to do so means this argument is ALSO a strawman.
You claim "Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming" is a myth.
If you could find any claim by a reresentative body that those activities by themselves would indicate proof of global warming, please let me know. Your additonal claim "Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age" fails to account for the fact recent temperature increases are NOT explained by a reversal of natural forcings that caused the LIA.
You claim "The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising." is a myth.
I cited (when you first repeated this lie) URL's showing otherwise;
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/greenland/vintheretal2006.pdf
http://www.lanl.gov/news/newsletter/092605.pdf
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/12/MNGE5MTQ211.DTL&type=science... and you have the unmitigated gall to say "You merely dismissed them as lies".
As this is obviously untrue, there seem to be three alternatives;
- Did you not read my response or check the links
- You are lying to avoid defending your argument
- You have bad memory and a defective back button in Explorer
.... which is it? I'd like to know.
More lies;
All I have said from the beginning is it is not as cut and dried as the IPCC report and persons such as yourself claim it to be.
IPCC is not 'cut and dried'. They allow a 10% chance of error, they have about a dozen different scenarios worked out; you can mispresent it as much as you like but this is a fact.
On this thread I say other research MAY explain 35% of AGW, which doesn't sound 'cut and died'. I also say that there is no plausable alternative explanation for recent climate trends other than that given by AGW; natural forcings cannot explain it.
I love the way you're (I assume) hoping people will notice that this is a fact which no anti-AGW or AGW-cynic can refute.
Essentially you have attacked the argument for AGW as mischaracterised by webpages like FOS I wouldn't wipe my butt with (I think I have documented why).
You have attacked papers supporting AGW using papers authored by obvious (and demonstrable) opinions for hire, ignored the refutations of such anti-AGW papers, ignored the climb-down of the authors of such papers, or tried (prehaps unwittingly) to imply things like CO2 solubility have been 'missed out' of the data supporting AGW.
Rather than actually talking about the science you have been talking about the hype; the hype of the anti-AGW movement which you accept far more uncritically than the argument of the AGW supporters.
Each time I show something you've used to defend your cynicism is an invalid basis of criticism, your opinion remains unchanged and you make no consessions as to the accuracy or credibility of data you use. And you base your opinons on facts? Yeah...
That's not my idea of discussion...//
-
metatron
Danish scientist says global warming is a myth.
metatron
-
Frank75
Abaddon
The retraction by Dr. Peiser, who authored a paper widely cited by AGW cynics which said the research by Oreskes was wrong and only 30% of scientists held a pro AGW opinion; he now states; "an overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Peiser. Can you explain why so many anti-AGW websites cite the original Peiser paper and not his subsequent climb-down? I am curious.
You are grossly misrepresenting Peiser's position/paper as well as mine. He merely pointed out that using the same information source Oreskes cited for her consensus actually revealed no such consensus at all. To say that "these 998 scientific articles conclusively prove consensus" and then Peiser argues and proves that those sources make no such point about majority view, in fact the opposite is inferred through a lack of positive statements in those very documents, does not mean that Peiser is opposed to the idea of a majority AGW climatologists. He simply rejects that those sources can be used to establish the consensus argument. There is no "climbdown" Oreskes paper is in error, it is provably false even fraudulent.
Peiser still stands by what he wrote:
Yet the scientific community is far from any global warming consensus, as was revealed by a recent survey among some 500 international climate researchers. The survey, conducted by Professors Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch of the German Institute for Coastal Research, found that "a quarter of respondents still question whether human activity is responsible for the most recent climatic changes."
I fail to see how his email comments in any way is a retraction or contradicts what he said in 2005. Perhaps he feels 75% is overwhelming, or perhaps he came across another poll that shows a different ratio. Peisers acknowledging that does not make it a slam dunk or as rosey as you state for the AGW consensus argument or your brand of AGW and you know it. The context of his later email quote reveals that this "overwhelming majority" about AGW is far from being on the same page.
Again, just because he cites a scientific poll about where climatologist stand (75 AGW, 25 against), doesn't mean he embraces as final those numbers either. It was simply an adjunct to his critique of Oreskes. Had the survey included all scientists involved in the field studying GW there would possibly be a reason to embrace the "overwhelming majority" that you embrace. However that is not the context of Peiser's paper.
I asked you to define majority and you mocked my request in your dismissive style. I would say that the 75% of this poll by Von Storch is a majority in a democratic sense, but not an overwhelming one in a scientific sense. I would also say that 25% is a minority but not a small minority in either sense. To me overwhelming would be 95+% and a minority 5-% and I am sure that many would concur. However this phantom 95% would need to have a solid consensus to make the majority argument have any meaning.
You are here on this thread waving the banner of SCIENCE, typing the word in HUGE letters. You are however undermining your own position by means of mocking people who side with the 25% (or more like Allegre's recent switch). As Peiser noted:
The stifling of dissent and the curtailing of scientific skepticism is bringing climate research into disrepute. Science is supposed to work by critical evaluation, open-mindedness and self-correction. There is a fear among climate alarmists that the very existence of scientific skepticism and doubts about their gloomy predictions will be used by politicians to delay action. But if political considerations dictate what gets published, it's all over for science.
I would also suggest in response to your last question, that you could answer the question YOURSELF as to why Peiser himself does not post the so-called retraction on his website under his "Global Warming" section where it would appropriately fit if he felt it valid/accurate. I only included that email in my post in the interests of being fair in this discussion.
I submit that your zeroing in on the overwhelming majority comment is unfair because you attempt to apply a different meaning to it than Peiser himself implies through his own published statements, i.e. 75/25
Do you accept those number Peiser revealed of 75%/25% as accurate? Can you establish or demonstrate what you mean by overwhelming with references to data, polls or at least something more emperical than "trust me" because shutterbug does?
I provide for those interested some of his more definitive adjunct statements by Peiser that shed light on the mystery. http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/NationalPost.htm
it is quite remarkable that the global mean temperature, as recorded by NASA's global Land-Ocean Temperature Index, has actually dropped slightly during the last couple of years -- notwithstanding increased levels of CO2 emissions. Two more years of cooling and we may even see the reappearance of a new Ice Age scare.
Whatever one may think of these odd developments, the idea that the sun is the principal driver of terrestrial climate has been gaining ground in recent years. Last month, Jan Veizer, one of Canada's top Earth scientists, published a comprehensive review of recent findings and concluded that "empirical observations on all time scales point to celestial phenomena as the principal driver of climate, with greenhouse gases acting only as potential amplifiers."
What the Russian, Israeli and Canadian researchers have in common is that they allocate much of the climate change to solar variability rather than human causes. They also publish their papers in some of the world's leading scientific journals. So why is it that a recent study published in the leading U.S. journal Science categorically claims that skeptical papers don't exist in the peer-reviewed literature?
Moving right along.....
What happened to the countless research papers that show .... that solar variability is a key driver of recent climate change, and that climate modeling is highly uncertain? An unbiased analysis of the peer-reviewed literature on global warming will find hundreds of papers (many of them written by the world's leading experts in the field) that have raised serious reservations and outright rejection of the concept of a "scientific consensus on climate change." The truth is, there is no such thing.
In conclusion I would like to purposefully drag a red herring across this debate. Peiser also analysed some of the health issues that have been raised over global warming using peer reviewed articles on the topic of climate related mortality.
I would like to be clear at this point that the observations are directed toward climate only and are not dealing with respiratory problems and other diseases associated with pollution known to be behind CO2 emissions. I like most am keen on all efforts to clean up the pollution that is detrimental to health.
These studies essentially falsify the contention that future warming will lead to a significant increase of heat-related mortality rates. In fact, some of Britain's leading medical experts have calculated that a rise of the average temperature by two degrees Celsius over the next 50 years would increase heat-related deaths in Britain by about 2,000 - but would reduce cold-related deaths by about 20,000http://www.sma.org/smj2004/11/00007611-200411000-00016.pdf
Frank75 -
Abaddon
Frank, I'm sorry, but this is pointless.
Your argument concerning Pesier shows this quite clearly.
Pieser said originally (Jan 2005) that 34 of the abstracts were anti-AGW. He later admitted;
I accept that it was a mistake to include the abstract you mentioned (and some other rather ambiguous ones) in my critique of the Oreskes essay.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/03/peiser_admits_to_making_a_mist.php
... so his survey's results are essentially junk, oft quoted by AGW cycnics yes, but junk never-the-less due to errors of definition by Pieser.
He also originally said in January 2005;
My analysis also shows that there are almost three times as many abstracts that are sceptical of the notion of anthropogenic climate change than those that explicitly endorse it (5, 6, 7).
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm
You quote him saying;
Yet the scientific community is far from any global warming consensus, as was revealed by a recent survey among some 500 international climate researchers. The survey, conducted by Professors Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch of the German Institute for Coastal Research, found that "a quarter of respondents still question whether human activity is responsible for the most recent climatic changes."
This is dated May 2005.
The statement I quoted where he admits "an overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact" is dated October 2006.
Did you not check the dates? Or did you not mention that you are quoting an older opinion of his as this isn't about facts for you?
You also bring up in your quotations Von Storch. Obviously you wouldn't do anything as silly as use the figures from his survey in 1996, as the science has moved on so much since then, but the survey conducted in 2003 is not the best thing to quote. If one was interested in facts, one might have checked this, but apparently 'one' didn't, as Von Storch's survey does not benefit your argument in any way.
For a start it was an online survey that, due to the access details being reposted on AGW skeptical boards, simply cannot be regard as representing the opinion of climate scientists http://timlambert.org/2005/05/bray/. This might go to explain its rejection by serious science journals, but does not explain the mischaraterisation of such rejection one can read online. The above link also goes to show how biased the Daily Telegraph is, blatently misrepresenting the results. Those last two things are just for flavour and to once again show bias, vested interests and hype in the anti-AGW crowd.
However, even though much was made of this survey, and even thugh its methodology was flawed further digging reveales that;
The same survey indicates a 72% [strongly agree] to 20% [strongly disagree] endorsement of the IPCC reports as accurate, and a 15% [strongly agree] to 80% [strongly disagree] rejection of the thesis that "there is enough uncertainty about the phenomenon of global warming that there is no need for immediate policy decisions".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_consensus#Bray_and_von_Storch.2C_2003
[ ] added for context
... so to support an argument of Peiser that as of Oct 2006 he has largely distanced himself from and vastly altered his expressed view on, you quote him saying he supported the original argument over a year previously, and quote a flawed survey that if you read more than what you pick up on AGW cycnic-sites you realise actually supports AGW.
If not decietful, sloppy. If not sloppy, indicative you don't understand something as simple as "one cannot support someone's original opinion by quoting an statement older than the statement where they essentially agree with the statement their original opinion is being used to disagree with.
And you ignore the fact you demonstrably lied about me and see no need to comment on it or apologise...
Of course, you'll still consider your cynicism to be measured and reasonable, but let's face it mate, on the basis of the thoroughness, analytical ability or honesty displayed by you here, you would.
Harsh but fair, sad but true.
Qcmbr
Here's a discussion of typical arguments spread by the anti-AGW crowd.... by the Royal Society. Obviously a bunch of mad tree huggers with an agenda, but they sound so much like people who can support their argument with facts it is quite uncanny.... LOL... I'm not being sarcastic at you by the way, just at the naff anti-AGW misrepesntations. You made some interesting comments about developing countries stemming from (I think) reading anti-AGW propoganda. Check out page 17, it will prehaps ease your concerns, and the whole damn thing is well supported and reasonable.
