Soaked dutch? Well I'm a Bostonian burried in snow... and about to get more tomorrow. I think I'd rather be soaked than have to shovel all this snow and ice. There is no place left to put it.
Coffee
*sigh* The heartbreak of early onset Algorezheimer's Disease.
by Nathan Natas 86 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
bohm
cb, no i simply meant he has tenure!
my point was that they went from global cooling to global warming to climate change. The climate has always been in a state of change.
but they didnt! the majority went from what they called global warming and or climate change to what they today call global warming and or climate change.
the minority went from not being sure and or global cooling and to what they today call global warming and or climate change.
im not denying there was a minority who believed smog, etc. would ultimately be a stronger forcing to CO2, but it was a minority and their oppinion changed as better data and models became avaliable.
why is the terminology global warming/climate change important? climate scientists have been using those two terms right from the beginning. do you imply that scientists are becoming increasingly uncertain if the there is a global warming? if not, i fail to see the point. it seem to have no effect on the global temperature what the anomaly is called.
-
coffee_black
Bohm... have you read the document I linked? It is from 1974 The CIA consulted scientists from every climatology center in the US. These scientists were in agreement that severe cooling was already taking place. It was not just a few rogue scientists. I can't copy and past it here because it is a copy of micro-fiche. the CIA was very concerned with the severe cooling reported by these scientists, because they thought it had national security implications...
Yes, science has matured since then.. but there is still a long way to go.
Coffee
-
bohm
CB, i have read a good part of it about a year ago.
try to read the wikipedia article on this (and other) reports and you will see you are blowing it out of proportions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1972_and_1974_National_Science_Board
and consider this:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm?csp=34
Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.
can you produce an equivalent study which demonstrate there was anything but a minority oppinion in the 70s that the earth was cooling?
If i should try to put the argument in a closed form, i keep seeing it as this: the majority of scientists in the 70s predicted global warming, when more data and better models became avaliable the majority grew, since it grew we cant trust todays conclusions(?!)
how would you phrase it?
-
coffee_black
Bohm... why not read the whole thing yourself? Why trust USA today or Wikipedia to tell you what it says or what conclusions to form? I prefer to read it myself and form my own conclusions... I'm funny that way. Having read the whole thing... I don't believe I am blowing it out of proportion.
I would say that the majority is not always right.
As I said before.. I'm not denying the that the earth is in a warming cycle. I do not believe that man is the cause of it...any more than man caused the previous warming cycles.
Coffee
-
villabolo
coffee_black: If you would only do some real research, you would find that all your statements are old news. They've been answered before. Why don't you try http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php which has 148 rebuttals, one of which I wrote, to all the anti Global Warming arguments you've given and then some.
I'll give a rebuttal to just two denier cliches, the rest is your responsibility. Learn what a real source of information is, instead of just parroting others staements.
"The climate has always been in a state of change."
That is a typical meaningless argument. The response is simple. Forest fires have been occuring long before Man invented fire or even existed. That does not mean that Man does not cause forest fires.
It is nonsensical to state that climate changes have always occured because that not only does not mean that Humans are not causing it but it somehow gives the impression that Climate change is not dangerous. In the past when Carbon Dioxide rose up drastically and fast it not only caused mass extinctions but caused them within the tens of thousands of years that it took for the Carbon Dioxide levels to rise.
Man made Global Warming is acting within decades not tens of thousands of years. Anything that acts so fast and drastically (We're just at the beginnings of it) will destroy civilization. The food shortages that have been caused last year by Russian and Ukrainian crop damage due to drought; Canadian wheat damage due to intense rain; Australian (A main exporter of wheat.) and Pakistani crop damage due to flooding; and Argentinean soybean crop damage due to drought have already caused food prices to soar worldwide.
Due you realize this was the reason that Egypt and Tunisia have gone into rebellion? Egyptians pay 40% of their meager salaries for subsidized food. Get used to it because it's not only going to keep on happening, it's going to get worse and eventually effect the rich nations of the world including the one you live in.
You simply don't have an understanding, no matter how simple, of the big picture. You don't know the basics of how the Earth works. Your knowledge is fragmented making you unable to connect the dots. Furthermore you use arguments of authority and counter-authority such as that rubbish about "scientists" predicting an ice age in the 1970s with Media sh*t to back it up. Do you realize that from the 1960s to the 1970s 85% of all scientific papers on the issue were in favor of Global Warming? Does your source take an actual survey of all scientists or does it just include whatever it wants to include? Is there a number comparison in your link between Global Warmists and Global Coolists?
Take a look at what a site that you, having claimed to have done extensive study in the issue but obviously not familiar with the basic counteraurguments by Climatologists, has to say:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
From now on coffee, do us the courtesy of going to a site that has been answering these issues for years instead of just repeating what others say. You have made it obvious that you have not been practicing what you preach when you tell us to read scientist discredited, oil company supporting, fundamentalist bigoted yahoos like Richard Lindzen (With a d not a t) but haven't a clue yourself as to the most basic statement made by thousands of real scientists.
Now the bottom line is, are you going to read and watch other sources?
www.yahoo.com Search under "Climate Denial Crock of the Week" for 60 some videos rebutting the same cliches.
Villabolo
-
coffee_black
Wow, Villabolo... It's obvious that you didn't read my last post to you...where I acknowledged my misspelling of Lindzen. don't you think it's a little petty to bring it up again?
So he's not a real scientist? I think MIT would disagree with you. I've read the accusations about him, and I have heard his response. Have you? Or are you just believing what you have heard about him? Who do you think funds the scientists you believe?
My "source" linked in response to Bohm actually did survey scientists at all the climatology centers in the US that existed in 1974. I don't think you read it, or you would know that.
And yes, I do read other sources and will continue to do so.
And I will leave it there. I have no desire to let this get nasty.
Coffee
-
villabolo
Liberty 83:
"Man, there's a world of difference between villabolo and beks. One can formulate rational responses to opponents while apparently operating under the assumption that they are neither dishonest nor stupid and one, well, can't."
Liberty, Beks is more into the political aspects but I'm more into the nuts and bolts. As for me I can get pretty frustrated and even sarcastic with a few posters here, whom, if you've seen our exchanges in years past are simply too dense to even attempt the exchange of ideas that we are having.
I'm sorry I didn't get back to you on this one since I've been jumping around but here goes:
1 - The Air Temp Anomaly map also shows significantly lower temperatures over North America, Russia, and Northern Europe. It's only supportive evidence if one starts with the assumption that temps that are still well-below freezing matter, and that temperature anomalies are in some way related to increased CO2 levels.
It is completely irrelevant that Arctic temperatures are still below freezing (In most, not all of the region.). The mechanics of weather do not change magically at the 32 degree Fahrenheit mark. The bottom line is that those GROSS deviations from average are altering the weather patterns by having the abnormally warmer air pushing out the frigid polar air above it down south. How can you say that it doesn't matter when you see an amazing flip flop between Arctic region warmth and the "significantly lower temperatures over North America, Russia, and Northern Europe" That you just mentioned in the same two sentences. Look at the weather conditions (And social effects of course) in those regions with all that polar air and snow being dumped southwards.
Furthermore, those abnormally higher temperatures in the winter keeps the ice cap from rebuilding itself as it used to in the past. The colder the temperature the thicker the ice gets. Now that the situation is out of balance, an ice cap that doesn't rebuild itself in the winter becomes extremely vulnerable to masive melt during the summer. This, as I mention below accelerates the shrinkage of the ice cap which will, in the years to follow, worsen the type of winters we have. Eventually things will get so warm that we will have massive snowstorms for only a short winter season and massive rains in the rest of the winter season. Europe has already seen flooding in January of this year.
The relationship of CO2 to temperatures is an issue that has been confounded by "skeptics" in many ways. Suffice it to say, it's not the Sun due to the fact that:First, the Sun has been steady in output or even somewhat cooler than average since about the 1970s. It really took a cool dip around 2002 even though the last 12 years have increased in temperature relative to the past and are the hottest years in temperature records.
Second, the Sun's fluctuations are very minor; about .1 degree Fahrenheit up or down. Compare that to temperature increase of about 1.4F since the Industrial Revolution and you'll realize that all the Sun does is add or subtract a tiny bit to Global Warming's influence.
2 - The UAH chart shows a minor anomaly, about one-fifth of a degree. That sort of change, much like the increase of one part per million that has occured in the pct of CO2 in the atmosphere, isn't anywhere near enough to effect anything. Further, as the chart itself shows, there have been significant anomalies that have nothing to do with human causes.
The increase in Carbon Dioxide has been about 75 parts per million since 1958.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
3 - Regressions in science have the same problem as regressions in the social sciences - they show past trends, but don't show anything about the future unless one operates with a supposition that the future will be like the past, which is frequently untrue.
Look at the very end of the graph. You'll notice a fairly precipitous drop in temperatures, about one-fifth of a degree in one year. If you compare that drop with the regression line, it took from 1989 to 2007 for the temperature to increase by the same amount.Look again at my article on http://www.skepticalscience.com/Did-global-warming-stop-in-1998-1995-2002-2007-2010.html and please read it thoroughly then take a closer look at the chart with the multi colored trend lines. The brown line indicates a .4 degree Celsius rise since 1979 which amounts to .72 degrees Fahrenheit.
If you read the article you will understand the issue that I believe you are confusing with regression. If you are referring to that rollercoaster up and down motion it is not regression at all but warm El Nino (The upper curves) and cool La Ninas (The lower curves or troughs). El Ninos and La Ninas are ordinary cyclical events with or without Global Warming.
They are however being enhanced by Global Warming to the extent that both the warm El Ninos as well as the cool La Ninas are getting warmer. That is why I included the pink and green lines. They highlight an abrupt upward swing in 1995 onwards of La Nina temperatures as well as an abrupt upward swing in 1998 for El Ninos. Yes 1998 drops somewhat but take a look at the upper El Nino curves from 2002 to 2007 and they are still higher than their equivalent El Ninos from before 1998 (I should have drawn a dotted pink line but oh well.).
Therefore, you have to think of El Nino/La Nina as opposite sides of the same coin as opposed to the misperception (That "skeptics capitalize on) that La Ninas are cooling TRENDS. They are no more trends, which are long term events, than El Ninos. There is, of course, the long term trend that I'm trying to emphasize but you have to take El Ninos/La Ninas COLLECTIVELY not individually in order to get the proper perspective.
That is why the drop you mentioned at the end is irrelevant and does not compensate for any temperatures that are going up. Quite the contrary, look at all three La Ninas (Again the downward curves or troughs) after 1995 and how they go down to but not below the 0.0 bar (The thick line that cuts across the curves.). Not only are all three of them HIGHER than the previous La Ninas from 1979 to 1989 (The next downward curve doesn't count at all. It was a volcanic eruption that cooled the Earth in spite of El Nino conditions. A fluke.) but the "fairly precipitous drop" youmentioned was actually THE WARMEST LA NINA in the whole 30 year record. Notice how it goes down to but does not even touch the 0.0 bar.
The 1995/1998 event is not a single jump but is actually the second of three stepwise jumps which display a definite trend. The first jump happened a couple of years before satellite records and was dramatic enough to compare with 1995/1998. The third jump is happening right now, as of 2010. We are in the middle of a strong La Nina but that will ultimately give way to El Nino. If you look carefully at the chart you will find 6 La Ninas in 30 years (Again, 1993 does not count because it was a volcanic eruption.). Study that chart carefully.
Just to let you know, Liberty, this year is predicted to be an ordinary hot year but not a record setter like 2010 (The whole period since 1998 has been the hottest since temperature records.). However, the consensus by NASA and climatologists is that 2012 and most of the rest of this decade will be even hotter (That is during summer.).
If that prediction by NASA comes true, I further predict that it will not only be another noticeable jump in temperatures but one with which will escalate every few years instead of about 20 years at first (Late 1970s to 1995/1998.); Then 12 years (1998 TO 2010). The reason for this cannoot be predicted by the chart alone but when you step back and look at the bigger picture the answer is obvious.
It has nothing to do with a dramatic increase in Carbon Dioxide but instead it has to do with one of the secondary effects of Global Warming that act as a reinforcement or positive feedback loop as scientists refer to it. As I mentioned before, the Arctic ice cap is shrinking. That changes the reflectivity of the Earth (Or albedo as scientists refer to it) which in turn effects the amount of sunlight that can be absorbed.
As anyone knows, light colors reflect, dark colors absorb heat. White ice reflects 80 to 90% of sunlight but once it's gone from a trivial degree or two increase, the exposed dark blue waters absorb 80% of the sunlight. Ocean temperatures can rise 6 or more degrees. I won't bother repeating what I said earlier in another thread but the bottom line is that this will accelerate more ice melt. When huge amounts of the Arctic Ocean are ice free as they are expected to be in another 10 years expect massive alteration of the weather, summer or winter (There's a carryover effect.).
Seems like a far fetched prediction but when you understand the basics even though you're not an expert (Which I'm certainly not.) it's like shooting ducks in a barrel. Keep in mind that Climatologists so far have been flummoxed by the fact that their predictions have been consistent underestimates. I myself, in my life experiences in general, have the habit of underestimating how bad this or that really is.
Even if reality turns out to be one fourth as bad as Climatologists think, it will be bad enough, especially in conjunction with other issues like Peak Oil. I don't like the future that I see.
Villabolo
-
villabolo
Coffee_black:
"Wow, Villabolo... It's obvious that you didn't read my last post to you...where I acknowledged my misspelling of Lindzen. don't you think it's a little petty to bring it up again?"
Coffee, I apologize for being unaware of your last post on another thread. I've been jumping around. I do find the contradiction in your complaint humorous though. Since it is obvious that I did not read your last post where is the pettiness in my bringing it up again in sincere ignorance. Only if I was aware of your last post would it actually be petty.
The rest of your response, though, really sidesteps the issue. Yes, you say that you have read other sources but you never identify them. The sources that I gave are two of the top three Global Warming websites on the Internet. Are you familiar with any of them? I gave you a specific reference in Real Climate that responded to a typical Lindzen statement. Have you actually read rebutals to him straight from the horses mouth?
The bottom line is that you don't really seem to be familiar with the meat of the issues and you even give me the impression that your familiarity with what Climatologist have to say on Global Warming actually comes from Anti Global Warming Websites. That is a very common occurence among people, who fancy themselves knowledgeable with both sides of an issue when all they're really knowledgeable with is one side and that side's puppeteered version of the opposition.
Kind of like the Jehovah's Witness who says he's familiar with other religions because, of course, the Watchtower informs him about it. Maybe I'm wrong and I would really like to apologize if I am but I challenge you, nonetheless, to reveal the actual Pro Global Warming websites that you use in your research. I would find it difficult to believe that you use the top three because every argument you've made shows complete unfamiliarity with their responses to the issues you bring up.
And it doesn't even matter that you would disagree with those responses because you should at least acknowledge them and then explain why you don't agree. You don't do that. You simply act as if those responses where never made; as if your challenges (standard anti GW cliches.) have never been met But surprise me and prove me wrong. Better yet, why don't you give me your rebuttal to the explanations I've been giving on the current situation? Liberty83 is actually talking to me on that level instead of simply pointing the finger to somebody else.
As far as your statement that he is a real scientist just because he works at MIT, you're just regressing back to arguments of authority as I previously mentioned. Keep in mind that all or even most climatologists don't dedicate himself to Global Warming. So if Richard Lindzen works on a NON GLOBAL WARMING climate specialty then it's obvious to me what the deal with his "expertise" is.
It's called compartmentalization. Psychologically speaking, compartmentalization is a process where people who cannot accept a certain concept make a neat split in their minds between knowledge that they have and knowledge that they don't want to have. It's a form of doublethink where, for example, an astronomer might be fantastic at his job but be so irrational as to actually believe that the entire Universe was created in six days and use standard "young Earth Creationist" arguments (God gave the appearance of an ancient Universe just for the hell of it. Ha-ha try to argue with me now.).
So again, as I've repeated several times in different ways; science is not about who says what. It's about what is said.
Villabolo
-
bohm
CB,
Bohm... why not read the whole thing yourself? Why trust USA today or Wikipedia to tell you what it says or what conclusions to form?
I only linked USA today because i thought you would prefer a writeup rather than reading the entire report. I have skimmed parts of the original report though and it support what USA today says (note USA today quote one of the scientists who wrote the original survey). I have also read a good part of your '74 survey, and i quoted wikipedia to indicate that other surveys of that time did not agree with its conclusion (which, by the way, was not as strong as you are making it out to be).
So, did you read the survey quoted in the USA today article?
I prefer to read it myself and form my own conclusions... I'm funny that way. Having read the whole thing... I don't believe I am blowing it out of proportion.
how do you infer what the general litterature in the 70s said based on one report? thats my key question.
If you wanted to demonstrate to me that the majority of all sheeps are red, and you found one sheep (the report from 74) and said: "Look bohm! its red! The majority of all sheeps are red!" and i said: "Yes, some are red, but most are not red, here is a survey which say 73% are white and only 10% are red", and you said: "No your wrong! This one sheep is REALLY REALLY RED! the majority of all sheeps are red!" it would obviously not fly.
I would say that the majority is not always right.
...but could we please agree the majority in the 70s predicted global warming. the WAST majority today predict global warming. its such a tirering point to argue.
And what does this prove? being able to point to a minority opinion held 40 years ago and which was invalidated through better knowledge and data is hardly something unique to climatology.
i could properly also find a group of scientists in the 70s who did not trust the standard model in physics, does that mean we should throw out the standard model today when more evidence has confirmed it is accurate?
Similar, i could find a group of scientists in the 70s who did not like the big bang model. Does this mean we cant trust the big bang model today now that pretty much all scientists believe in it based on additional evidence?
how come this type of argument only work with global warming?
As I said before.. I'm not denying the that the earth is in a warming cycle.
but what is causing it? what type of cycle are we supposed to go through now?
I do not believe that man is the cause of it...any more than man caused the previous warming cycles.
why not? any random textbook on climatology will tell its mainly about solar input and greenhouse effect. man is adding a greenhouse gas and altering the content of the atmosphere, while we can measure that he solar output is quite steady. the models predict the temperature will go up due to mans influence and the temperature is going up. it does not seem that far-fetched.
whats your explanation? where is the models which show that our contribution of CO2 will NOT change the temperature?