What happened to Global Warming?
When I put my first above ground pool in around the late 90's we were able to open it in April and start swimming in May.
Now my pool is just opened and still not warm enough to swim in
I'd like some global warming back...
It doesn't. Not with this little wood-duck...
I think I've worked out the true science behind this 30 pages ... [yes, I know...it took me long enough]...
The pro-AGW people cite numerous sources [with or without agendas] on the net supporting their argument.
The anti-AGW people cite numerous sources [with or without agendas] on the net supporting their argument.
He who has the most wins.
The science behind it all is in the counting of websites....
If only IT were that simple.
Well, considering we're most likely committed to a degree of warming already, it is going to be the next generation's problem. We all know the reality is the world is not going to change overnight -- I'm pretty happy that new technologies are being explored, even if they are not cost effective yet. If GW really kicks in where water or temperature rise becomes undeniable to the majority of the regular folks in the world, there should be enough social/political will to get off fossil fuel. I have suggested next gen nuclear power, but different regions may have different solutions. If GW doesn't move as fast as predicted, it means humanity has more time to advance technologically before we are "forced" to act. The more time we have, the more innovative solutions we can come up with to either survive, or even reign in global warming. Who knows what technologies we'll have in 50-100 years. I think at some point we'll have power options that will be cheaper than going after fossil fuels, especially when you factor in the costs of environmental disruption via strip mining / fracking / oil spills, etc.In the meantime, people should manage their personal carbon footprint in accordance with their conscience, and it wouldn't hurt to promote the sciences. As for the real zealots, they won't be happy that change won't happen fast enough because nothing happens at the speed with which they can make demands on the internet.
I'm just here because they amuse the hell out of me. I don't expect rational thinking out of anyone that believes the most corrupt organization on the planet has anything resembling credibility.
Just for the record, there are a LOT of reasonable AGW supporters who are heavily in favor of nuclear power. There are people in this thread who are pretty negative on any idea, but they don't speak for all of us.
Fair enough. But there are also a lot of "leading voices" in the AGW industry that are against nuclear too.
For the record, I'm all for nuclear even though I'm in the "denier" camp. I'd live next to a nuclear plant and raise my family there. Especially if it was a newly constructed plant.
Also, in response to your previous post, I'm all for getting off of carbon-based fuels as the technology becomes viable. There are a lot of good reasons (better air quality, ultimately it will be a cheaper source of power, less warring over natural resources, etc) that don't have anything to do with AGW.
This in particular:
Strikes me as eminently reasonable. So does that entire post, honestly. That's all us "deniers" have been saying. Give it time until we know more. Technologically we don't have much of a choice anyway, so why invite the pain early for no real benefit?
This is really the point. I have no issue with reasoned approaches to accomplish alternative fuel sources regardless of the AGW debate.
Basically, I can buy into Lomborg's approach regardless of my research of the science because it makes sense either way. However, if your a Ken I just have a hard time taking you seriously.
I mentioned Alex Jones because The Corbett Report covers similar topics from a similar point of view. I watched the first 10 minutes or so and then gave up. The cast does not have any facts of its own, at least not in the portion that I saw, it simply parrots past reported denialist talking points. He focuses on the fact that the integrity of the science itself is the focal point for AGW and then brings up "Climategate" from 2009 as the main critique of the science. "Climategate", as you probably know, involved a hacker downloading thousands of emails from U of E.Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, and then these being picked apart with various phrases misunderstood and used out of context as some kind of "proof" that AGW is all a hoax and conspiracy. The fact that a smear campaign like this is the strongest attempt at critiquing the actual science involved speaks for itself. The cast referred to them as "crimatologists". I didn't want to waste my time with the remaining 38 minutes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
So they've created much of our climate history using tree rings but can't get them to agree with our current climate, no big deal. It's a smear campaign!
Oh right, they were cherry picked tree rings(well, tree ring...), and then violated the law by ignoring legal requests for their information so the people suspicious of these odd results they were getting could figure out why.
But hey, this is the IPCC we're talking about. Keith Briffa couldn't possibly be exploiting his position to push a political agenda! I'm just not a climate scientist so I can't understand the complexity behind shrinking the data set down to ten trees and including one that showed an 8 degree climb to make them fit the altered station data...
Funny stuff, if you take that one tree out, the other 9 trees say it was hotter in the 30's, so did the full data set. But that would mean global warming is a crock of shit, so I can understand why they'd shrink the set down far enough that the solitary outlier could skew the graph enough to pretend otherwise.
After all, when this goes south they get to ask if you'd like fries with that, and McDonalds might not hire them either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
Is there a preponderance of data that you wish to present?
I find this funny...you focus on emails and a set of data from tree rings, ignoring all the other data that supports AGW. And when I see "data" from deniers, it's the MO-they are from Watts Up or some economics magazine with a financial interest in denying human influences, etc. It's hilarious. It's never from credible scientists that have written a paper who's findings are then supported by the scientific community as a whole. Always "one-off editors" who don't even use their full names or conspiracy theories of "why didn't they include this data?" when they find ~120 papers that supposedly support deniers claims; there are ten times the papers that support AGW or "they are covering up their email confessions" when it has been shown years ago, that the emails were taken out of context.
Yes...there is hilarity to be found here...it's about the same kind of hilarity found in the musings of those who believe in scientific based creationism. Funny but sad.
It's exactly the same with people who deny evolution. They will focus on some little data subset, misunderstand the science, and inflate it into some kind of imaginary rebuttal of the theory of evolution as a whole. Or repeat crank blog post of same. I don't think in the case of global warming it's "if you're not a climate scientist then stfu" but I do think it helps to have an understanding of the scientific method and of peer review and of research in general. Otherwise you have very little idea what you are talking about or why a scientific consensus is meaningful. In scientific research, the entire point is to smash dogma. If you do that, you get the cover of various magazines. In order to do that though you have to run the gauntlet of everything that's come before. Scientific inquiry is pretty ruthlessly self-correcting and self-critical. That's what peer review is all about. That's why a consensus is so meaningful in this case. The idea that AGW is all a conspiracy that includes every single scientific and academic body in every country in the world? I shouldn't even need to explain what that is...
So, if "everyone" was in agreement that AGW was real, what to do about it is the obvious next step but since certain segments of society are hell-bent on obfuscating and delaying and seeding doubt, it makes it much harder to have that conversation as a society. Arguing and disagreeing on the proposed methods of mitigation and adaptation is fine and healthy - but the proposed methods being unpalatable or untenable should not be mistaken as some kind of evidence that AGW is not real.
I don't focus on emails and tree rings, they just reinforced what I'd already learned on my own. I already told you what to do.
The preponderance of data is their own sources. It's just that I actually looked at it, instead of assuming they were telling the truth just because they have a doctorate, even when there were substantiated claims of bias. You simply refuse to even look at what the skeptics have claimed, and pretend there's a magical consensus, as if any of the people being surveyed bothered to look at the data and not just read the reports like you do. They have jobs, they're employed doing actual work. When some douche has them fill out a survey, do you really think they spent a few hundred hours going over the material to see if the claims being made were true?
If you had, you too would know that the claims that the adjustments were homogenization based on time of day or location changes were a crock of shit. I took the initiative to verify the information. I don't like being wrong, I take steps to keep it as infrequent as I can. I didn't want to look like a fucking moron ten years later when the radical warming trend had been adjusted down to not really be that radical, and not really a trend in the first place since it stopped getting warmer about the time these arguments started showing up.
You really should go find the old data sets, it's so obvious it wont take you five minutes to grasp just how majorly you've been had. They really did just shift the data a couple degrees up on the rural records. The graph will just be going along nicely and then poof, somewhere along the way it magically jumps the whole range up, looking exactly like what they were claiming the adjustments removed. Some of them actually were at points where the data had an obvious change in the reporting, but instead of lining them up like they claimed, they'd adjust those even further to get the same warming bias.
When I got tired of amusing myself with USHCN, I moved on to GHCN. They were just as bad.
A couple years later they redid the adjustments and took the time to homogenize their alterations like any compete conman would have done in the first place, but the damage was already done. It's where all these skeptical bloggers you're deriding came from.
It's okay, you have your scientific consensus arrived at by wrongly classifying thousands of papers, many of which didn't even mention CO2. Your smug sense of superiority can rest on the fact that thousands of scientists contributed to the IPCC report, many of whom were students. Of the third that existed anyway, for some reason no one could figure out who two thirds of them were when they went looking...
The foundation is rotten, the house of cards will never stand.
Instead of discussing current data and nitpicking about a few percent more or less, or about how a trend over a period of 10 years is significant or not, you could also look at (ancient) history, 200 millions years ago when intense volcanism introduced a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere. It took the volcanoes many thousands of years to reach a level of about 4000 ppm from a baseline of about 2,000 ppm. It could have taken as long as 100,000 years of intermittent periods of volcanism to reach catastrophic levels, that's not certain. This volcanism ultimately lead to one of the greatest extinction events in the history of the earth. It wasn't a single, huge blast that wiped out life on earth... it was a fairly steady build-up of gases that caused temperatures to skyrocket in the end. Some speculate a disastrous event involving methane hydrates were involved, but that's speculation and in any case, could happen again. In any case, the underlying cause was a fairly slow (by our standards) buildup of greenhous gases.
Currently, humans introduce CO2 into the atmosphere at an even faster rate, we're producing over 100x more CO2 than all volcanoes on earth, so that would be the equivalent of hundreds to thousands of volcanoes, every year again.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/weather-extreme-events/volcanoes-co2-people-emissions-climate-110627.htm
So... doesn't THAT tell you anything?
It tells me that such levels of production of CO2 couldn't be absorbed by the earth in the past, and nothing is much different now, it's highly doubtful such a production rate of CO2 can be absorbed today. Actually there are some studies that about half of the CO2 is currently absorbed by the (top layers of the) ocean, but that sink is also finite and its capacity to absorb excess levels of CO2 will become less over time.
You've mentioned the tree ring and another data set at least twice, as have other deniers on this thread.
Yes...the preponderance of data comes from the consensus. How surprising is it that scientists doing good science all find similar results. Shocking!
I do not assume because they have a doctorate that they are good scientists. I assume that they are good scientists because NO ONE CREDIBLE IS DISPUTING THEIR DATA.
You are right-I refuse to give the skeptics my time (actually I don't refuse to read what they say, but I refuse to take their word/data at face value). Why? As an example (from the Wiki entry I used in my prior post)-"No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.".
In edit-Here are the "main points" alluded to in the above:
Looking for old data sets would be the same as saying Niels Bohr was a charlatan for proposing that the electron was found orbiting around the nucleus of an atom like a planet orbiting the sun when it actually doesn't and therefore declaring that all of quantum mechanics is junk science. Yes he was wrong about the specifics, but the model was refined OVER TIME and he played a major part in quantum mechanics even though his initial model was wrong. The deniers get stuck looking at one instance (hockey sticks, old emails, etc). They cannot move on to the present.
Of course the type of attacks used by deniers change:The cherry picking ("They left out Joe Bob's paper stating that all the CO2 will be utilized to carbonate soda and lower the globe's temperature. Invest in Coca Cola NOW!") , the cries of elitism ("Who cares if he has a doctorate in atmospheric sciences? What makes his explanation more valid than mine?"), the claims without support ("It's okay, you have your scientific consensus arrived at by wrongly classifying thousands of papers, many of which didn't even mention CO2." Proof please?), bringing up points that have nothing to do with the main issue (so WHAT if grad students were used? Students are used ALL THE TIME to do research. If you found these mystery students, what would you ask them? What would they be hiding?), the conspiracy theories ("Al Gore is really the head researcher at the IPCC"), etc.
Like I said-funny but sad.
Well... critics have a point when they say that temperature rise has halted for about 15 years.
But imo it's too soon to tell if this is really statistically significant compared to the longer (fairly reliable) data of the past 50 years, or the more historical data of 150 years in the past.
Imho it'll take a while before things really become noticeable. So far there was an increase of less than 1 degree celcius (on average), that's hard to notice. In 50 years time the statistics will be more significant and maybe the effects will become more noticeable than right now.
However, what I don't get about them, is that the deniers completely ignore evidence from the ancient past, and they ignore the sheer quantities of carbon dioxide that are produced every year. I mean... it's mind-boggling and hard to understand, but if you just look at the numbers, it's really a lot... and they don't want to do an extrapolation of carbon build-up in the future and what that means for our future.
And their excuse is ... you cannot extrapolate because we don't know what's going on yet. Well... we do have a lot of numbers on it already and it's crystal clear to me that we're heading for a disaster. They say the numbers aren't reliable... well, that's always the case, we work with the knowledge we have at the moment.
Or maybe they're bad at math. I don't know.
Or maybe they cannot imagine that nature is pretty slow at storing carbon. And that the coals we are digging up, which took nature millions of years to accumulate, are now injected back into the atmosphere at a very, very high rate. Far higher than any time in the past. It is hard to understanding how incredibly slow such a geological process is... it works at an enormous scale, sure (at a scale of the whole earth), but actually absorbing and burying hundreds of billions of tons of carbon... well that just takes a very long time.
But reality is, some people only wake up when they cannot deny things anymore. That is human nature. You see it in politics. In corporations... people who are responsible are often in complete denial about problems, and only admit them at the last moment when denying is no longer possible. And people who are not responsible, they don't care, they have no responsibility and do not need to think about things. So what do they do ... the thing that is easiest: do nothing as long as possible.
But well... it's also pretty clear to me that it'll take decades, maybe even 100 years, before things are going to get a lot hotter, maybe by that time people will take action. I would prefer if they did that now. It's a shame generations will face the additional task of having to clean up the extra mess that we've made in those 100 years and they will have 100 years less time to change the economy.
Deniers sometimes also gamble that by that time, the problem has already disappeared by itself because of cheap solar panels, or because of nuclear fusion. But it's a long stretch to say that those technologies will be much cheapier by that time than they are now... that's a big gamble.
For example, the cost of a solar panel comes from the cost of its raw materials and the machinery and labor that's required to build them... why would those become cheaper?
For example nuclear fusion... it's not guaranteed that nuclear fusion will ever work. If it works, maybe the installations that are required will be so costly, that it'll be an extremely expensive source of energy. Maybe it'll take more than 100 years before that technology has matured, maybe even longer.
Will future generations have the same (or better) capacity to deal with the problem as we have? If temperatures rise in the next 100 years, that will affect agriculture, which will require a costly relocation of plants. If storms and droughts become more extreme over the next 100 years, more resources will be needed to repair for damages and crop losses.
If there are 2x more people at that time than there are now, will that mean that it'll be easier to tackle the climate warming, or will it be harder? Maybe it'll be harder, because so many people will require at least 2x more resources than we use now. Resources will become more expensive, meaning that solar panels will become more expensive. Maybe poverty becomes so widespread, that there is simply no money or interest left to handle other problems.
Oh but wait... I said I'd stop... I'd better stop posting.
How about an actual 'climate scientist'
So prefaced, is the website of Dr. Tim Ball, retired professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg, who joins us for an in-depth interview on the history of the politicisation of Climate Science. From the genius of Maurice Strong and the machinations of the IPCC, to the famous Hockey Stick Graph and Climategate, Dr. Ball explains with precision and ease.
I also get a kick out of the 'deniers' label implying that this is rock solid science and anyone must be crazy to be sceptical. Your own 'top scientist' keep stating "more than likely" but if I am sceptical about likely I am a denier? What a joke.
"When we allow science to become political then we are lost. We will enter the Internet version of the Dark Ages, an era of stifling fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don't know any better."Michael Crichton
Tim Ball - an actual climate scientist? Hahaha....
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tim_Ball
You must have missed this part of my post, so I will copy and paste it again.
"No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.".
In edit-no one is claiming that the model is rock solid. Again, the IPCC took the time to rank the quality of data AND the conclusions based on the data (from great to poor...again, I do not have the exact wording in front of me, but you can see for yourself that there is an attempt to quantify the strength of the data and the validity of the conclusions).
Here is what you deniers do-you find outliers (people who write for Watts up and the link you posted) and then state "See? the whole model is junk". That is NOT science. Models need to be refined, yes (Is light a particle-Newton or a wave-Huygens? It's both, but until the framework for the model was perfected, arguments could be made as to why either model was better) and the current model for the climate needs to be refined as well. That is fine. That is a part of science. What you deniers DO NOT DO is propose a better model that shows that humans are not causing Global Warming, that incorporates the prior data and makes testable predictions for the future. That is not science. See, anyone can conduct an experiment that has a result that goes against the current best theory. But was it a good study? Can they repeat it? Can they use the result of the experiment to find a better model? The skeptics should be using that skepticism to find alternative explanations that are repeatable and fit current data and can predict future results. But instead, what we all end up with is noise. It's always one paper that shows AGW is wrong, then next week, there will be another lone paper, ad nauseum. But we never see all the authors of these papers collaborating and coming up with a better model. That is the challenge you face.
So dispense with the red herring. You are NOT looking for a better model. This is beyond scientific skepticism. This is NOT about you being a skeptic of the science. If it were, you (not just you, but those who think like you) would herald the ONE paper/author who proposed a better model that shows that AGW is false. But there is never one name or one group. There is no discrimination. I never hear you guys say "This paper denies AGW, but it is a bad paper for these reasons". If the conclusion is that there is no AGW, that's all you guys want to hear. By virtue of its conclusion, it is a valid paper to hold up, right? "As long is it puts those fancy pants Harvard professors in their place, I don't care if it good science. I just wanna prove those eggheads wrong". Every time, it is a tapestry of this lone wolf scientist or that lone wolf scientist, whose one off result is then paraded around the denier blogs (Watts up, etc), until some patient person takes the time to explain why that paper is not a good science, and then we patiently wait for the inevitable "What about THIS paper" that will pop up next month.
So be honest. It is NOT about the science for the deniers.
Very likely, meaning a 99% chance. There is almost no data that contradicts our influence on climate. Those data that do contradict, can most likely be discarded as noise or as faulty measurements.
That's how science handles uncertainties... it's almost never certain because there's always a contridicting measurement somewhere for whatever reason.
Now if you choose to cling to that 1% noise, and claim that the other 99% is garbage, then you've got some really, really twisted idea about what science is all about.
[ok and this really really is my last post here]
some made up wiki page? are you serious? but I guess the AGW thumpers are used to pushing bullshit ...
Actually, it is you who is pushing the bullcrap.
Who is Tim Ball? Answer that for me, please. And I hope that somewhere in your answer, you will point out his credentials to state there is something wrong with the current model of Global warming (you know, that he is a professor of science and/or that he has published academic papers on the subject...you know, dumb things like that that will actually give his words credibility). If you can't provide a reasonable answer, then why did YOU bring him up in the first place?
If you can't answer the question, then I turn your WHOLE post back on you (substituting "thumpers" for "deniers").
"are you serious? but I guess the AGW thumpers are used to pushing bullshit ... "
In edit-Since you made a point of mentioning this, can you give me a hand? Did you go to the University of Winnipeg's website? Did you see the link for the Department of Climatology, where Dr Ball claims to be a professor of Climatology (And not GEOGRAPHY, which is what he APPARENTLY has his PhD in. Finding his CV seems to be very difficult)? I didn't, despite going to the University's site index here http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/a-z-index/index.html . Here is the link to the Dept of Geography http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/index/geography-index . I found that easily enough. Can you please share the correct link with me so we both can see how qualified he is to speak about this subject? I mean...how can you hide a whole department dedicated to studying the climate? Why is the University hiding this department. I must be blind or it must be a conspiracy. Thanks.
Sure, as soon as you put up a list of these 'top scientists', and we can back and forth attack articles.
BTW, if you take your hands off your ears and stop mumbling la..la..la..la.. everytime someone posts something that disagrees with you agenda, he lays out his credentials in the 1st few minutes. Again you can not disprove ANYTHING Dr Ball raises.
HAHAHAHAHA . I have to laugh.
If you had paid attention, I did exactly that. Today. TWICE! .
I don't have to disprove anything from the esteemed Professor of GEOGRAPHY Dr Bell. People much smarter than I could ever hope to be have already done that (by proposing a model that he cannot overturn). In addition, you went back to tactic school, right? I NEVER claimed to be an expert. SO it is not up to me to disprove him.
My position is that I have looked through the information presented to me. Both for and against. One side has credible scientists who have proposed a model that supports AGW to the extent that their position represents the dominant theory on the issue. While the model continues to be refined, the general tenets are agreed upon. The other side has proposed alternatives that have not proven to be the basis for a suitable model of the climate. And THAT is the point. The deniers have NO MODEL! NOTHING! Just picking at the edges, looking for flaws, instead of proposing a better solution.
You argument is childish and ridiculous. It is the equivalent of my siding with Dr Nobel Prize in Medicine and you siding with Dr Quack when it comes to the best way to manage a medical problem and when I point out Dr Quack's lack of credentials and expertise, your defense is "You can't prove Dr Quack is wrong". No I can't nor do I have to because Dr Nobel Prize in Medicine has done that already.
Yes...someone is holding to the see no evil, hear no evil philosophy. You saw him this morning when you looked in the mirror.
I'll just wait for you to post the next lone wolf/one-off/outlier study. I just hope it will be from a real scientist next time though.
BTW, I did close the pool early. Thanks for asking
More on who Tim Ball is:
http://www.desmogblog.com/dr-tim-ball-the-lie-that-just-wont-die
http://www.desmogblog.com/weaver-sues-tim-ball-libel
QFT:
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has just endured an unprecedented process of vetting and peer-review to produce a document, the veracity of which has been double-checked and endorsed by thousands of the best scientists in the world. It must be soul-destroying to see a long-retired geographer who rarely published during his colourless academic career and who never conducted any research in atmospheric science dismiss that effort without a shred of evidence or a hint of good conscience."
So, Oregon Report, Volcanos, Tim Ball, the weather in rural Oklahoma in the summer of 2003, hacked emails, polar ice not shrinking as fast as 2012, what's next in the zombie meme parade?
Maybe myfist0, you'd like to explain in your own words what it is you think Tim Ball has proven?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
