New Global Warming Facts

[JPcelticfc]

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/moregw.htm

http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/te ... l-warming/

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3061015&page=1

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Pu ... binson.pdf

I'm sorry I can't trust these papers, they clearly have falsified data....

I thought humans at passed the denial stage of global warming, but apparently a few cavemen are determined to hold on to out-dated viewpoints.

[Doc_Brown]

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Pu ... binson.pdf

The graph in this paper highlights exactly what I was saying in my post. They compared temperatures to 1979 which was very warm compared to the years immediately prior and after. And that chart only extends to 1997 (now 15 years out of date). What happens when we extend the range of their chart forward 8 years and backwards 30 years?

That looks a bit different, doesn't it?

Here is 125 years worth of data:


The "hockeystick" issue, more than anything, refers to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere:

(Note that much of this data comes from core drills in the polar ice caps, which is how we have data stretching back to the year 1000).
The argument is that if there is some relationship between CO2 concentration and global temperatures, even if it's somewhat weaker than currently believed, and if CO2 levels are already well above what they've been at any point in the history of the planet, would that not have some implication for future global temperatures?

[jimboston]

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/moregw.htm

http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/te ... l-warming/

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3061015&page=1

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Pu ... binson.pdf

I'm sorry I can't trust these papers, they clearly have falsified data....

I thought humans at passed the denial stage of global warming, but apparently a few cavemen are determined to hold on to out-dated viewpoints.

A report from Stanford and a new report from ABC are not valid sources????

[PLAYER57832]

EDIT.. I was going to read and post on all of these, but I have to leave now. Someone else can tackle the last 2

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/moregw.htm

http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/te ... l-warming/

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3061015&page=1

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Pu ... binson.pdf

I'm sorry I can't trust these papers, they clearly have falsified data....

I thought humans at passed the denial stage of global warming, but apparently a few cavemen are determined to hold on to out-dated viewpoints.

A report from Stanford and a new report from ABC are not valid sources????

Uh, by "stanford paper" do you mean THIS?:

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Pu ... binson.pdf
This paper is NOT from Stanford, it apparently was reprinted by Stanford. It is a copy of an article from 1997 published in the Wall Street Journal. That alone makes it suspect, since A LOT has been discovered in the field since then. Further, this "Stanford" paper was copyrighted by Dow Chemical corporation. The authors are listed as 2 Oregon scientists. It utterly lacks any biography, description of analysis done or anything else that would make it a truly credible scientific paper. It was published not in any journal of climatology or any other scientific location. To know if there data is valid, we would have to look at the original source. Also, the "rule", in science is that if you want to refute something legitimately, you publish in pee-reviewed journals, not the Wall Street journal. There is no record that they did this.

NEXT -- I googled the pair and here is what I found out about that entire institute:

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.

In 1998 the OISM circulated the Oregon Petition, a deceptive "scientists' petition" skeptical of global warming, in collaboration with Frederick Seitz.

hat pretty suspicious
but this part:

Personnel
The OISM website's homepage [1] says:

The Institute currently has six faculty members, several regular volunteers, and a larger number of other volunteers who work on occasional projects.
The Home Page's current navigation bar lists 8 individuals under the "Faculty" heading. Two of those listed are deceased, and two are sons of OISM's head, Arthur B. Robinson. Yet even though the OISM credentials 8 persons as "Faculty", it has no classrooms, or student body.

Is outright damning!

In other words, this "institute" appears to have been formed solely to refute global warming. But, they are not honest that this is what they do.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3061015&page=1
This is a synopse of a 20/20 report. Its interesting that you cited this, because it really doesn't refute the theories. It simply puts things in better perspective. One point they make, however is actually false. Global warming likely WILL result in more hurricanes, etc. However, that was not necessarily well explained until fairly recently. And, no, it is not absolutely proven. It is very likely. (they are working on proving whether recent events are tied to global climate change.. it looks like they might be, but such proof is hard to develop)


http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/te ... l-warming/
This one, labeled "10 myth of Global Warming" is classic distortion.
Take this first paragraph:

MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8Cover the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").

There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.

A few things should immediately raise eyebrows. first, they want to look at 3 decades. The evidence of global warming goes back much more than 3 decades. Why are they just looking at data from after the planet has already begun its warming cycle? Then they take this data from far too short of a time frame and declare that the small variation seen is s "well within the natural variations recorded" within the last milenium. Maybe true, maybe not, but the data used to support the theories is far more extensive than they indicate and truly does show a change, albiet a minute change.

Then they dispute the data they used by attempting to say that there are preferential locations, etc. Well.. which is it? is the data trustworthy and no change is shown or is the data not trustworthy?

Finally, they post no data or references to data, so its impossible to even see how they got their information. It might be they were mistaken, used incorrect data (too small of a data set, for example), or outright lied. Its impossible to tell from this.

I have to stop here. However, no.. that was not a good reference.

[Neoteny]

@NEOTONY

Could you bullet-list some facts of about "climate change/global warming"? What's really going on? What troubles the scientists, which variable are important and which can be measured?

How does one assess climate change, and then determine its causation?

(Please feel free to take any of the above and/or throw out a good article).

So, if I were to make a bullet list about anthropogenic global warming, I would put "carbon cycle" at the top. Maybe bold and underlined. Perhaps even italicized. But not in larger font, because that's obnoxious. I would lead off with the term because a basic understanding of how the carbon cycle works is easy to obtain, and answers many qustions skeptics bring up. The basic idea behind the cycle is that there are several major reservoirs of carbon: the atmosphere, the biosphere, the ocean, sediment (which inludes fossil fuels), and the inner earth. Carbon flows by various methods and rates between these reservoirs (volcanoes move carbon from inside the earth to the atmosphere and sediment; animals take in carbon in food and expire it as we breathe; plants absorb carbon from the atmosphere, the ocean gives and takes in various ways [it's notorious as a carbon sink, and I believe is the largest reservoir other than the inner earth]). There is a sort of homeostasis within the cycle.

The next point would be "greenhouse gas theory." If you're unfamiliar with that term, then you've lived under a rock the last quarter of a century. Basically, certain gases trap and release radiation from the sun in a fashion that the overall heat of the system rises. Water vapor is fantastic at this, and accounts for a significant chunk of atmospheric trapping of radiation. On top of that, the warmer the atmosphere gets, the more water vapor it can hold, creating a sort of positive feedback system. But, at a certain point it all rains back down anyhow. Carbon dioxide is the next major player, and we are pumping it out from the sediment reservoir to the atmosphere in massive quantities.

We know carbon is a greenhouse gas, and we know we are moving it into the atmosphere at a massive rate. As the carbon dioxide heats the atmosphere, that allows the atmosphere to hold more water vapor, which is awesome. But, how much of the increase in atmospheric carbon is our fault? Pretty much all of it.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... s-updated/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ctivities/

(Despite climategategategate, real climate is a good place to go for climate science)

The history of global warming theory is an interesting one, and it has it's earliest roots in the late 19th century (man, Al Gore must be ancient). I don't know that I really have the patience or the willpower to gol much deeper, because it does get more complex. This brief synopsis of global warming may not be exactly what you were hoping for, but I don't know what else to tell you (though I find it amusing that those two very simple paragraphs are enough to demonstrate jimbob's two points wrong [and that player was perhaps a bit too lenient]). Like most scientific theories, it's fairly simple and elegant at this scale. On the other side, the "skeptics" have a disinformation system nearly on the scale of creationists, sowing confusion with a syncopation of out-of-context science and weapons-grade stupidity. It's like bludgeoning someone with a nuke core. And that is the (or should be) the center of climate scientists' goals: convincing people. How do you fight such efficient lying and character assassination? Secondary to that comes more science. Exactly how bad will it be (if it's bad at all is pretty clear; the rate of change alone is frightening)? What can be done now?

Sorry I can't give you more; because climate is pretty far removed from my field, I don't particularly trust myself as a messenger beyond the basics. Fortunately, most skeptics don't even know that.

Seriously: carbon cycle. An understanding of how and at what rates carbon naturally moves through the system, and how the reservoirs respond to different stimuli will arm you with most of the knowledge you need to be considered an "alarmist."

Also: did I read somewhere that you are studying economics? Maybe I'm confusing you with someone else, but if you are, I will be posting soon on modern monetary theory, which I'm going to request you give me at least a hal-assed response to match mine.

[BigBallinStalin]

@NEOTONY

Could you bullet-list some facts of about "climate change/global warming"? What's really going on? What troubles the scientists, which variable are important and which can be measured?

How does one assess climate change, and then determine its causation?

(Please feel free to take any of the above and/or throw out a good article).

So, if I were to make a bullet list about anthropogenic global warming, I would put "carbon cycle" at the top. Maybe bold and underlined. Perhaps even italicized. But not in larger font, because that's obnoxious. I would lead off with the term because a basic understanding of how the carbon cycle works is easy to obtain, and answers many qustions skeptics bring up. The basic idea behind the cycle is that there are several major reservoirs of carbon: the atmosphere, the biosphere, the ocean, sediment (which inludes fossil fuels), and the inner earth. Carbon flows by various methods and rates between these reservoirs (volcanoes move carbon from inside the earth to the atmosphere and sediment; animals take in carbon in food and expire it as we breathe; plants absorb carbon from the atmosphere, the ocean gives and takes in various ways [it's notorious as a carbon sink, and I believe is the largest reservoir other than the inner earth]). There is a sort of homeostasis within the cycle.

The next point would be "greenhouse gas theory." If you're unfamiliar with that term, then you've lived under a rock the last quarter of a century. Basically, certain gases trap and release radiation from the sun in a fashion that the overall heat of the system rises. Water vapor is fantastic at this, and accounts for a significant chunk of atmospheric trapping of radiation. On top of that, the warmer the atmosphere gets, the more water vapor it can hold, creating a sort of positive feedback system. But, at a certain point it all rains back down anyhow. Carbon dioxide is the next major player, and we are pumping it out from the sediment reservoir to the atmosphere in massive quantities.

We know carbon is a greenhouse gas, and we know we are moving it into the atmosphere at a massive rate. As the carbon dioxide heats the atmosphere, that allows the atmosphere to hold more water vapor, which is awesome. But, how much of the increase in atmospheric carbon is our fault? Pretty much all of it.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... s-updated/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ctivities/

(Despite climategategategate, real climate is a good place to go for climate science)

The history of global warming theory is an interesting one, and it has it's earliest roots in the late 19th century (man, Al Gore must be ancient). I don't know that I really have the patience or the willpower to gol much deeper, because it does get more complex. This brief synopsis of global warming may not be exactly what you were hoping for, but I don't know what else to tell you (though I find it amusing that those two very simple paragraphs are enough to demonstrate jimbob's two points wrong [and that player was perhaps a bit too lenient]). Like most scientific theories, it's fairly simple and elegant at this scale. On the other side, the "skeptics" have a disinformation system nearly on the scale of creationists, sowing confusion with a syncopation of out-of-context science and weapons-grade stupidity. It's like bludgeoning someone with a nuke core. And that is the (or should be) the center of climate scientists' goals: convincing people. How do you fight such efficient lying and character assassination? Secondary to that comes more science. Exactly how bad will it be (if it's bad at all is pretty clear; the rate of change alone is frightening)? What can be done now?

Sorry I can't give you more; because climate is pretty far removed from my field, I don't particularly trust myself as a messenger beyond the basics. Fortunately, most skeptics don't even know that.

Seriously: carbon cycle. An understanding of how and at what rates carbon naturally moves through the system, and how the reservoirs respond to different stimuli will arm you with most of the knowledge you need to be considered an "alarmist."

Also: did I read somewhere that you are studying economics? Maybe I'm confusing you with someone else, but if you are, I will be posting soon on modern monetary theory, which I'm going to request you give me at least a hal-assed response to match mine.

[bedub1]

New Global Warming Facts

Huge chunks of ice are splitting off of Antarctica due to global warming.....eerrrr...oops....that's wrong. In fact a Tsunami caused it....

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... 5f5ee0.161

[Neoteny]

This edition of non-sequitur of the day is brought to you by Bud Light.

Here we go...

[PLAYER57832]

This edition of non-sequitur of the day is brought to you by Bud Light.

Here we go...

Its what happens when you stop making science a priority at all levels of schooling.

[bedub1]

This edition of non-sequitur of the day is brought to you by Bud Light.

Here we go...

Its what happens when you stop making science a priority at all levels of schooling.

Yes...throwing the scientific method out the window and saying "shrinking ice means global warming" is a terrible idea. I'm happy to see these researches did their work properly, didn't jump to conclusions based upon blind faith, and actually did some research. Who would have thunk it that there are others reasons why the ice would be shrinking besides just global warming.

[PLAYER57832]

This edition of non-sequitur of the day is brought to you by Bud Light.

Here we go...

Its what happens when you stop making science a priority at all levels of schooling.

Yes...throwing the scientific method out the window and saying "shrinking ice means global warming" is a terrible idea. I'm happy to see these researches did their work properly, didn't jump to conclusions based upon blind faith, and actually did some research. Who would have thunk it that there are others reasons why the ice would be shrinking besides just global warming.

Then again, you could try understanding that this is a science success, not failure. And, understanding that one error, particularly one corrected, doesn't discount years of evidence.

[Neoteny]

Yeah! And you know what else?! All those Antarctic "researchers" are breathing and farting all over the ice too! That miniscule effect on temperature must surely bring down the entirety of "scientific" knowledge on climate and regional weather patterns, just as well as this brand-new, never before seen branch of knowledge called seismology! Those alarmists are so narrow-minded...

[thegreekdog]

Can I have a private word with conservatives...

[thegreekdog waits for liberals to leave the room]

Alright people, here's the deal. Stop arguing about whether global warming is real or a hoax or whatever. Let's just assume it's real (it's not a hard assumption to make, because it is).

Instead of arguing about something stupid, change the argument. Most liberals want the government to do something about global warming. You have a lot of other discussion points to go with:

(1) The government shouldn't tell us what to do;
(2) The government and people supporting government intervention are hypocrits;
(3) Nuclear energy!;
(4) Jobs will be lost.

See, isn't that easy? So stop arguing with science and start arguing about policy. You aren't going to win the science argument.

[thegreekdog peeks outside the door]

You liberals can come back in now.

[jimboston]

Alright people, here's the deal. Stop arguing about whether global warming is real or a hoax or whatever. Let's just assume it's real (it's not a hard assumption to make, because it is).

I disagree...

Is the Earth warming... perhaps.

Is it caused by humans... perhaps.

Are these valid theories... yes.

Are they proven... no.

[Neoteny]

Alright people, here's the deal. Stop arguing about whether global warming is real or a hoax or whatever. Let's just assume it's real (it's not a hard assumption to make, because it is).

I disagree...

Is the Earth warming... perhaps.

Is it caused by humans... perhaps.

Are these valid theories... yes.

Are they proven... no.

I like how you put words together without regard for their meanings. They may form a coherent sentence, but the actual relationships amongst the words are completely nonsensical.

[jimboston]

Alright people, here's the deal. Stop arguing about whether global warming is real or a hoax or whatever. Let's just assume it's real (it's not a hard assumption to make, because it is).

I disagree...

Is the Earth warming... perhaps.

Is it caused by humans... perhaps.

Are these valid theories... yes.

Are they proven... no.

I like how you put words together without regard for their meanings. They may form a coherent sentence, but the actual relationships amongst the words are completely nonsensical.

I like how you try to belittle my opinion.
Yet you fail.

The fact is that "global warming" has not been proved.

[Neoteny]

Alright people, here's the deal. Stop arguing about whether global warming is real or a hoax or whatever. Let's just assume it's real (it's not a hard assumption to make, because it is).

I disagree...

Is the Earth warming... perhaps.

Is it caused by humans... perhaps.

Are these valid theories... yes.

Are they proven... no.

I like how you put words together without regard for their meanings. They may form a coherent sentence, but the actual relationships amongst the words are completely nonsensical.

I like how you try to belittle my opinion.
Yet you fail.

The fact is that "global warming" has not been proved.

If global warming isn't "proved" to your confidence level, then nothing in science is "proved" to that degree. That is how I am successfully belittling your opinion.

[PLAYER57832]

Alright people, here's the deal. Stop arguing about whether global warming is real or a hoax or whatever. Let's just assume it's real (it's not a hard assumption to make, because it is).

I disagree...

Is the Earth warming... perhaps.

Wrong. Those who report otherwise (including those presented above.. see my post for full critique) are either heavily sponsored by those with a vested interest in disputing that the earth is warming, using limited data, out of date or plain incorrect data or just plain are not using science at all.

s it caused by humans... perhaps.

Forget the word "cause". Its irrelevant. Global Warming ( or to be more accurate global climate change), has several known causes, not any one. Are humans contributing in a way that is increasing the trend for bad things to happen? THAT answer is "yes". There is some dispute over exactly what and exactly how much impact humans have, and over exactly what we should do to correct the problem, but there is very little doubt that humans are making things worse than they would be otherwise.

Are these valid theories... yes.

Which theories? Regarding Global climate change, there are many, but most of the above is not theory.

Are they proven... no.

Again, you have to clarify.

[demonfork]

Alright people, here's the deal. Stop arguing about whether global warming is real or a hoax or whatever. Let's just assume it's real (it's not a hard assumption to make, because it is).

I disagree...

Is the Earth warming... perhaps.

Wrong. Those who report otherwise (including those presented above.. see my post for full critique) are either heavily sponsored by those with a vested interest in disputing that the earth is warming, using limited data, out of date or plain incorrect data or just plain are not using science at all.

s it caused by humans... perhaps.

Forget the word "cause". Its irrelevant. Global Warming ( or to be more accurate global climate change), has several known causes, not any one. Are humans contributing in a way that is increasing the trend for bad things to happen? THAT answer is "yes". There is some dispute over exactly what and exactly how much impact humans have, and over exactly what we should do to correct the problem, but there is very little doubt that humans are making things worse than they would be otherwise.

Are these valid theories... yes.

Which theories? Regarding Global climate change, there are many, but most of the above is not theory.

Are they proven... no.

Again, you have to clarify.

Here are some facts for you...

The method by which the average global temperature is calculated is extremely flawed.

Without even getting into a debate about how and why it’s so flawed, the fact that the scientists that developed the complex calculation that all of the compiled data from all of the global measuring sites is plugged into, admit themselves that the margin of error for their annual average global temperature calculation is +/- 1.86 deg F.... and many say that this is a very optimistic margin of error and that it's even higher than that.

[Army of GOD]

Those of you who are taking sides are all idiots, I'm sorry.

Nobunaga got it right before. Those who believe GW is happening won't believe the deniers' "scientific evidence" and vice versa.

Seriously...it's annoying. I hate when people think modern science is pure truth and they stand behind it like it's the fucking Great Wall of China.

I do not know if it is happening or not. But if you put a gun to my head and told me to choose, I'd always say safe is better than sorry, so I guess I side with the believers.

[Neoteny]

I hate when people think not taking a side is some sort of valiant, upstanding wisdom shining upon us all. Instead, it usually manifests as the same ego-driven condescension that is often being chastised. If you don't think science is useful in a discussion about reality, then you can go hang out with the other crazies in a religion thread.

[jimboston]

Those of you who are taking sides are all idiots, I'm sorry.

Nobunaga got it right before. Those who believe GW is happening won't believe the deniers' "scientific evidence" and vice versa.

Seriously...it's annoying. I hate when people think modern science is pure truth and they stand behind it like it's the fucking Great Wall of China.

I do not know if it is happening or not. But if you put a gun to my head and told me to choose, I'd always say safe is better than sorry, so I guess I side with the believers.

AMEN!

If you actually read what I have written... I never say it isn't happening. I say it's not proven. I think we should curb fossil fuel use... Maybe because of this is true, but mostly because it is good for other reasons.

On the global warming thing... I think it may be true... But I hate it when people blindly accept the BS Al Gore spews without question.

Call me agnostic.

[jimboston]

I hate when people think not taking a side is some sort of valiant, upstanding wisdom shining upon us all. Instead, it usually manifests as the same ego-driven condescension that is often being chastised. If you don't think science is useful in a discussion about reality, then you can go hang out with the other crazies in a religion thread.

Or maybe it's the smart thing to do when there is no proof for one theory versus another.

[Army of GOD]

I hate when people think not taking a side is some sort of valiant, upstanding wisdom shining upon us all. Instead, it usually manifests as the same ego-driven condescension that is often being chastised. If you don't think science is useful in a discussion about reality, then you can go hang out with the other crazies in a religion thread.

I'm not saying science isn't useful, I'm saying it isn't as reliable as "you people" (inb4 "what do you mean 'you people'?") believe it is. Science has been wrong before, and it will be wrong again.

Obviously you can turn this against the "agnostics", because there's always an argument against a position. But as I already stated, I lean towards the GW believers. It just annoys me when other people are so incredibly full of themselves and belittle the other side's ability to think critically or whatever.

I'm not saying I'm smarter than people here. I'm just trying to point out that the opposing side of the argument exists for a reason.

Also,

then you can go hang out with the other crazies in a religion thread.

WAT

[Metsfanmax]

Here are some facts for you...

some facts for you

facts

The method by which the average global temperature is calculated is extremely flawed.