Climate Theories Crumble as Data and Experts Suggest Global Cooling

[AUcivE09 582]

Blogs are written by anyone and should never be taken seriously. No matter how well organized.

I keep seeing all of this talk of "every major institution" and "Scientist everywhere". Truth is, for every "major institution" that has a report predicting doom and gloom - there is another out there refuting the case. Truth is - there is no report out there substantial enough to even begin to prove this theory.

"It is a theory that is backed up by enough cross-discipline evidence to convince something like 97% of the scientists who are qualified to understand the total picture" This statement is not only false but ambiguous at best. By using the phrase "qualified to understand the total picture" it leaves room to throw out the opinion or findings of anyone who the author does not agree with. Not to mention we have no idea what these "qualifications" are.

[AUcivE09 582]

And PS - drop the dickish attitude. Im sorry your not a young engineer.

[homersapien 11,374]

And PS - drop the dickish attitude. Im sorry your not a young engineer.

No can do. Arrogance is part of my style. Such freedom is one of the joys of an anonymous forum.

But then, I don't throw "dickishness" out randomly. One has to earn it.

[homersapien 11,374]

Blogs are written by anyone and should never be taken seriously. No matter how well organized.

That's nonsense. One cannot simply dismiss a source because it is on the internet. The publishing media doesn't dictate the quality of what is published. I know of lots of books that aren't worth the paper they are written on. The internet does contains a lot of garbage, which is what one would expect from a medium that allows anyone to publish with no editorial barriers whatsoever.

That does not mean however, that everything published on the internet is unreliable. After all, pretty much everything that is published of any significance will wind up on the internet either in whole or as a reference.

This site is well written and well organized which contributes to it's value, but the real quality comes from the way all claims are referenced to scientific sources.

[homersapien 11,374]

I keep seeing all of this talk of "every major institution" and "Scientist everywhere". Truth is, for every "major institution" that has a report predicting doom and gloom - there is another out there refuting the case.

First, "doom and gloom" is a rhetorical embellishment of your own. More importantly, your assertion is simply false. The idea that there is a "balance" of positions reflected by scientific organizations is absurd. See post # 104. Do you have a similar list of organizations who have issued contrarian views?

Didn't think so.

Truth is - there is no report out there substantial enough to even begin to prove this theory.

First, if by "report" you mean a given published paper, of course not. No theory can be proven on the basis of a single paper.

But AGW is a theory that is backed up by enough cross-disciplinary evidence, gathered for decades, to convince something like 97% of the scientists who are qualified to understand it.

By using the phrase "qualified to understand the total picture" it leaves room to throw out the opinion or findings of anyone who the author does not agree with. Not to mention we have no idea what these "qualifications" are.

OK, I rewrote it a little since you have a problem with that phrase.

But to the point, I think leaving room to disregard opinions of those who don't have enough expertise in the area to understand the evidence is a good thing. Do you take engineering advice from just anybody with an opinion on the matter? I certainly hope not.

[AUcivE09 582]

AGW is not backed up by "enough cross-disciplinary evidence". We are 15 pages in and you can only cite a blog thus far. Hardly worth being considered solid "cross-disciplinary eveidence". BTW - scoped out a few of those people and "sources". It is pretty funny where some of those people get their information. Did I mention I am a french model? Its on the internet. The rest of what you wrote and spaced out - well, it is garbage. Here is an idea - go back to school and study environmental science. After you gain an understanding that CO2 is a basic building block of life and discover that CO2 is the result of "clean combustion", maybe then you will realize your party is pushing an idea that is fairly rediculous to begin with. Not only that - but any data we have to suggest that the world is warming actually proves we are simply rocking right along as usual - if not a bit cooler. It is simply amazing that we have not smashed all the heat records - but I suppose that is why they have to call it climate change and throw tornados, hurricanes, and wildfires in with the theory.

EPA also considers MANY other "greenhouse" gases to have a "global warming potential" between 10 and 150 times greater than CO2 (methane, hexaflorides, etc.)

Btw - sorry that education is grounds for recieving dickisness.

[homersapien 11,374]

AGW is not backed up by "enough cross-disciplinary evidence". We are 15 pages in and you can only cite a blog thus far. Hardly worth being considered solid "cross-disciplinary eveidence".

A single "blog"? :-\

Perhaps you don't understand. The single "blog" is a literature review, or more accurately a systematic literature review. The blog itself is not the reference. The blog simply compiles qualified research from all sources, from all disciplines, that provide evidence on AGW, either in support or in dispute. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_review

To criticize the site itself is totally pointless, unless you want to point out references that were omitted or shouldn't have been included.

Does that help?

[homersapien 11,374]

......BTW - scoped out a few of those people and "sources". It is pretty funny where some of those people get their information. Did I mention I am a french model? Its on the internet. The rest of what you wrote and spaced out - well, it is garbage. Here is an idea - go back to school and study environmental science.....

Blah blah blah. That's just rhetoric.

Simply calling something "garbage" is not rebuttal. To effectively rebut a given claim, you need to explain exactly how and why it is wrong.

And I thought I already explained that the publication mode (papers, journals, books or internet) in itself does not determine a given articles worth. Besides, most of the articles cited in the review were published in juried or peer-reviewed journals. (Do I need to explain that? Being an engineer, you may not be familiar with the protocols of research and publishing your results. )

[homersapien 11,374]

After you gain an understanding that CO2 is a basic building block of life and discover that CO2 is the result of "clean combustion", maybe then you will realize your party is pushing an idea that is fairly rediculous to begin with.

Seriously? That's your argument against the effects of excessive CO2 in our atmosphere? I suppose you think the idea of drowning is a myth since water is essential to life.

You don't even sound like a good engineer, much less scientist.

And I don't get the "party" reference.

[homersapien 11,374]

Not only that - but any data we have to suggest that the world is warming actually proves we are simply rocking right along as usual - if not a bit cooler.

We have already covered that claim. Please refer back to post # 61.

Do you need to go back and review it?

[homersapien 11,374]

It is simply amazing that we have not smashed all the heat records - but I suppose that is why they have to call it climate change and throw tornados, hurricanes, and wildfires in with the theory.

No, it's not amazing that we have not smashed all the heat records at all. But we are setting heat records at a rate that is consistent with the theory. (One of the proofs of a valid theory is that they are predictive.)

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2013/20130806_stateoftheclimate.html

You can find many more individual examples by searching heat records.

And the reason it's now called "climate change" is because that is a more accurate description. The overall driver is global heat, but the result can be localized cooling for a given area of the earth. Such is the chaos of weather.

And while one cannot conclusively attribute any given storm or fire event to AGW, the theory does predict an increase of more violent events as you describe.

[homersapien 11,374]

EPA also considers MANY other "greenhouse" gases to have a "global warming potential" between 10 and 150 times greater than CO2 (methane, hexaflorides, etc.)

And your point is?

I trust you are not saying that negates the effects of excessive CO2.

[Weegle777 78]

Homer, you do realize that this guy actually works in this field, and has first-hand knowledge about this stuff, whereas all you have is your good friend google and those mighty links? But please keep arguing, it is absolute entertainment watching him bust you up at every turn!

[AUDub 11,149]

Homer, you do realize that this guy actually works in this field, and has first-hand knowledge about this stuff, whereas all you have is your good friend google and those mighty links? But please keep arguing, it is absolute entertainment watching him bust you up at every turn!

I didn't know engineering and climatology were the same thing.

[Weegle777 78]

Homer, you do realize that this guy actually works in this field, and has first-hand knowledge about this stuff, whereas all you have is your good friend google and those mighty links? But please keep arguing, it is absolute entertainment watching him bust you up at every turn! :laugh:/>

I didn't know engineering and climatology were the same thing. :dunno:/>

Using google and claiming to be intelligent on a subject, aren't the same thing either.

[homersapien 11,374]

Homer, you do realize that this guy actually works in this field, and has first-hand knowledge about this stuff, whereas all you have is your good friend google and those mighty links? But please keep arguing, it is absolute entertainment watching him bust you up at every turn! :laugh:/>

I didn't know engineering and climatology were the same thing. :dunno:/>

Using google and claiming to be intelligent on a subject, aren't the same thing either.

So you got a substantive argument? Do I need to explain what a substantive argument is again?

Show me how intelligent you are on the subject.

And I suspect AUcivE09 might prefer for you to keep your mouth shut regarding his "first hand" knowledge. You are a total layman, whereas, he at least, should understand the math (at least if he can look it up and apply it to a problem which has already been solved.)

[homersapien 11,374]

Homer, you do realize that this guy actually works in this field, and has first-hand knowledge about this stuff, whereas all you have is your good friend google and those mighty links? But please keep arguing, it is absolute entertainment watching him bust you up at every turn!

Well, I think it's absolute entertainment to watch you act like a lap dog.

[Weegle777 78]

Homer, you do realize that this guy actually works in this field, and has first-hand knowledge about this stuff, whereas all you have is your good friend google and those mighty links? But please keep arguing, it is absolute entertainment watching him bust you up at every turn!

Well, I think it's absolute entertainment to watch you act like a lap dog. :laugh:/>

Poor little googler. I kind of feel sorry for you. Well, when I'm not laughing at you. Got any more names that you want to call me while you hide behind your little keyboard there tiny?

[homersapien 11,374]

Homer, you do realize that this guy actually works in this field, and has first-hand knowledge about this stuff, whereas all you have is your good friend google and those mighty links? But please keep arguing, it is absolute entertainment watching him bust you up at every turn!

Well, I think it's absolute entertainment to watch you act like a lap dog. :laugh:/>

Poor little googler. I kind of feel sorry for you. Well, when I'm not laughing at you. Got any more names that you want to call me while you hide behind your little keyboard there tiny?

If you ask for it, don't be so indignant about getting it.

Now do you have anything to add to the discussion?

[DKW 86 7,425]

Excuse some of us if we have heard all this before and just arent that impressed by it all.

[Weegle777 78]

Excuse some of us if we have heard all this before and just arent that impressed by it all.

But, but, but it is real! The great scientists say so! I know this because I googled it, and everything you read on the internet is true! And the science blogs, and the scientists, and the........well the scientists......

[AUcivE09 582]

Hey Weegs - thanks for jumping in earlier. What we all need to realize is that the weather goes in cycles. We can not sit back and say that manmade CO2 is driving this. There are just too many factors. An ice shelf in Antartica has seen record growth in the past year or two. I will not sit here and claims that busts up Homers theory, but it is a good sign we may need a little more info to make an argument to outlaw CO2 and start charging companies for running their equipment correctly. With the invention of 24/7 news in the 80's we see much more of the fires and crazy weather than we did before. These "scientist" predict crazier weather in the future - here we are half way through hurricane season - with a goose egg. Will they point to the next hurricane and say "see"? I cannot say they are wrong - but they are definately jumping to conclusions and trying to link a pollutant to an idea.

I made a comment about the EPA designating other greenhouse gases as having a "global warming potential" greater than CO2 - and by a good bit. These are the gasses I beleive we should be concerned about. They will not make as much money for our government but the effect they have on surface temps and human health are much worse. If you are really worried about CO2 (a non toxic gas) then go plant a tree - I hear the plant life on this planet LOVES some CO2.

[homersapien 11,374]

Excuse some of us if we have heard all this before and just arent that impressed by it all.

Perhaps you shouldn't depend on Time magazine for your scientific information:

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

Ice age predicted in the 70s"[M]any publications now claiming the world is on the brink of a global warming disaster said the same about an impending ice age – just 30 years ago. Several major ones, including The New York Times, Time magazine and Newsweek, have reported on three or even four different climate shifts since 1895." (Fire and Ice)

What the science says...

The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.

In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.

At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies.Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.

By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.

http://www.skeptical...ns-in-1970s.htm

[homersapien 11,374]

But, but, but it is real! The great scientists say so! I know this because I googled it, and everything you read on the internet is true! And the science blogs, and the scientists, and the........well the scientists......

Please refer back to post #134.

And yes, the primary reference is on the internet, but if you will notice, everything in it is referenced to legitimate sources.

Course, in your mind they are probably not as good a "Time Magazine", but trust me, actual scientific publications carry a lot more weight.

[homersapien 11,374]

Hey Weegs - thanks for jumping in earlier. What we all need to realize is that the weather goes in cycles. We can not sit back and say that manmade CO2 is driving this. There are just too many factors.

Do you really think that the science of global warming has simply overlooked the natural causes of climatic variation?

Is that what you are contending?

As an engineer, you probably never learned much about research and how experiments and the analysis of data are designed to account for all sources of variation. Weegs said this was "your field". Have you ever published a paper on the subject?