Climate Theories Crumble as Data and Experts Suggest Global Cooling

[homersapien 11,430]

DKW made a faulty technical argument. I responded with a technical analysis that explains why it is faulty. It doesn't matter how many such faulty arguments are made. It doesn't make them valid.

You responded with a technical analysis? That made me laugh out loud. All you did was ask a question and make a few statements. If you call that technical analysis it's no wonder you can't support your position conclusively.

The article I cited explained why it is statistically (technically) incorrect to cherry-pick a given subset of data to make broad conclusions. This is the second example of such a faulty argument, first with the temperature data and now with the arctic ice data.

You "Cherry Picking" Data is what my whole point is about homer. Selecting certain dates, on showing certain segments of the graphs, etc. The Mann hockey Stick graph is perfect. It is manipulated for data with fudge factors and cherry picked with dates and temperature sources.

OK, Please follow this carefully.

1) Thank you for pointing out the chart that starts with 1980. Frankly, the 1980 printed on that chart was not very legible and I missed it when skimming over them. I must have thought is said 1960.

The reason I asked was I wanted to know which chart you were referring to. I was not "challenging" the assertion that it went back to 1980.

But the important part is that it doesn't really matter. My intention was to demonstrate to Japantiger that his statement that "About a million more square miles of ocean are covered in ice in 2013 than in 2012, a whopping 60 percent increase". (post 167) was not relevant in terms of the big picture (long term trend).

For that specific purpose, a chart showing the overall decline in arctic ice since 1980 (or 1970 or 1990) is sufficient.

And I apologize I am only now addressing this, but I have been preoccupied the last few days with guests and haven't been able to waste as much time on this forum as I normally would.

You apparently mistook this delay as some great victory for your side, since you went to so much trouble with the fancy graphic and text to point out I had not yet responded. But in fact, it is a non-issue.

In hindsight, I should have just cut the part of the same article covering the general warming trend. I should have limited it the specific arctic ice data I was addressing. But I like to include entire articles as a matter of course. I didn't think it would cause such confusion.

This is especially so since I (correctly) pointed out earlier that a similar, limited, block of data on general temperature trends since 1998 was not valid to make a general conclusion regarding the global warming trend. This is true but I can see how people would conflate the issues.

So, I apologize for the confusion I created by including that entire article. It didn't occur to me it would be problem, but I see now why it became one.

Otherwise, I am scientifically correct in both matters.

I hope that makes sense. Let me know what doesn't and I will try to explain further.

P.S.:

Cut and Paste obviously does not indicate intelligence. What an absurd thing to say.

But a certain amount of scientific literacy is necessary to sort through all the C&P from both sides to ascertain what has value and what doesn't.

[homersapien 11,430]

But I have no delusions about proving AGW "conclusively" to those who simply don't want to accept it, especially for political reasons. That won't happen, at least until the effects become too obvious to deny, and even then they will probably deny it.

Few deny there is global warming. There is just disagreement over the cause and solution. So two questions:

1. What do you think are the major reasons/contributors for the current global warming?

2. What do you think can be done to make a major reduction?

Homer....waiting for your response.

1. CO2 build up from carbon-based energy.

2. From a practical stand point, not much. There are effective ways to mitigate the problem, but I don't think we have the global political maturity as a species to pull it off. I don't think people will be motivated to act until the negative consequences become bad enough to convince the deniers the problem needs to be addressed. And considering the lag times involved that will probably be too late to make much difference. Hopefully we will be able to act before the initiation of any possible runaway feedback loop that could lead to really radical changes in the climate.

If we get through this, oil and coal will eventually become more valuable as chemical precursors / feedstock than they are for fuel.

[AUinWV 0]

I can't believe this thread has 21 pages. I can settle this right here. Neither side knows. I think we all know this is the case.

Hear hear. To think that claims can be made about global weather patterns after gathering weather data for less than 300 years is supremely arrogant. Science is about the observation of nature. Applied science follows the money.This whole global warming debate is about the money and anyone who denies that isn't being honest,

In other words, you think it is a hoax perpetuated by the entire global scientific community, and they are all colluding because of the "money"?

That's simply absurd. Every scientific body of national or international standing agrees with the basic tenets of AGW.

Where is all this money coming from? The environmental community? All the world's governments? If the governments, why are the investing money into it?

The only money that is flowing into this (political) debate is coming from the oil and coal industries funding the "denier" community.

You're quoting without facts. Every scientist doesn't agree, by far, and as we learn more the tide is changing... the earth had probably 100x the co2 in the mesozoic, yet here we are...

[homersapien 11,430]

http://www.foxnews.c...tcmp=latestnews

Computer climate models wildly overestimate warming. What a surprise?

There is a possible explanation within the piece that was sourced in the article:

Another possible driver of the difference between observed and simulated global warming is increasing stratospheric aerosol concentrations. Results from several independent datasets show that stratospheric aerosol abundance has increased since the late 1990s, owing to a series of comparatively small tropical volcanic eruptions8. Although none of the CMIP5 simulations take this into account, two independent sets of model simulations estimate that increasing stratospheric aerosols have had a surface cooling impact of about 0.07 °C per decade since 19988,9. If the CMIP5 models had accounted for increasing stratospheric aerosol, and had responded with the same surface cooling impact, the simulations and observations would be in closer agreement. Other factors that contribute to the discrepancy could include a missing decrease in stratospheric water vapour10

Here's the piece.

Operative word, "possible." Implying, "we really don't know for sure but we'll take a stab at it." Educated guess or not, the reason for the climate models being inaccurate is proposed as: "stratospheric aerosol concentrations caused by volcanic eruptions." ... ...

Let me know when the irony sinks in that naturally-occurring geophysical forces affecting the world's climate is the reason for the AGW climate models to be off. I'm out of here.

What irony? Naturally-occurring geophysical forces are pretty much the only source of variation in climate models.

[AUinWV 0]

There, the question goes from where the money comes from, to where does it go? Gore?

*our upper atmosphere nuclear testing in the 50s-80s had a bigger effect than our farts and gas ever will.

[homersapien 11,430]

I can't believe this thread has 21 pages. I can settle this right here. Neither side knows. I think we all know this is the case.

Hear hear. To think that claims can be made about global weather patterns after gathering weather data for less than 300 years is supremely arrogant. Science is about the observation of nature. Applied science follows the money.This whole global warming debate is about the money and anyone who denies that isn't being honest,

In other words, you think it is a hoax perpetuated by the entire global scientific community, and they are all colluding because of the "money"?

That's simply absurd. Every scientific body of national or international standing agrees with the basic tenets of AGW.

Where is all this money coming from? The environmental community? All the world's governments? If the governments, why are the investing money into it?

The only money that is flowing into this (political) debate is coming from the oil and coal industries funding the "denier" community.

You're quoting without facts. Every scientist doesn't agree, by far, and as we learn more the tide is changing... the earth had probably 100x the co2 in the mesozoic, yet here we are...

First, I was referring to scientific organizations and associations, not individual scientists. For (qualified) scientists, I think the estimate is currently around 97%.

That may be as high as it is possible to get. Heck there are supposed scientific experts that have been cited in this very thread from the "denier side" that are proponents of biblical based theories (ID) over evolution. There are way too many scientists to make anything unanimous.

But anyone with any familiarity with scientific associations will appreciate the significance of the unanimous agreement among them.

[AUinWV 0]

I can't believe this thread has 21 pages. I can settle this right here. Neither side knows. I think we all know this is the case.

Hear hear. To think that claims can be made about global weather patterns after gathering weather data for less than 300 years is supremely arrogant. Science is about the observation of nature. Applied science follows the money.This whole global warming debate is about the money and anyone who denies that isn't being honest,

In other words, you think it is a hoax perpetuated by the entire global scientific community, and they are all colluding because of the "money"?

That's simply absurd. Every scientific body of national or international standing agrees with the basic tenets of AGW.

Where is all this money coming from? The environmental community? All the world's governments? If the governments, why are the investing money into it?

The only money that is flowing into this (political) debate is coming from the oil and coal industries funding the "denier" community.

You're quoting without facts. Every scientist doesn't agree, by far, and as we learn more the tide is changing... the earth had probably 100x the co2 in the mesozoic, yet here we are...

I think the estimate is currently 97%. That may be as high as it is possible to get.

Heck there are supposed scientific experts that have been cited in this very thread from the "denier side" that are proponents of biblical based theories (ID) over evolution. There are way too many scientists to make anything unanimous.

While I agree with you on 97% of subjects, I can't here. There are many top named scientists who call BS..

[AUinWV 0]

I can't believe this thread has 21 pages. I can settle this right here. Neither side knows. I think we all know this is the case.

Hear hear. To think that claims can be made about global weather patterns after gathering weather data for less than 300 years is supremely arrogant. Science is about the observation of nature. Applied science follows the money.This whole global warming debate is about the money and anyone who denies that isn't being honest,

In other words, you think it is a hoax perpetuated by the entire global scientific community, and they are all colluding because of the "money"?

That's simply absurd. Every scientific body of national or international standing agrees with the basic tenets of AGW.

Where is all this money coming from? The environmental community? All the world's governments? If the governments, why are the investing money into it?

The only money that is flowing into this (political) debate is coming from the oil and coal industries funding the "denier" community.

You're quoting without facts. Every scientist doesn't agree, by far, and as we learn more the tide is changing... the earth had probably 100x the co2 in the mesozoic, yet here we are...

I think the estimate is currently 97%. That may be as high as it is possible to get.

Heck there are supposed scientific experts that have been cited in this very thread from the "denier side" that are proponents of biblical based theories (ID) over evolution. There are way too many scientists to make anything unanimous.

While I agree with you on 97% of subjects, I can't here. There are many top named scientists who call BS..

And if you don't look at it, I'm sorry. Science is disproving opposing opinions. You have to look at them first...

[homersapien 11,430]

I can't believe this thread has 21 pages. I can settle this right here. Neither side knows. I think we all know this is the case.

Hear hear. To think that claims can be made about global weather patterns after gathering weather data for less than 300 years is supremely arrogant. Science is about the observation of nature. Applied science follows the money.This whole global warming debate is about the money and anyone who denies that isn't being honest,

And i hope that this is what most of you see too.

There is just too much squish in the data and too many opinions, AND WAY TOO MUCH GOVT FUNDING INVOLVED.

Throw in Al Gore's $BN bet and we are off to the races for bs.

Once and for all. i really do think there is a problem.

Less carbons is a winner for everyone.

Less pollution is better for everyone.

But to ram, cram, and jam all this down our throats so you can destroy peoples way of life and to enrich yourself and political friends is borderline evil.

To assume that this is being "rammed, crammed and jammed down our throats" is to buy into the political agenda of those who have a vested interest in delaying action.

All the scientific community is doing is presenting the scientific conclusions to the public. The idea that the scientific community is somehow creating a global hoax for political and/or personal gain is beyond irrational.

The science cannot be disputed, so the money is flowing into essentially political efforts to discredit it. The denier special interests misrepresent the science in order to confuse the body politic. This is easy enough to do if you have the money to fund the effort.

Since scientific associations don't actively participate in politics, the only political opposition to the denier groups comes from environmental associations.

People such as yourself are lapping up this anti-science nonsense because it is presented as a paradigm that fits with your preferred world view - the simple diametric of liberal vs. conservative. At some point, ignorance ceases to become an excuse. That's when the "evil" comes into play.

[Weegle777 78]

Homer, you can't deny that the earth warms and cools. The earth is a living, breathing thing, and is cyclic in its nature. It groans and laughs just like we do. No one is saying that this isn't happening, just that the freak out by the scientific world is strange because, as smart as they claim to be, how can someone like me see the earth and its awesome capacity to heal itself over many, many centuries, and these scientists with their doctorates not see it? The evidence of the earth's ability to overcome is evident because of how it has thrived even through some of the most incredible natural disasters and catastrophies known to man. It will continue to thrive thousands and thousands and thousands of years into the future, because it has proven itself over and over to be able to withstand everything that has attempted to destroy it. The truth is right in front of you, but you have to open the front door and actually go outside to see it.

[AUinWV 0]

Homer, you can't deny that the earth warms and cools. The earth is a living, breathing thing, and is cyclic in its nature. It groans and laughs just like we do. No one is saying that this isn't happening, just that the freak out by the scientific world is strange because, as smart as they claim to be, how can someone like me see the earth and its awesome capacity to heal itself over many, many centuries, and these scientists with their doctorates not see it? The evidence of the earth's ability to overcome is evident because of how it has thrived even through some of the most incredible natural disasters and catastrophies known to man. It will continue to thrive thousands and thousands and thousands of years into the future, because it has proven itself over and over to be able to withstand everything that has attempted to destroy it. The truth is right in front of you, but you have to open the front door and actually go outside to see it.

But.. but... but... we know everything about the sun in 300 years of study, and therefore know all about the sun and all stars! Nevermind cycles that last longer than humans on this earth!! We know this! We have scientists to back us up!

*we have had 100s or 1000s of times our current co2 levels in history. It made us.

*However, if you wanna fight for more trees, I'm with ya. We could breathe more. I vote oaks on Toomers corner as my first vote. A 9 year old sapling, as my second, growing in harveys rear.

[AUinWV 0]

Indeed. The sun. Thats where our warming comes from. Otherwise you have to explain how humans are causing 7/9 planets to warm also...

*the only not having such a thick atmosphere nearly all is reflected..

[AUDub 11,178]

Indeed. The sun. Thats where our warming comes from. Otherwise you have to explain how humans are causing 7/9 planets to warm also...

Man you're bad at this. Time to go back to grade school and take a physical science class.

[AUinWV 0]

Indeed. The sun. Thats where our warming comes from. Otherwise you have to explain how humans are causing 7/9 planets to warm also...

Man you're bad at this. Time to go back to grade school and take a physical science class.

I'm sorry? I'm sometimes wrong, but I study science daily and nearly nothing else. What do you do? Make McDonalds better? Respond with facts, not attacks bro. Until then, I have the books on my table...

[AUinWV 0]

Indeed. The sun. Thats where our warming comes from. Otherwise you have to explain how humans are causing 7/9 planets to warm also...

Man you're bad at this. Time to go back to grade school and take a physical science class.

I made a 99 on the ASVAB 2 times, 98 once, and passed the Navy Nuclear physics test. Cant say more. What did you do?

[AUDub 11,178]

Indeed. The sun. Thats where our warming comes from. Otherwise you have to explain how humans are causing 7/9 planets to warm also...

Man you're bad at this. Time to go back to grade school and take a physical science class.

I'm sorry? I'm sometimes wrong, but I study science daily and nearly nothing else. What do you do? Make McDonalds better? Respond with facts, not attacks bro. Until then, I have the books on my table...

I'm a biomed tech. Essentially an electromechanical technician. I understand enough about thermodynamics to see just how poor your argument is.

No one here is denying that the sun warms our planet. That's a given. It's about how the heat is retained and its effects. Melting ice caps and the like. Google "greenhouse effect."

[AUinWV 0]

The greenhouse effect is certainly there. Our affect is negligible.

[AUinWV 0]

If co2 is the issue, why aren't we planting big trees instead of taxing people who already can't afford to live?

[AUinWV 0]

JF C. Look into history. It helps. Look at prior co2 levels and tell me were high before dismounting your high horse...

[AUinWV 0]

In rocks or ice... not the last 50 years, like that's not a laughable scale.

[AUDub 11,178]

The greenhouse effect is certainly there. Our affect is negligible.

Atmospheric CO2 (a greenhouse gas) levels are rising, coinciding with the industrial revolution. Around 270 ppm pre-industrial compared to 380 ppm today. The vast majority of climatologists believe this is the result of our burning fossil fuels combined with deforestation.

EDIT: Slow down a bit. One argument at a time. We have all day. This Kentucky game is at halftime. ;-)

[AUinWV 0]

Don't let logic mess with your theory...

[AUDub 11,178]

If co2 is the issue, why aren't we planting big trees instead of taxing people who already can't afford to live?

Trees don't grow quickly enough to match how many we've cut down in the last century. And I'm not suggesting taxing anyone. That's your strawman.

JF C. Look into history. It helps. Look at prior co2 levels and tell me were high before dismounting your high horse...

Addressed in my prior post. These were measurements taken from the Greenland ice sheet. Atmospheric CO2 has been higher in the past. The planet was warmer and had higher concentrations of oxygen as well. That's great for megafauna like dinosaurs, but not exactly within the range where we'd be comfortable. The issue is with the rapidity of the warming. Major climate changes in such a short span could be catastrophic.

[AUDub 11,178]

Don't let logic mess with your theory...

Argument from authority. And a poor one at that. "Lord" Monckton is a well known crank and nuts to boot. His arguments have been widely refuted.

[AUinWV 0]