Global Warming a Hoax

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by jkav

Honest question here: the Nature paper you linked to employs a numerical model to examine the herding behaviour you're talking about. What makes that model trustworthy? Can the complexities of human behaviour really be modeled more readily than the Earth's energy budget?

Models are models. Totally agree. The differences between predictive accuracy comes with either knowing all variable or knowing none then all the issues inbetween.

A reader needs to ask how complicated is the model. Can I run a model with the same understandings and get the same result. Can it be tested against the real world.

In climate circuits they run tons of models and tweak it to make it fit the past and pick the one that also matches their prediction. When it fails they rerun it. Again and again.

[jkav]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

In climate circuits they run tons of models and tweak it to make it fit the past and pick the one that also matches their prediction. When it fails they rerun it. Again and again.

Sorry Sundancefisher, but in no way does this describe the process by which publishable climate model simulations are generated. Well, that's not completely true: they do run "tons of models" - but for the purpose of testing the sensitivity of the model to reasonable variations in poorly-constrained model parameters (such as the cloud-albedo feedback you mentioned) and run-to-run variablilty. The range of possible outcomes defines the uncertainty on either side of the most likely scenario. Individual model runs are completely worthless, and there's a 0% chance of getting anything published in the scientific literature if exhaustive sensitivity analyses of this kind aren't performed.

Nowadays, relatively little serious consideration is given even to results generated by individual GCMs. For the IPCC, for example, these suites of runs (as described above) are performed by all of the models in the CMIP (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project), and the results are compared. Why? Because each model has its own implementation or parameterization of the equations governing the transport of geophysical fluids (air, water), energy, moisture, etc., over the Earth. (Plus vegetation growth/decay, precip and snowmelt, land and sea ice changes, etc. If it matters, it's in there.) As a result, each model yields different results - some better in some aspects of the Earth system, others better than other aspects. And it's become clear that the average of these models tends to perform far better across the board than any one model. And note that all of the GCM results included in the past couple of IPCC Assessment Reports are averaged results of these ensemble runs. If you care to dispel some of your mistaken notions about GCMs, this paper by Gleckler et al. (2008) is a good place to start.

A few more points:
1. These models are all published in the scientific literature, whether in peer-reviewed journals or M.Sc. and Ph.D theses. If not, they're simply not accepted by the scientific community. If you'd like to examine them to check for mathematical errors, "fudge factors", etc., fill your boots. All data from the model runs used in the IPCC reports is also freely available (except for commercial use) at http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/.

2. The "I" in IPCC stands for "Intergovernmental" - which means that all member nations must sign off on every word in the report before it's released. No "if"s, "and"s, or "but"s. Comparing the IPCC member nation list with Wikipedia's list of top oil-producing nations (sorry for the Wiki reference; I don't need to spend much more time on this), they're all there.

If any one of these nations had any disagreements with the IPCC report, they could torpedo it. And yet the reports are public. What does this mean? It means that anything at all controversial is watered down to the point that it's acceptable to the most cautious of member nations.

3. The idea that the science community is driven by greed or the quest for money is laughable - if anyone wanted to get rich, the absolutely worst way to do so is to throw away your best earning years for a 2-3 year $20,000/year M.Sc. position, a 5-6 year $25,000/year Ph.D. program, and a couple of 2 year postdoctoral positions at $40,000/year - on the very small chance that you'll land a professorship that might top out at $250k/yr if you're at the top of your field. The big grant money you speak of goes to student and staff salaries, computer time, publication fees, conference registrations and travel costs, etc. It doesn't end up in the researcher's bank account. Anyone contemplating going this route to get rich would be better off joining any of the oilfield services trades.

Instead, every scientist I've ever met has been driven by the quest to figure out how and why things work the way they do. Period.

4. Gore, DeCaprio, Suzuki, etc. are celebrities, not scientists. The reason we have to listen to them is that the vast majority of scientists do their best to remain objective - and thus rarely speak to the media. This leaves a vacuum for people who love to hear themselves speak.

I'll stop there, but kindly suggest that you do a bit more investigation into how climate models are actually run and used. You're wildly off the mark.

Best regards and have a good evening,

jkav

[crazyguntotinrightwinger]

Originally Posted by jkav

Sorry Sundancefisher, but in no way does this describe the process by which publishable climate model simulations are generated. Well, that's not completely true: they do run "tons of models" - but for the purpose of testing the sensitivity of the model to reasonable variations in poorly-constrained model parameters (such as the cloud-albedo feedback you mentioned) and run-to-run variablilty. The range of possible outcomes defines the uncertainty on either side of the most likely scenario. Individual model runs are completely worthless, and there's a 0% chance of getting anything published in the scientific literature if exhaustive sensitivity analyses of this kind aren't performed.

Nowadays, relatively little serious consideration is given even to results generated by individual GCMs. For the IPCC, for example, these suites of runs (as described above) are performed by all of the models in the CMIP (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project), and the results are compared. Why? Because each model has its own implementation or parameterization of the equations governing the transport of geophysical fluids (air, water), energy, moisture, etc., over the Earth. (Plus vegetation growth/decay, precip and snowmelt, land and sea ice changes, etc. If it matters, it's in there.) As a result, each model yields different results - some better in some aspects of the Earth system, others better than other aspects. And it's become clear that the average of these models tends to perform far better across the board than any one model. And note that all of the GCM results included in the past couple of IPCC Assessment Reports are averaged results of these ensemble runs. If you care to dispel some of your mistaken notions about GCMs, this paper by Gleckler et al. (2008) is a good place to start.

A few more points:
1. These models are all published in the scientific literature, whether in peer-reviewed journals or M.Sc. and Ph.D theses. If not, they're simply not accepted by the scientific community. If you'd like to examine them to check for mathematical errors, "fudge factors", etc., fill your boots. All data from the model runs used in the IPCC reports is also freely available (except for commercial use) at http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/.

2. The "I" in IPCC stands for "Intergovernmental" - which means that all member nations must sign off on every word in the report before it's released. No "if"s, "and"s, or "but"s. Comparing the IPCC member nation list with Wikipedia's list of top oil-producing nations (sorry for the Wiki reference; I don't need to spend much more time on this), they're all there.

If any one of these nations had any disagreements with the IPCC report, they could torpedo it. And yet the reports are public. What does this mean? It means that anything at all controversial is watered down to the point that it's acceptable to the most cautious of member nations.

3. The idea that the science community is driven by greed or the quest for money is laughable - if anyone wanted to get rich, the absolutely worst way to do so is to throw away your best earning years for a 2-3 year $20,000/year M.Sc. position, a 5-6 year $25,000/year Ph.D. program, and a couple of 2 year postdoctoral positions at $40,000/year - on the very small chance that you'll land a professorship that might top out at $250k/yr if you're at the top of your field. The big grant money you speak of goes to student and staff salaries, computer time, publication fees, conference registrations and travel costs, etc. It doesn't end up in the researcher's bank account. Anyone contemplating going this route to get rich would be better off joining any of the oilfield services trades.

Instead, every scientist I've ever met has been driven by the quest to figure out how and why things work the way they do. Period.

4. Gore, DeCaprio, Suzuki, etc. are celebrities, not scientists. The reason we have to listen to them is that the vast majority of scientists do their best to remain objective - and thus rarely speak to the media. This leaves a vacuum for people who love to hear themselves speak.

I'll stop there, but kindly suggest that you do a bit more investigation into how climate models are actually run and used. You're wildly off the mark.

Best regards and have a good evening,

jkav

It doesn't really matter that he's off the mark. The scientists have been screaming catastrophe based on the models for 25 years. They PREDICTED a sharp increase in temperature due to rising co2 levels that DID NOT HAPPEN.

So what did they do? They are now claiming it's the oceans that are sucking up the heat. This doesn't mean that they're wrong. It just means that their conclusions are set in stone, and it's obvious, partly because of the predictive power of their models, and rather than reexamine their assumptions they simply tweak the theory to support their predetermined conclusion that 'warming is inevitable one day.' But this is nonsense! They might be right, but the FACT IS that they are WRONG SO FAR. That's not science. It's pushing an agenda. We need to be cautious about what we believe from the scientific community.

20 years ago the theory that some dinosaurs had feathers or that dinosaurs eventually evolved into birds was considered borderline ludicrous. Now they are 'certain' that not only did some have them, MOST DID! What will they be certain of tomorrow?

This touches on an issue that has been coming up in the philosophical and scientific communities in the past few decades: the inherent limitations of scientific reductivism. It seems obvious that complex systems like earth or the brain CAN NOT be boiled down to the summation of their parts. Yet the scientific community continues to believe and promote that not only is it a good way of doing things, it's the ONLY way.

[sdvc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC1l4geSTP8

I know its an ad but do the math...

[jkav]

Originally Posted by crazyguntotinrightwinger

It doesn't really matter that he's off the mark. The scientists have been screaming catastrophe based on the models for 25 years. They PREDICTED a sharp increase in temperature due to rising co2 levels that DID NOT HAPPEN.

So what did they do? They are now claiming it's the oceans that are sucking up the heat. This doesn't mean that they're wrong. It just means that their conclusions are set in stone, and it's obvious, partly because of the predictive power of their models, and rather than reexamine their assumptions they simply tweak the theory to support their predetermined conclusion that 'warming is inevitable one day.' But this is nonsense! They might be right, but the FACT IS that they are WRONG SO FAR. That's not science. It's pushing an agenda. We need to be cautious about what we believe from the scientific community.

20 years ago the theory that some dinosaurs had feathers or that dinosaurs eventually evolved into birds was considered borderline ludicrous. Now they are 'certain' that not only did some have them, MOST DID! What will they be certain of tomorrow?

This touches on an issue that has been coming up in the philosophical and scientific communities in the past few decades: the inherent limitations of scientific reductivism. It seems obvious that complex systems like earth or the brain CAN NOT be boiled down to the summation of their parts. Yet the scientific community continues to believe and promote that not only is it a good way of doing things, it's the ONLY way.

Sorry CGTRW, there are a lot of assertions you've made that I can't really address without more specific information (citations, etc.). Global mean temperatures are in fact increasing, at rates that generally agree with modern GCMs - but only if anthropogenic CO2 is included as a forcing. The models and reality seem to be in broad agreement.

When scientists (and their models) are wrong, of course they seek the reasons why and improve the physics and implementations of those physics. If a hunter doesn't adjust their scope after missing, they'll go hungry; if a scientist gets things wrong and doesn't correct them to match additional information, they also go hungry.

I'm also at a loss as to what "agenda" scientists are pushing - that is, to what gain? Financial? Again, they'd make much better money with their computer skills in finance or any number of other fields. If they're wrong, and keep pushing that wrong answer, it is unavoidable that they WILL be found out. Do you believe it's a vast conspiracy of climate scientists across the globe? Sorry, not possible - nations with competing interests don't get along that well, and there'd always be a rogue scientist who would spill the bean. And if the results are rigged or falsified, some young scientist would definitely make his or her mark upon the world by getting it right!

As for the screaming - most of it has not been by scientists, but by the celebrities. And if scientists are screaming, it's generally because they see what they believe - right or wrong - to be serious problems.

Best regards,

jkav

[avb3]

Originally Posted by sdvc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC1l4geSTP8

I know its an ad but do the math...

Warafin, as coumadin, is rat poison, is used for heart therapy. In the proper dosage, is it safe to use that way.

However, used little bit too much, and it'll kill you. That is the same as adding just a little bit too much co2 to the atmosphere. It is not the fact that it is only a small percentage, it the fact that the percentage humans are adding takes it out of equilibrium and becomes too much.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by jkav

Sorry CGTRW, there are a lot of assertions you've made that I can't really address without more specific information (citations, etc.). Global mean temperatures are in fact increasing, at rates that generally agree with modern GCMs - but only if anthropogenic CO2 is included as a forcing. The models and reality seem to be in broad agreement.

When scientists (and their models) are wrong, of course they seek the reasons why and improve the physics and implementations of those physics. If a hunter doesn't adjust their scope after missing, they'll go hungry; if a scientist gets things wrong and doesn't correct them to match additional information, they also go hungry.

I'm also at a loss as to what "agenda" scientists are pushing - that is, to what gain? Financial? Again, they'd make much better money with their computer skills in finance or any number of other fields. If they're wrong, and keep pushing that wrong answer, it is unavoidable that they WILL be found out. Do you believe it's a vast conspiracy of climate scientists across the globe? Sorry, not possible - nations with competing interests don't get along that well, and there'd always be a rogue scientist who would spill the bean. And if the results are rigged or falsified, some young scientist would definitely make his or her mark upon the world by getting it right!

As for the screaming - most of it has not been by scientists, but by the celebrities. And if scientists are screaming, it's generally because they see what they believe - right or wrong - to be serious problems.

Best regards,

jkav

Follow the money. Governments want to increase taxes, corporations want the CO2 sequestration (etc) grant money, scientists want the funding that goes to AGW favourable papers and research, and they all want to rub elbows at fancy "conferences" around the world. = scam. And the gullible public is falling for it.

[jkav]

Originally Posted by rugatika

...scientists want the funding that goes to AGW favourable papers and research, and they all want to rub elbows at fancy "conferences" around the world...

This is what motivates all of the literally THOUSANDS of scientists investigating the many aspects of climate change all over the world? I'm not buying it - it's small potatoes.

In all seriousness, they'd get far better funding trying to increase yields from livestock, agriculture - or bitumen sands.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by jkav

Sorry Sundancefisher, but in no way does this describe the process by which publishable climate model simulations are generated. Well, that's not completely true: they do run "tons of models" - but for the purpose of testing the sensitivity of the model to reasonable variations in poorly-constrained model parameters (such as the cloud-albedo feedback you mentioned) and run-to-run variablilty. The range of possible outcomes defines the uncertainty on either side of the most likely scenario. Individual model runs are completely worthless, and there's a 0% chance of getting anything published in the scientific literature if exhaustive sensitivity analyses of this kind aren't performed.

Nowadays, relatively little serious consideration is given even to results generated by individual GCMs. For the IPCC, for example, these suites of runs (as described above) are performed by all of the models in the CMIP (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project), and the results are compared. Why? Because each model has its own implementation or parameterization of the equations governing the transport of geophysical fluids (air, water), energy, moisture, etc., over the Earth. (Plus vegetation growth/decay, precip and snowmelt, land and sea ice changes, etc. If it matters, it's in there.) As a result, each model yields different results - some better in some aspects of the Earth system, others better than other aspects. And it's become clear that the average of these models tends to perform far better across the board than any one model. And note that all of the GCM results included in the past couple of IPCC Assessment Reports are averaged results of these ensemble runs. If you care to dispel some of your mistaken notions about GCMs, this paper by Gleckler et al. (2008) is a good place to start.

A few more points:
1. These models are all published in the scientific literature, whether in peer-reviewed journals or M.Sc. and Ph.D theses. If not, they're simply not accepted by the scientific community. If you'd like to examine them to check for mathematical errors, "fudge factors", etc., fill your boots. All data from the model runs used in the IPCC reports is also freely available (except for commercial use) at http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/.

2. The "I" in IPCC stands for "Intergovernmental" - which means that all member nations must sign off on every word in the report before it's released. No "if"s, "and"s, or "but"s. Comparing the IPCC member nation list with Wikipedia's list of top oil-producing nations (sorry for the Wiki reference; I don't need to spend much more time on this), they're all there.

If any one of these nations had any disagreements with the IPCC report, they could torpedo it. And yet the reports are public. What does this mean? It means that anything at all controversial is watered down to the point that it's acceptable to the most cautious of member nations.

3. The idea that the science community is driven by greed or the quest for money is laughable - if anyone wanted to get rich, the absolutely worst way to do so is to throw away your best earning years for a 2-3 year $20,000/year M.Sc. position, a 5-6 year $25,000/year Ph.D. program, and a couple of 2 year postdoctoral positions at $40,000/year - on the very small chance that you'll land a professorship that might top out at $250k/yr if you're at the top of your field. The big grant money you speak of goes to student and staff salaries, computer time, publication fees, conference registrations and travel costs, etc. It doesn't end up in the researcher's bank account. Anyone contemplating going this route to get rich would be better off joining any of the oilfield services trades.

Instead, every scientist I've ever met has been driven by the quest to figure out how and why things work the way they do. Period.

4. Gore, DeCaprio, Suzuki, etc. are celebrities, not scientists. The reason we have to listen to them is that the vast majority of scientists do their best to remain objective - and thus rarely speak to the media. This leaves a vacuum for people who love to hear themselves speak.

I'll stop there, but kindly suggest that you do a bit more investigation into how climate models are actually run and used. You're wildly off the mark.

Best regards and have a good evening,

jkav

I am not saying scientists are getting rich. What I am saying is money is the lifeblood for all and to continue working you need the grants.

To get the grants you must essentially be pro global warming.

Those peer reviewing are those who are researching. It is a tight click.

IPCC is a group with an agenda. The agenda has been manifested and promoted hard in the media for ratings. Governments see this as a means to tax. It is what we see. I ask for 5 studies that prove to individuals that they believe dangerous man made global warming is occurring. They can't.

Celebrities are in it for attention. Any attention. A cause gives them market share as a professional. Obscurity does not sell movie salaries.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba396

http://phys.org/news/2012-11-limitations-climate.html

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-c...d-heat-1.13344

You can argue...it is getting better...however not good enough to take money away from 3rd world efforts on starvation, water, health etc.

It is not good enough for any policy. Models are failing to do anything other that predict expected natural trends.

Sorry. We can agree to disagree.

Cheers

PS Remember. Politicians want to be paid also. They cater to the votes. The media has everyone believing every bad thing happening in the world is global warming caused. Snow, Rain, floods, drought, blizzards, warm weather, cold weather, no wind, hurricanes, tornadoes etc. Nothing is immune from blame.

The best way to control a population is through a single defined enemy. In this day and age we don't have the evil communist empire. Instead we have evil global warming. We have evil capitalists causing global warming. Everyone hate them and vote for me. Simple.

[jkav]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

I am not saying scientists are getting rich. What I am saying is money is the lifeblood for all and to continue working you need the grants.

To get the grants you must essentially be pro global warming.

Those peer reviewing are those who are researching. It is a tight click.

I'm in Earth sciences, and disagree. To get funding you need to identify a weakness in the current state of knowledge, and how you're going to address it. If through that grant you find that current thinking is wrong, and can back it up, it's easy to publish your findings - even with respect to global warming.

Sorry, the cliques aren't that tight.

[crazyguntotinrightwinger]

Originally Posted by jkav

Sorry CGTRW, there are a lot of assertions you've made that I can't really address without more specific information (citations, etc.). Global mean temperatures are in fact increasing, at rates that generally agree with modern GCMs - but only if anthropogenic CO2 is included as a forcing. The models and reality seem to be in broad agreement.

I don't know how you can say this. Here is a graph of the actual warming trend we've seen since 1979. The warming has been about a third of a degree.



And here is a graph of modeling predictions released from the IPCC



No matter which prediction you look at, even their best lowest estimates have consistently been wrong for 40 years, overestimating the actual warming by almost half a degree.

The fact is that the earth has warmed about 1 degree fahrenheit in the last 150 years, and there's a pretty big margin for error when you take into account that our measuring instruments are getting more accurate all the time. A good analogy would be earthquakes. They certainly aren't increasing year to year, but we detect many more of them in the present day and so if you plotted the data points from 150 years ago you would see a staggering increase.

Don't get me wrong, I believe the earth is warming. I'm just trying to point out the inherent difficulties of even plotting graphs over 150 years that leave out real margins of error based on steadily improving instrument accuracy.

I'm also at a loss as to what "agenda" scientists are pushing - that is, to what gain? Financial? Again, they'd make much better money with their computer skills in finance or any number of other fields. If they're wrong, and keep pushing that wrong answer, it is unavoidable that they WILL be found out.

They have been found out multiple times in the past forging results so their models better fit their pre-determined conclusions. There are any number of reasons why scientists would push an agenda and not maybe even realize they're doing it from financial to emotional to even trying to gain a sense of purpose and notoriety in a career that often leaves much to be desired in those regards. Scientists are just humans. The scientific method does nothing to take away mans inborn drives and motivations, despite what scientists say about themselves.

Do you believe it's a vast conspiracy of climate scientists across the globe?

I do not. But wouldn't you agree that the media is a major player in over or underestimating the significance of scientific results because they want to sell newspapers? It's certainly not a conspiracy, but it only takes a couple of forces pushing in one direction to change the entire metaphysic of a societies beliefs. And that strays from the facts and reality. And then people who DO want to exploit that fear jump in and exploit it. So we should be careful about that.

A really good example is gay marriage. It only took 50 years or so of media repeating themselves and gay rights smear campaigns to turn into reality something that was previously unfathomable in all of human history.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by jkav

I'm in Earth sciences, and disagree. To get funding you need to identify a weakness in the current state of knowledge, and how you're going to address it. If through that grant you find that current thinking is wrong, and can back it up, it's easy to publish your findings - even with respect to global warming.

Sorry, the cliques aren't that tight.

Are you just starting out or right in the thick of the politics? I thought very Utopian world view type stuff when I was in science. in the end it is no different than any other field. Scrambling to make a living. Doing jobs that pay.

I would be more convinced if there wasn't a peer stigma and bias against trying to disprove theories. Testing and retesting.

We don't have that now. I don't believe in computer models. If climate models were accurate...someone would have a accurate model to predict capital markets and near term weather.

I disagree with your premise funding is available to disprove man made global warming. Every study out there now regardless of being linked to global warming has a paragraph that tries to link it. That way they are in the crowd.

So here is something to know about me.

I can be convinced.

I have a science trained education.

I think.

I read.

Therefore give me 5 studies that in your mind as an educated person in the field that definitively proves that dangerous man made global warming is occurring.

For something that some say is a cult like religious experience...I am amazed no one has come forth with the studies.

Thanks kindly.

SDF

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by jkav

This is what motivates all of the literally THOUSANDS of scientists investigating the many aspects of climate change all over the world? I'm not buying it - it's small potatoes.

In all seriousness, they'd get far better funding trying to increase yields from livestock, agriculture - or bitumen sands.

I have worked with scientists as a summer student, and had several scientists as professors. They don't study things that they don't get funding for. Applying for funding is a significant part of their job. Even government scientists that I worked with tailored certain studies for private industry (as they were the one's co-funding many studies).

If you form an international body with the preconceived goal of determining the effects of man made CO2 on climate what sort of research would you expect to come from that? If you put out a paper that says there's nothing to it, how much more funding are you going to get?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C35pasCr6KI

Funding discussion starts at about 8:50 if you want to watch the discussion with actual scientists. But I would encourage you to watch the entire clip.


PS: Increasing yields from agriculture is easy. You just increase CO2 levels.

[jkav]

Originally Posted by crazyguntotinrightwinger

I don't know how you can say this. Here is a graph of the actual warming trend we've seen since 1979. The warming has been about a third of a degree.



Thanks for these, CGTRW. It's honestly difficult knowing what to make of that timeseries - and I'm not trying to be evasive - without knowing details of their analysis. NOAA, for example, has a different trend.

And here is a graph of modeling predictions released from the IPCC



No matter which prediction you look at, even their best lowest estimates have consistently been wrong for 40 years, overestimating the actual warming by almost half a degree.

The fact is that the earth has warmed about 1 degree fahrenheit in the last 150 years, and there's a pretty big margin for error when you take into account that our measuring instruments are getting more accurate all the time. A good analogy would be earthquakes. They certainly aren't increasing year to year, but we detect many more of them in the present day and so if you plotted the data points from 150 years ago you would see a staggering increase.

Don't get me wrong, I believe the earth is warming. I'm just trying to point out the inherent difficulties of even plotting graphs over 150 years that leave out real margins of error based on steadily improving instrument accuracy.

I have no reason to try to justify the errors in the IPCC's 1990 forecast - but I believe that the models have improved markedly since then. Perhaps ironically, many of the improvements result from weaknesses in earlier models pointed out those called "skeptics" or "deniers" - who provided an invaluable service! (I believe all scientists should be skeptical of the status quo...)

They have been found out multiple times in the past forging results so their models better fit their pre-determined conclusions. There are any number of reasons why scientists would push an agenda and not maybe even realize they're doing it from financial to emotional to even trying to gain a sense of purpose and notoriety in a career that often leaves much to be desired in those regards. Scientists are just humans. The scientific method does nothing to take away mans inborn drives and motivations, despite what scientists say about themselves.

Sorry if I sounded like all scientists qualify for sainthood - I don't doubt that there have been some foul dealings. In my experience with scientists, this certainly isn't the norm or the motivation. In fact, most scientists are pretty terrified of getting things wrong - that publication is NEVER going away. But I also believe that some of these controversies are overblown.

I do not. But wouldn't you agree that the media is a major player in over or underestimating the significance of scientific results because they want to sell newspapers? It's certainly not a conspiracy, but it only takes a couple of forces pushing in one direction to change the entire metaphysic of a societies beliefs. And that strays from the facts and reality. And then people who DO want to exploit that fear jump in and exploit it. So we should be careful about that.

Yep.

A really good example is gay marriage. It only took 50 years or so of media repeating themselves and gay rights smear campaigns to turn into reality something that was previously unfathomable in all of human history.

Cheers,

jkav

[jkav]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Are you just starting out or right in the thick of the politics? I thought very Utopian world view type stuff when I was in science. in the end it is no different than any other field. Scrambling to make a living. Doing jobs that pay.

I would be more convinced if there wasn't a peer stigma and bias against trying to disprove theories. Testing and retesting.

We don't have that now. I don't believe in computer models. If climate models were accurate...someone would have a accurate model to predict capital markets and near term weather.

I disagree with your premise funding is available to disprove man made global warming. Every study out there now regardless of being linked to global warming has a paragraph that tries to link it. That way they are in the crowd.

So here is something to know about me.

I can be convinced.

I have a science trained education.

I think.

I read.

Therefore give me 5 studies that in your mind as an educated person in the field that definitively proves that dangerous man made global warming is occurring.

For something that some say is a cult like religious experience...I am amazed no one has come forth with the studies.

Thanks kindly.

SDF

Right on, SDF. I'll get you a solid list - please give me a little time to assemble it.

One point I'd like to make, though: in my experience in writing grant proposals today, it's imperative that the study goes well beyond looking at the impact of climate change on whatever system you're examining. That wheelbarrow has overturned, and you'd better have reasons to look at impacts/aspects that don't hinge on AGW if you want any chance of funding success.

And my own experience with publishing scientific papers shows that it is, at the very least, easy to refute the status quo with respect to the impacts of global warming if your study is sound.

Best,

jkav

[Peter Gill]

Please give the links inside those sites. They are huge, and not intuitive.

No, you'll have to do your own homework on this one. The databases are there, as are numerous analytical tools. I'm not going to try to teach you how to do a least-squares linear regressive analysis. I don't find those sites "huge" nor un-intuitive.

[FlyTheory]

Just realize that climate and weather are not the same thing. Weather is a daily occurrence and climate is the cumulative. Climate consists of data from "weather". If its raining in Edmonton ONCE, that does not mean its global climate change, but an isolated event.. Saying that if the average daily/yearly/decade temperature is increasing (AS IT SO OBVIOUSLY IS BACKED UP BY REAL WORLD AND SCIENTIFIC PROOF), that is climate change. And its happening currently, and it wont balance out for another thousand years est. see fig 1.
Global temp increase is no doubt our fault. Once you start addressing the metastrophic idea, you can piece together the puzzle and find out there is no questions. We haven't seen this high of temps in 125 thousand years (ice sheet data goes back to 800 thousand years FYI), and the 20th century is the warmest in the last thousand years. Choose to be ignorant, but one's opinion will not change the fact.
For people posting graphs, here are some screenshots of graphs I've drawn (retrieved) from my university. Yes I have taken many courses involving this same subject matter. I am not an expert, but I am reasonably educated within this field
Figure 1)
Figure 2)
Figure 3)
Figure 4)
Figure 5)

[FlyTheory]

My five figure were NOT in refute to SDF's request, just a heads up

[TripleTTT]

I am the fly in the ointment

Here is data refuting ice core data at certain depths/pressures... it's still under study and debate. The comments are interesting.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/0...-rate-problem/

[sjd]

Great website here - zoom in to your favourite township in Alberta and see trend 1950 - 2010 in average increase in number of growing season days, days above zero, fewer days below -25, heat wave days etc.

http://www.albertaclimaterecords.com/#

Climate is warming, boys. Surely old-timers who spend time outdoors know this.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by sjd

Great website here - zoom in to your favourite township in Alberta and see trend 1950 - 2010 in average increase in number of growing season days, days above zero, fewer days below -25, heat wave days etc.

http://www.albertaclimaterecords.com/#

Climate is warming, boys. Surely old-timers who spend time outdoors know this.

Ever notice that there isn't a mile of ice sitting on your house? Climate's been warming for 10,000 years.

[FlyTheory]

Originally Posted by rugatika

Ever notice that there isn't a mile of ice sitting on your house? Climate's been warming for 10,000 years.

It has been, but the historical climactic trend should be leading towards another ice age. But we've altered the path, and the assumption is we will be seeing climate that is similar to 30mya. And even if an observer doesn't believe the earth is that old, ponder that regardless of the earth is 4.5Ga or 10k years old, it doesn't change the fact of what is happening right now.
Realize that this trend is interlinked so closely to the start of the industrial revolution. Even if you refute that it isn't, don't you find it funny that there is such a large change in data? Why do we all of a sudden have a "hockey stick" formation instead of a nice linear decline?
I used to be of the mindset "the earth has natural cycles and is warming naturally". But I was ignorant of the information back then, as I'm sure many are.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by FlyTheory

It has been, but the historical climactic trend should be leading towards another ice age. But we've altered the path, and the assumption is we will be seeing climate that is similar to 30mya. And even if an observer doesn't believe the earth is that old, ponder that regardless of the earth is 4.5Ga or 10k years old, it doesn't change the fact of what is happening right now.
Realize that this trend is interlinked so closely to the start of the industrial revolution. Even if you refute that it isn't, don't you find it funny that there is such a large change in data? Why do we all of a sudden have a "hockey stick" formation instead of a nice linear decline?
I used to be of the mindset "the earth has natural cycles and is warming naturally". But I was ignorant of the information back then, as I'm sure many are.

It's not a hockey stick if you play ringette.

http://nov79.com/gbwm/trees.html

When critics saw the hockey stick graph, they knew something was wrong. So Steve McIntyre, a mathematician, attempted to reproduce the graph from the original data. His first problem was that the authors would not make the data available. In years gone by, all data would be included in a scientific publication; but nowdays, too much paper would be required, so scientific publications are little more than sales pitches with about as much objectivity as a soap advertisement.

In the spirit of godliness, all scientific journals require that data be made available to other scientists; but this is nothing but an image booster which is ignored in practice. So critics of the hockey stick graph were denied access to the data.

Therefore, what Steve McIntyre did was go through the statistical analysis and show that it incorrectly showed a significance where there was none. The original authors then published more such work attempting to bolster and justify their methodology. Eventually, they published in a journal which required them to make their data available. McIntyre took the data and showed that when all of it was properly evaluated, there was no hockey stick bend on the end representing the twentieth century and human activity.

Re: Ice age onset, I believe there is no real long trend that develops leading up to an ice age. It comes on rather suddenly. Interglacials are roughly 10,000 to 14,000 years long. We could be approaching the end of ours in 50 years or it could be 1000 years away.

In any case, IF we believe man made CO2 is increasing the temperature of the earth ever so slightly...wouldn't that be a good thing if we are so close to the beginning of another ice age??

[FlyTheory]

Originally Posted by rugatika

It's not a hockey stick if you play ringette. Okay

http://nov79.com/gbwm/trees.html

When critics saw the hockey stick graph, they knew something was wrong. So Steve McIntyre, a mathematician, attempted to reproduce the graph from the original data. His first problem was that the authors would not make the data available. In years gone by, all data would be included in a scientific publication; but nowdays, too much paper would be required, so scientific publications are little more than sales pitches with about as much objectivity as a soap advertisement. just because he can't acquire information from sources doesn't refute that the information did not exist

In the spirit of godliness, all scientific journals require that data be made available to other scientists; but this is nothing but an image booster which is ignored in practice. So critics of the hockey stick graph were denied access to the data.

Therefore, what Steve McIntyre did was go through the statistical analysis and show that it incorrectly showed a significance where there was none. The original authors then published more such work attempting to bolster and justify their methodology. Eventually, they published in a journal which required them to make their data available. McIntyre took the data and showed that when all of it was properly evaluated, there was no hockey stick bend on the end representing the twentieth century and human activity.
To put it simply, this site is not legit enough to convince many people. I realize my graphs don't have any sources either, but I don't have the time to source them. :P
Re: Ice age onset, I believe (Do not say "I believe" or "in my opinion", as it does not matter what you think and this should be left outside of your main argument. Additional comments could have personal opinion, but claims of scientific fact should be neutral and not tied to your personal stance. Huge mistake in debating.) there is no real long trend that develops leading up to an ice age. It comes on rather suddenly. Interglacials are roughly 10,000 to 14,000 years long. We could be approaching the end of ours in 50 years or it could be 1000 years away. Yeah who knows, but patterns indicate that we should be, and the coincidence with the CO2 of the industrial revolution should definitely be considered. And large scale agriculture. Don't dance around that

In any case, IF we believe man made CO2 which we should, because that's whats happeningis increasing the temperature of the earth ever so slightly...relatively slightly, remember we are talking about net global worth. Regional fluctuations can be far from slight... Remember total net radiation is = absorbed incoming shortwave radiation - reflected short wave radiation + absorbed long wave radiation - reflected long wave radiation. This is quite an amalgamation for worldwide numbers. Regional differences fluctuate way more. This whole "Earth increasing by 4-12C" doesn't sound big when put in less harmful contextwouldn't that be a good thing if we are so close to the beginning of another ice age??

Well yeah of course its a good thing.. but if we are warming this much along with hitting an ice age, should it not concern you at the severity of its impact? If the world were hitting another ice age, yet showing temperatures that are increasing explicitly at a fast speed, that should change your mind for sure.
edit (addition): pardon any grammatical errors, for I am tired. I will reply in the morning.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by FlyTheory

Well yeah of course its a good thing.. but if we are warming this much along with hitting an ice age, should it not concern you at the severity of its impact? If the world were hitting another ice age, yet showing temperatures that are increasing explicitly at a fast speed, that should change your mind for sure.
edit (addition): pardon any grammatical errors, for I am tired. I will reply in the morning.

On your graph. What was causing CO2 to rise from 1800 to 1970? Did those factors accelerate?

Which model are you looking at that says 12 C increase?

What do you mean warming and hitting an ice age?

It is also only fair Zachary to just add the link to the graph in the photo insert button above. Then we can see the link.

[Carriertxv]

Originally Posted by RustyRick

We were going to run out of "non-renewable resources". In 1994 in the middle of the night driving truck I heard Ronald Reagan's son a talk show host in the USA talking to an upper level scientist about ell-ninio. The Doctor said "what was surprising them was the earth seemed to be healing itself". DA

Ronnie jr is a complete and total wing nut. I could never believe he came from the loins of Ronald Reagan SR

[TripleTTT]

Here's some reading from 2011...



bubbagyro
January 1, 2011 at 6:56 pm

Spector says:
January 1, 2011 at 6:10 pm

Yes. The experiment, CO2 diffusion in ice, has been performed at Scripps in 2008, demonstrating unequivocally that CO2 does indeed diffuse through ice at a rate that would be significant over years or decades timeframe, much less millenia or megayears, and initial concentrations will decrease if they are higher than the current ambient concentrations:

“CO2 diffusion in polar ice : observations from naturally formed CO2 spikes in the Siple Dome (Antarctica) ice core
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
AHN Jinho (1 2) ; HEADLY Melissa (1) ; WAHLEN Martin (1) ; BROOK Edward J. (2) ; MAYEWSKI Paul A. (3) ; TAYLOR Kendrick C. (4)

Journal of Glaciology ISSN 0022-1430 CODEN JOGLAO
Source / Source
2008, vol. 54, no187, pp. 685-695 [11 page(s) (article)] (1 p.1/2)”

I had been posting about CO2 diffusion for some time at WUWT and elsewhere, but nobody has put together what this means, until now, to my knowledge. Fick’s Laws of diffusion govern diffusion of gases and solids in gases liquids and solids. The Second Law states that diffusion occurs from high to low concentration, and is directly proportional to change of initial concentration, and inversely with time.

What this means is that 600 ppm in a bubble in ice with 300 ppm outside will deplete CO2 in the bubble until the outside concentration approaching 300 ppm is asymptotically reached. A concentration of 1200 ppm will diffuse twice as fast as 600, 2400 ppm 4 times as fast, etc. Twice the age, conversely, will have twice the time for diffusion, so old cores will be nearer outside equilibrium level.

Practically, then, no old ice core can give an accurate result for ancient conditions using the traditional CO2 bubble gas chromatography method, and the result will be worse the higher the initial concentration of CO2 that existed in the past, and even worse the longer the residence time in the core. Old, high CO2 cores will be nowhere near the initial condition. So if we had tens of thousands of CO2 ppm in the past, ice core CO2 methodology would never show it.

This is intuitively obvious to me, since the extreme size of dinosaurs 100 Mya required high CO2, parts per thousand, for plants to grow to supply them with food,; said plants could then generate the high oxygen levels the dinosaurs needed to maintain their metabolism at such high levels.

I would think that the leaf stomata method, since it is static and not dynamic as is the CO2 sampling method, should be the method of choice until a better proxy comes along. Moreover, the CO2 method should be discarded completely for anything but current atmospheric conditions.

One cannot deduce a past static state using a dynamic conditions method.
Jim Cole
January 1, 2011 at 7:21 pm

Gary Pearse is correct to be skeptical about the fidelity of gas-bubble contents in millenial ice to the atmosphere at the time of inclusion. Honestly, can anyone really believe that atmosphere entrained among snow crystals during snowfall will remain unchanged for hundreds/thousands of years while those snow crystals slowly get transformed to firn and then to ice (multiple H20 phase changes)?

Oxygen isotopes in the ice are not such a problem because the water molocules remain the same in ice (regardless of transformations). CO2 as a trace contaminant in the gas phase of the ice-air mixture is much more susceptible to diffusion/conduction/convection processes that would tend to smooth out “spikey” variations over time.

I think CO2 concentration values in ice core are largely meaningless due to thermodynamic “smoothing” issues (above).

Modern CO2 concentration values in the atmosphere are largely governed by ocean heat content and biologic uptake/decay.

Human effects on CO2 are trivial and mostly immaterial regarding “global temperatures”, whatever they may be. Humans greatest effect on atmospheric temperatures is in “urban heat islands” due to land-use changes.

But not enough to create any “global” changes, except in unrealistic computer models of “climate change”.


Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/0...-rate-problem/

[FlyTheory]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

On your graph, what was causing CO2 to rise from 1800 to 1970? Did those factors accelerate? I'm not sure, as you being a scientist (which field and how long ago? I am just curious.) you shall understand that one bastardized graph is not proof. It may be due to the introduction of steam power and coal burning associated with that, which perfectly fills that time period. Moreover, for that "era's" CO2 emissions, the increase is seemingly (I am not claiming this is proof, however) justified.

Which model are you looking at that says 12 C increase? I am not looking through 643 slides to find the model. I'm sure its easy to acquire, and if I happen to stumble across it, I shall post it. I assume you will say my falling short is a loss of validity. That's fine, but if you expect to find an answer, throw out the apathy, and go to your university database, alumni are allowed access to data. This is an online forum debate, do you really think I am going to put in hours of effort to convince a few people? Nope...

What do you mean warming and hitting an ice age? Look at some of the graphs posted earlier. The sinusoidal patterns you can find of global patterns would indicate such. Review fig 2. Then go online and look up "Quaternary + to + present + epoch + temperature + Holocene.. etc.

It is also only fair Zachary, I appreciate you addressing me on a first name basis, thank you to just add the link to the graph in the photo insert button above. Then we can see the link.This information was taken from a PDF, which means I am not capable of linking embedded photos. Hence why I had to take screenshots. And no, the access to the PFD is limited.

Best,
Zach

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by FlyTheory

Best,
Zach

Hard to chat with you when you don't provide much.

Click on a photo and click copy. Click on photo insert button above. Click in the line remove duplicate info and hit paste and enter. If it is a JPEG etc it works fine. Saves you having to copy to your photobucket site.

Your info could be from 2008 for all we know.

Still don't get your warming and an ice age comment. Doesn't make sense.

I see climate as a cyclical process with imbedded cycles superimposed within.

We could be in an increasing warming trend still coming out of an ice age or an increasing blip on a cooling trend.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by FlyTheory

Well yeah of course its a good thing.. but if we are warming this much along with hitting an ice age, should it not concern you at the severity of its impact? If the world were hitting another ice age, yet showing temperatures that are increasing explicitly at a fast speed, that should change your mind for sure.
edit (addition): pardon any grammatical errors, for I am tired. I will reply in the morning.

The earth's temperatures are relatively stable for the time being. (the last 18 years I believe). All while CO2 levels have been stable or increasing.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/...ars-11-months/

The Great Pause has now persisted for 17 years 11 months. Indeed, to three decimal places on a per-decade basis, there has been no global warming for 18 full years. Professor Ross McKitrick, however, has upped the ante with a new statistical paper to say there has been no global warming for 19 years.

Whichever value one adopts, it is becoming harder and harder to maintain that we face a “climate crisis” caused by our past and present sins of emission.

Taking the least-squares linear-regression trend on Remote Sensing Systems’ satellite-based monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature dataset, there has been no global warming – none at all – for at least 215 months.

This is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. It has endured for half the satellite temperature record. Yet the Great Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.




Why would warming temperatures concern me if we are approaching an ice age? That would be a pretty groovy thing if it were occurring. An ice age will wipe out the bread baskets of the globe. Mass starvation events. Children with big bellies etc etc. How can the UN support the mass extermination that would ensue? Shameful.


I expect the next great hysteria to come from the UN will be a panel investigating how man made CO2 has caused the climate to STOP changing.