Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[Penguin]

Well, it seems that the people who "understand" these cycles and the simulation software they use to predict them failed to predict the flattening of the warming trend over the last decade.  Nor can they now conclusively explain it as noted in the leaked emails from the CRU conspirators. 

Could we agree that these cycles are not completely understood yet, much less their fundamental cause?  Could we agree that there certainly is not overwhelming concensus of the entire scientific community that Man is the primary cause of any recent warming ?  Could we agree that the issue is not completely settled and it would be false to say "the debate is over"?

Regards,
Wab

(Had to edit out big gap to make post more compact)

Ok, here we go!

1.) The first argument is a fallacy of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus; where you are stating that since all climatologists, cannot explain the foul play of a few score, therefore they are not good climatologists

2.) The first argument also does not account for the fact that almost nothing (excluding measurements and sometimes light in a perfect vacuum) in this universe is following a straight line!  Not only that, but just because you had a bad winter, doesn't mean that the rest of the world is.

3.) The second argument's first scentence is unsound; since the premise is unfounded, which means that the argument is bunk.  The next scentence, shows that you have little knowledge of science; if all of the scientists agreed, we wouldn't be having an argument.  Science is also about starting with lots an' lots an' lots an' lots of ideas, and selecting the one that evidence, research and logic support the best.

4.) The final scentence doesn't even agree with the second one, go figure.

-Penguin

[E25280]

(Had to edit out big gap to make post more compact)

Ok, here we go!

1.) The first argument is a fallacy of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus; where you are stating that since all climatologists, cannot explain the foul play of a few score, therefore they are not good climatologists

2.) The first argument also does not account for the fact that almost nothing (excluding measurements and sometimes light in a perfect vacuum) in this universe is following a straight line!  Not only that, but just because you had a bad winter, doesn't mean that the rest of the world is.

3.) The second argument's first scentence is unsound; since the premise is unfounded, which means that the argument is bunk.  The next scentence, shows that you have little knowledge of science; if all of the scientists agreed, we wouldn't be having an argument.  Science is also about starting with lots an' lots an' lots an' lots of ideas, and selecting the one that evidence, research and logic support the best.

4.) The final scentence doesn't even agree with the second one, go figure.

-Penguin

And rather than pretending that this is some sort of high school debate scored on points, why don't you actually try sounding like a normal human being trying to have a conversation for a change?

Just a suggestion.

[CAP1]

(Had to edit out big gap to make post more compact)

Ok, here we go!

1.) The first argument is a fallacy of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus; where you are stating that since all climatologists, cannot explain the foul play of a few score, therefore they are not good climatologists

2.) The first argument also does not account for the fact that almost nothing (excluding measurements and sometimes light in a perfect vacuum) in this universe is following a straight line!  Not only that, but just because you had a bad winter, doesn't mean that the rest of the world is.

3.) The second argument's first scentence is unsound; since the premise is unfounded, which means that the argument is bunk.  The next scentence, shows that you have little knowledge of science; if all of the scientists agreed, we wouldn't be having an argument.  Science is also about starting with lots an' lots an' lots an' lots of ideas, and selecting the one that evidence, research and logic support the best.

4.) The final scentence doesn't even agree with the second one, go figure.

-Penguin

you realize that this is not an argument, right?

 if you're going to continue to call peoples statements false, then you need to provide information showing such.

 notice how moray ALWAYS makes sure to include information of some sort when he counters a statement by me, or anyone else. he does his research, then comes back here.
 
 you, with this style you're using, would lose a debate in less than 5 minutes.

 and just so ya know.....when i was in high school, i was VERY good at debating. 

[batch]

nvm this kid isnt even worth responding too seriously

[MORAY37]

In order to get this thread past Batman's arch nemesis (and possibly my own, at this point)...I give you this...

Our data show that 2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the 130 years of near‐global
instrumental measurements – and the Southern Hemisphere had its warmest year in that entire period.
Before discussing these data, and their reconciliation with regional cold anomalies, we must consider
the time frame of comparison.
If we look back a century, we find cold anomalies that dwarf current ones. Figure 1 shows
photos of people walking on Niagara Falls in 1911. Such an extreme cold snap is unimaginable today.
About a decade earlier, in February 1899, temperature fell to ‐2°F in Tallahassee, Florida, ‐9°F in Atlanta,
Georgia ‐30°F in Erasmus, Tennessee, ‐47°F in Camp Clark, Nebraska, and ‐61°F in Fort Logan, Montana.
The Mississippi River froze all the way to New Orleans, discharging ice into the Gulf of Mexico.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100127_TemperatureFinal.pdf


If you read anything from this paper, read the overview.  If you really want to get into the nuts and bolts, they're all there, and I would highly recommend it. 

Niagara Falls, winter 1911.

Global cooling in the past decade? That question can be addressed with a much higher
degree of confidence than the ranking of individual years. The reason is that error due to
incomplete spatial coverage of data becomes smaller for data averaged over several years. The
2‐sigma error in the 5‐year running‐mean temperature anomaly shown in Figure 3, is about a
factor of two smaller than the annual mean uncertainty, thus only 0.02‐0.03°C. Given that the
change of 5‐year‐mean global temperature anomaly is almost 0.2°C over the past decade, we
can conclude that the world has become warmer over the past decade, not cooler.

[batch]

again that might mean something if it werent for the fact that they cherry pick temperature stations worldwide to reflect a desired result......... its very easy to simply take ALL the data from ALL the stations and find that the numbers they are reporting as averages are nowhere near accurate

its a simple standard really.......... use all the data and get a correct answer.......... or use a handpicked 10% of the data and get an answer you can prove your point with

[Mister Fork]

indeed.


you need to be specific here, just because you dont understand it doesnt necessarily make it invalid. your A/B example earlier suggests you havent grasped the magnitude of the problem. this is not a simple system like A which a smart schoolkid could predict using Newtonian mechanics, it is a vastly complex dynamic system. the models will necesarily be magnitudes more complex too.


part of an earlier reply sums up most contributions to this thread quite nicely "... a topic of which I am largely ignorant. Ignorant, but not disinterested."

You're calling me ignorant?  Now YOU sound like one of these arrogant so-called scientists. 

I consider myself a lot smarter than the average bear.  I've been studying and following the science of climatology for almost 7 years.  I am very aware of the mind-boggling-complexities of climatology which also makes me critical of any science behind it.   What I am saying about climate change is that it's bunk because the damage we're doing to the worlds natural resources including deforestation and pollution and poisoning of water will harm this world sooner before climate change can. 

And we've let the G-20 nations monetize climate change.  @#()@#)(! Why does this have to be about money? How about ensuring our children's children have safe drinking water? Clean air to breath? Natural resources to grow food, build homes, and heat the dwellings when it's -20 degrees in the winter?

[CptTrips]

In order to get this thread past Batman's arch nemesis (and possibly my own, at this point)...I give you this...

Troglodytes like me are kinda slow, so without the academiaspeak (in plain English, in your own words), are you asserting that the trend of average anual global tempertures have not flattened since around 1998?  

Regards,
Wab

[Vulcan]

Sooo, the plot thickens....

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127134721.htm

Amplification of Global Warming by Carbon-Cycle Feedback Significantly Less Than Thought, Study Suggests
ScienceDaily (Jan. 28, 2010) — A new estimate of the feedback between temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration has been derived from a comprehensive comparison of temperature and CO2 records spanning the past millennium.

[Strip]

Big surprise there, when will the masses wake up?!

Strip

[Anaxogoras]

3.) The second argument's first scentence is unsound

Penguin,

Sentences cannot be unsound.  Sentences are true or false.  Arguments are what can be sound or unsound.  This is just one of many times that you've blundered in trying to sound like an English professor.

[MORAY37]

Troglodytes like me are kinda slow, so without the academiaspeak (in plain English, in your own words), are you asserting that the trend of average anual global tempertures have not flattened since around 1998?  

Regards,
Wab

Don't knock yourself.    (Troglodytes troglodytes)

I simply posted the work of a climate scientist.  I cannot personally spend the time to compile the data and analyze it.  I do think he's one of the ones that have paid the most for his work though, and has stuck to his work when he could have just shut up and gone away.  I personally think he SHOULD have gone away....his career would have been better for it.  

I was asserting that there is evidence that the temperature has definitely not gone down. If you wish to say that the temperatures have leveled as of this year, I would agree. But if temps level off at a solar minimum, and still the year is tied for the second warmest in recorded history... what have we won?

See SHIFTING BASELINES.

I also thought this was intriguing...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100131145840.htm

Apparently, some enterprising researcher figured out why the warming trend predicted was under the trend observed.

ScienceDaily (Feb. 1, 2010) — A 10 percent drop in water vapor ten miles above Earth's surface has had a big impact on global warming, say researchers in a study published online January 28 in the journal Science. The findings might help explain why global surface temperatures have not risen as fast in the last ten years as they did in the 1980s and 1990s.

Current climate models do a remarkable job on water vapor near the surface. But this is different -- it's a thin wedge of the upper atmosphere that packs a wallop from one decade to the next in a way we didn't expect," says Susan Solomon, NOAA senior scientist and first author of the study.

Since 2000, water vapor in the stratosphere decreased by about 10 percent. The reason for the recent decline in water vapor is unknown. The new study used calculations and models to show that the cooling from this change caused surface temperatures to increase about 25 percent more slowly than they would have otherwise, due only to the increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

An increase in stratospheric water vapor in the 1990s likely had the opposite effect of increasing the rate of warming observed during that time by about 30 percent, the authors found.

[Vulcan]

Sorry moray, but the hits are just rolling in... it's been we 'adjusted' the numbers and now the raw data is gone, we act like a religious cult towards deniers, we used some quotes about glaciers that were wrong, the islands sinking in the pacific aren't...

and now it's oops the co2 feedback model is very wrong, and look there's more bits we don't understand.

It doesn't give one a lot of confidence in the climate scientists does it?

[bozon]

...
What I am saying about climate change is that it's bunk because the damage we're doing to the worlds natural resources including deforestation and pollution and poisoning of water will harm this world sooner before climate change can. 

And we've let the G-20 nations monetize climate change.  @#()@#)(! Why does this have to be about money? How about ensuring our children's children have safe drinking water? Clean air to breath? Natural resources to grow food, build homes, and heat the dwellings when it's -20 degrees in the winter?

THIS is the issue many scientists have with the whole climate debate. While very interesting academically, the public exposure it gets and politization and capitalization of it de-track huge amount of resources from many, much more burning environmental problem.

The problem has several layers:
1. Is there a climate "change" and it is enough to worry about?
2. What is the cause? man or nature?
3. What can we do about it?

What happened was that hysteria mongers pushed #1 and labeled it with a big YES.
Then #2, without good evidence simply defaults to blame man. Why? because for the tree huggers, nature is perfect and if something is wrong it has to be man (who is somehow not part of nature). For the Christians, they were born guilty anyway so such accusation are easily accepted.
Then #3 is acted upon without any clear view of what needs to be done, but we "must do something". Of course doing pointless things is very good for politics and quick entrepreneurs  - how about sacrificing a goat instead? much quicker and cheaper. Who said the ancients were not smart?

[Anaxogoras]

Sorry moray, but the hits are just rolling in... it's been we 'adjusted' the numbers and now the raw data is gone, we act like a religious cult towards deniers, we used some quotes about glaciers that were wrong, the islands sinking in the pacific aren't...

and now it's oops the co2 feedback model is very wrong, and look there's more bits we don't understand.

It doesn't give one a lot of confidence in the climate scientists does it?

Rising global temperatures that fit neatly with increasingly rapid industrialization make me suspect that, despite the botched UN climate report, they really might be onto something.

As for the argument about AGW distracting from issues that really matter.  There is some merit to that, but at the same time it strikes me as a sleight of hand.  In the United States, where the law and regulations have been enforced, there's been in improvement over the decades, not decline.  The irony is that public support for enforcement of regulations has reacted inversely to the successes, and politicians take notice.  So the next time we see a thread about the disintegration of enforcement of environmental protections here in the United States, some of which protect our drinking water, and you all are outraged, let me know.

-------------

Edit, as for the rest of the world, if you want to do something easy today, download a seafood watch card and follow its guidelines at restaurants and grocery stores.
http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/download.aspx