Scientists agree ... Consensus on Global Warming
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Friday, February 10, 2006 11:42
VIEWED: 22755
PAGE 13 of 21
Addressing the shortest item first:
Quote:
Science is not a peer-reviewed journal. However, neither is Nature.
NATURE (Nature Publishing Group)
http://npg.nature.com/npg/servlet/Content?data=xml/05_sub.xml&style=xm
l/05_sub.xsl
"During peer review you can log back in to your own unique homepage on the system. The system will tell you status information as your paper moves through peer review."
SCIENCE
http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/contribinfo/home.shtml
"Science is a weekly, peer-reviewed journal that publishes significant original scientific research ..."
USE MY LINKS TO FIND BROAD DISCUSSION
Contrary to your claims, I included links that discussed both historical and current pros and cons global warming.
There are also critiques of M&M (which you cite) which point out its fatal technical errors (there are more than one).
I (generally) only post urls that anyone can link (a limited number require paid subscription), but you shouldn't mistake it for lack of information or analysis on my part.
Your claims that either I or my postings are biased are demonstrably false. However, they do reflect on you.
Every url you posted was to an anti-global warming front group:
Quote:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm
http://www.oism.org/pproject/review.pdf
http://www.heartland.org/pdf/23295m.pdf
http://www.haciendapub.com/medsent.html
YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE HOCKEY STICK is demonstrably wrong
Quote:
You’ll see that the bulk of the warming occurred between the later decades of the 19th century up to about 1940.
Quote:
the bulk of the warming occurred prior to the bulk of the increase in carbon dioxide. This is a fact.
Since you insisted on your interpretation of that particular graph, I addressed your interpretation specifically and definitively. I noticed you have not repeated your claim that most global warming happened before 1940. Shall I conclude you concede the point?
(I know where you got that claim from, but you to applied that analysis to the wrong graph.)
YOU HAVE NOT ADDRESSED CURRENT CLIMATE MODELS with excellent agreement to measured temperatures
Then I said to move off that graph, as the 'eyeball' approach was a limited and unscientific analysis of global warming. I'm glad to see you agree with me.
I did then post some graphs of recently modeled climate effects, with excellent agreement to measured temperatures. The model's ability to predict observed temperatures is one measure lending it support (or, a better way to put it, the climate model is not disproved). The global climate model is based on anthropogenic CO2-driven global warming. You completely failed to address the success of recent climate models.
OTHER MEASUREMENTS YOU DON'T ADDRESS
There were other urls posted to other measurements. And based on your 'expertise' I'm sure you are aware of the compilation of over a century of ocean surface temperatures which was concluded about 2 years ago (I did not post that particular url). Overall, the sheer amount and scope of data (including ocean temperature readings, ice cores, tree rings, land temperature measurements, the retreat of glaciers and ice caps etc) indicates a definitive and undeniable global warming.
BALLOON AND SATELLITE DATA IS NOT A DEATH BLOW
As to balloon and satellite data, I did post urls which discussed that at length. Even way back when, some calculations indicated minimal warming, while others indicated quite a bit. The interpretation is not one-sided as you claim, it is about 50/50. (I would call that equivocal, and certainly not the death-blow you portray.)
I embedded one specific error in my postings. Perhaps you will respond to it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
After reading all the various posts by Sigma and Rue and a few others I've decided we have only one recourse.
We must all move back to the pre-mechanized age. No more power..candles are cheaper and less damaging to the atmosphere. Eventually we will need to move away from flames in general to reduce the production of CO. No more transportation..walking is better for you. Obviously we can't ride horses or other potential beasts of burden..because they must all be killed, while we're at it we should kill all animal lifeforms (Evil methane producing beasts that they all are).
After we have removed all potential Non-Human methane producers, we must prevent ourselves from eating any of the Earths vegetation..since after all vegetation is important for producing Oxygen and most forms of vegetation help create that nice smelly Methane, humans pride themselves on creating in their bellies.
Once we have learned how to eat rocks (Hopefully ones low in sulfur..that gorram Methane problem again), we should determine how many human beings should be allowed to exist on good ol Mother Earth. After we have determined the number, we should hold lotteries and kill everyone off whose number is drawn. Since we can't use anything but rocks (Don't want to drown them and cant shoot them or run them over and god forbid use foreign chemicals)..we'll have to find some big ones, but damn thats going to be hard because we nolonger have any machinery to get the really big ones. Ah well..it'll just take awhile.
Once we have the population size under control, all men will need to have their balls removed..we can't take any chances that we might procreate and increase the population.
So ultimately we will become rock-eating naked savages, waiting for the next Ice Age to start the process over.
Finally..I don't care about global warming, I'm sure it exists. I don't think 99% of the world cares about Global warming. I look forward to the day the poles reverse and I'm living in a tropical setting.
One thing I'm absolutely sure of..humans don't control nature. We don't control the power of the Earth, as a matter of fact the Earth has this uncanny ability to shrug us off like fleas without any warning. It was around long before us and will be around long after we are gone. I find it almost humorous to think that we humans believe that we ultimately can have an effect on the Earth in general. The only thing we can have an effect on is whether or not we survive for another 1000 years or so. If I were a betting man..and I'm not. I'd say we have a 50-50 shot at best with all the nukes around..so what's everyone worried about? Ultimately Human existence will just be a blip on the history of the Earth and I'm not under any delusions that we will be the cause of the end of the world. It will go on existing, long after humans cease to, until something in the universe's natural way of things causes it to break apart.
PS..saw a great movie the other night called "The Last Day"..check it out.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It is my understanding that many of the articles that are published in Science and Nature are not peer-reviewed. However, if their websites describe them as peer-reviewed, who am I to argue.
Quote:No. Why should I concede it? The graph you posted clearly illustrated that the bulk of the warming occurred prior to the bulk of the increase in Carbon Dioxide. There’s no conceding that. That’s a fact. That you have no problem dismissing a fact clearly illustrated your sectarian position on this matter.
Originally posted by rue:
YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE HOCKEY STICK is demonstrably wrongQuote:
You’ll see that the bulk of the warming occurred between the later decades of the 19th century up to about 1940.Quote:
the bulk of the warming occurred prior to the bulk of the increase in carbon dioxide. This is a fact.
Since you insisted on your interpretation of that particular graph, I addressed your interpretation specifically and definitively. I noticed you have not repeated your claim that most global warming happened before 1940. Shall I conclude you concede the point?
(I know where you got that claim from, but you to applied that analysis to the wrong graph.)
Whatever you think you might have demonstrated, the data remains inconclusive. If I didn’t respond to it, it is probably because I’ve grown tired of repeating obvious facts. I may not necessarily refute your interpretation of the data, but your interpretation of the data does not make it any more conclusive, nor does it make your insistence of the 'doomsday' scenario any more convincing.
Quote:Because there aren’t any.
Originally posted by rue:
YOU HAVE NOT ADDRESSED CURRENT CLIMATE MODELS with excellent agreement to measured temperatures
Quote:If you ignore any data that doesn’t refute the models then yeah. The models don’t predicte measurements from satellite or balloon data. Global warming advocates jump with glee over the GCMs but only certain measurements are use to valid the models. My work is specifically with computer models, so I know something about validation, and nothing that I have seen in any climate research has convinced me that there is anything approaching a true validation of the kinds of models you’re talking about. The GCMs themselves are very limited in what and how they predict, and often weighted in favor of warming. And typically the data that are used to “validate” these models are the surface temperature measurements, which show an increase in temperature over the last century. What if they validated the models with the balloon measurements? Garbage in, Garbage out. If you build your models with the intent of predicting global warming, that's what they are likely to predict. Scientists refer to this as "tuning" the models, and it is a common criticism of GCMs.
Originally posted by rue:
The model's ability to predict observed temperatures is one measure lending it support (or, a better way to put it, the climate model is not disproved). The global climate model is based on anthropogenic CO2-driven global warming.
Quote:You mean among the dozens of others. I haven’t responded to all the errors you’ve made in any of your posts; why should I start now?
Originally posted by rue:
I embedded one specific error in my postings. Perhaps you will respond to it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I can't believe people are still discussing peer or non-peer reviewed articles in Nature and Science.
First, couching the discussion in terms of warming is inappropriate. The more precise term is climate change. The effects of climate change will differ from region to region. Some will benefit from changing weather patterns, many will not.
But, before you start arguing "facts" please provide evidence that disputes the evidence that supports claims about climate change accumulated in the IPCC reports. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports are put together by 2500 respected scientists from around the world. These scientists evaluate ALL of the peer reviewed materials on the subject, past and present. The scientific consensus is that Climate change is a reality we will have to confront, ready or not.
The IPCC report made the following observations.
Quote:
Examples of observed climatic changes
Increase in global average surface temperature of about 1°F in the 20th century
Decrease of snow cover and sea ice extent and the retreat of mountain glaciers in the latter half of the 20th century
Rise in global average sea level and the increase in ocean water temperatures
Likely increase in average precipitation over the middle and high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, and over tropical land areas
Increase in the frequency of extreme precipitation events in some regions of the world
Examples of observed physical and ecological changes
Thawing of permafrost
Lengthening of the growing season in middle and high latitudes
Poleward and upward shift of plant and animal ranges
Decline of some plant and animal species
Earlier flowering of trees
Earlier emergence of insects
Earlier egg-laying in birds
Please provide a similarly intensive and detailed peer reviewed analysis that contradicts the work of these 2500 scientists.
Several on this thread have commented about Bush's opposition, but just because President Bush has doubts about climate change doesn't mean it isn't reality. In fact, the Bush administration is guilty of pressing executive agencies to distort scientific facts to serve political interests. For example, the White House, in June 2003, "demanded extensive changes in the treatment of climate change in a major report by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). To avoid issuing a scientifically indefensible report, EPA officials eviscerated the discussion of climate change and its consequences."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow, I get busy for a few weeks and looky what happens. So, I'll comment on just some of what I've had time to read.
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
There is a difference between weather and climate. So, this point is rather moot given the topic at hand.
No, it is not moot. The same questions persist. Is 1 degree significant? Or is it statistical noise? I threw in an example in weather to demonstrate how all data have to be evaluated in context of a larger data set.
What happens in your backyard is not climate, it is weather. There is a difference. What goes on in your backyard has nothing to with the larger data set. ie local change does not equal global change.
That is, unless you can provide proof of it.
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:
How about just posting some sources here to benefit us all.
How about not dismissing the source I recommended based on someone's evaluation that it is at a "high school level"? Yes, it is written for the general public, but that doesn't invalidate its arguments. Again, if you don't like this source after you've read it, we can discuss why and I can address those concerns with other specific resources. This book is more technical than arguments say, at this website. http://www.open2.net/truthwillout/globalwarming/global_stott.htm
But since you insist, here are 2 generic technical arguments you must have seen already.
http://zwr.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
and
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html
I will discard anything that is given for public discussion if I should so choose. And given that this discussion is soooo complicated that it must be dumbed down for the public, that threatens its accuracy and thus threatens its validility. So, I'll require more technical sources for clear reasons of accuracy. If you don't like that then that's your problem.
I look at those sources when I have time.
@Finn:
Regarding your "Hockey Stick" comment.
Read and learn:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=114
Finn is clearly cherry picking his sources and data. Clearly, given any real look at the data, we have changed the composition of our enviornment, period. Looking at the data, there are clear indicators that we're responsible for it, period. Looking at the data there are anomalous regions of peaks and valleys, so what? Welcome to the realities of a chaotic system.
As Danny Blair (Univeristy of Winnipeg, Climate Change Research Professor) said in a recent talk he gave (paraphrase), "Those that don't acknowledge that this is happening have there heads in the sand."
Even 30 Helens agree that this is happening
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, I’ve not argued that the IPCC is necessarily wrong, although I don’t think they are necessarily right either. My argument is that the evidence is largely inconclusive, such that the proposed changes in climate cannot be quantified. And that is what your list of IPCC observations amount to. Most of what you listed is unquantifiable in any meaningful way where it applies to the ‘doomsday’ assumptions put forth by global warming advocates. There is always climate change. It changes constantly. Evidence suggests that the average global temperature has increased and decreased dramatically on many occasions, throughout the last 1000 years.
Originally posted by ecostar:
But, before you start arguing "facts" please provide evidence that disputes the evidence that supports claims about climate change accumulated in the IPCC reports. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports are put together by 2500 respected scientists from around the world. These scientists evaluate ALL of the peer reviewed materials on the subject, past and present. The scientific consensus is that Climate change is a reality we will have to confront, ready or not.
And the IPCC reports are not put together by 2500 scientists; they are put together by less then a hundred IPCC authors. The 2500 number refers to contributors and reviewers etc, many of whom had little to do with the actual content of the reports, and most have little to no experience in atmospheric physics.
Quote:Okay, the data that supports what you want to be true is good, period, but the data that doesn’t support what you want to be true, is dismissed as random noise in a chaotic system. You can’t get much more cherry picking then that.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
@Finn:
Regarding your "Hockey Stick" comment.
Read and learn:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=114
Finn is clearly cherry picking his sources and data. Clearly, given any real look at the data, we have changed the composition of our enviornment, period. Looking at the data, there are clear indicators that we're responsible for it, period. Looking at the data there are anomalous regions of peaks and valleys, so what? Welcome to the realities of a chaotic system.
But since I’ve already presented the counter argument to this, and knowing your propensity to belabor issues out of sheer obstinacy, I’ll simply point out that the link you referenced serves to support my contention. The data is inconclusive (period). And the only way to arrive at the conclusion that the earth is experiencing a uniquely anthropogenic catastrophic increase in global temperature is to dismiss half the evidence.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You persist on misinterpreting my weather analogy while refusing to address the point I made. Is 1 degree significant? Or is it just statistical noise?
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
What happens in your backyard is not climate, it is weather. There is a difference. What goes on in your backyard has nothing to with the larger data set. ie local change does not equal global change.
Let me make it simple for you. Please just answer this question:
What is the standard deviation of this 1 degree temperature increase over the last 100 years?
Since you insist on not dumbing down the technical information, this question should not be difficult. Please stop your evasion if we are to have any meaningful exchange.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well said, thank you. And thanks for your thoughtful responses to my other posts too. I appreciate it.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Okay, the data that supports what you want to be true is good, period, but the data that doesn’t support what you want to be true, is dismissed as random noise in a chaotic system. You can’t get much more cherry picking then that.
But since I’ve already presented the counter argument to this, and knowing your propensity to belabor issues out of sheer obstinacy, I’ll simply point out that the link you referenced serves to support my contention. The data is inconclusive (period). And the only way to arrive at the conclusion that the earth is experiencing a uniquely anthropogenic catastrophic increase in global temperature is to dismiss half the evidence.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
One more thing. I think Richard Lindzen says it all much more eloquently than I could ever.
Quote:Read the rest of this opinion at:
Meteorologist Likens Fear of Global Warming to 'Religious Belief'
..."With respect to science, the assumption behind the [alarmist] consensus is science is the source of authority and that authority increases with the number of scientists [who agree.] But science is not primarily a source of authority. It is a particularly effective approach of inquiry and analysis. Skepticism is essential to science -- consensus is foreign," Lindzen said.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200
412%5CCUL20041202a.html
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To answer the question "Is one degree significant?" the answer is YES.
Like any system that has a lot of noise, you get closer to the true mean when you take a lot of points and average them. One degree wouldn't be significant if it were betwen this morning and this afternoon in Buffalo, but one degree IS significant when averaged over the entire globe's surface over years. That averagin eliminates a lot of random "noise" and leaves just the long-term trends standing. The rise is surface temperature is greater than what would be expected by sheer chance over the last 10,000 years.
Does that answer your question?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME