• Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!

Learning Global Warming facts and fiction

Status
Not open for further replies.
GaWx said:
Thanks. So, when looking at “extent” graphs for both periods (apples to apples), they, indeed, do match up well. However, I still wonder if “volume” was as low as it is now during 1920-40. Isn’t volume arguably the most important variable?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I haven’t been able to find any volume graphs that go back past 1979. I assume either the reconstruction of that data would be near impossible to do or it’s not something that researchers have looked at closely. The ice extent is not the best metric for sure but it at least does show the cyclical nature of the ice extent and that current levels were seen back in the 1920-40 period. Interestingly enough, if you read old newspaper articles from the 1920-40 period you will see they had the same concern of all the ice melting in the Arctic; yet as we know it recovered nicely from 1940-1980. I expect we will see a similar cycle with the current decline showing signs of recovery/stabilization. Now we just need to watch and see if we start seeing some gains consistently, a process that will take 10+ years to figure out.
 
Climate_Change_Attribution.png
 
Let's try and keep the posts friendly in here. I know it's a divisive subject and there are claims from all sides that can be posted here, but there is no need to start being sarcastic and harsh about it. If you can't post something that isn't passive aggressive, don't post at all.
 
if he can post nonsense like saying 'climategate' is real.. then he deserves contempt.. it's a falsehood. Anything else he has to say after that is suspect.
 
whamby said:
by proponents of AGW you mean 97% of Climate Scientists on Earth? Oh wait, that number's wrong too, because, blah blah blah... wait, I know, 'climategate' scandal.. yeah, that's it! Everything you say after 'climategate' is simply suspect. https://skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm
Click to expand...
You should know that that 97% figure was based on an internet poll with no controls whatsoever. You could vote as many times as you like and the vast majority who were asked to respond were already AGW adherents. I challenge you to find a scientifically designed truly representative poll which shows anything of the sort. Please post it here if you find one and show the breakdown of which science disciplines are represented in the numbers by percentage.
 
whamby said:
ha, that was unfriendly? jeez, get a grip..
Click to expand...
Maybe you should get a grip. This isn't some presidential debate where you can shout comments like "He has small hands" or "He's an orange!".
whamby said:
if he can post nonsense like saying 'climategate' is real.. then he deserves contempt.. it's a falsehood. Anything else he has to say after that is suspect.
Click to expand...
He can say what he wants whether it's right or wrong. Nobody deserves passive aggressive comments here. Notice the word "Nobody". You can refute it with as many as thousands of words or as few as one. If you find everything I'm saying as some offensive statement or you can't see how your comments came off maybe you should step away from the site until you can post something in a different manner.
 
ForsythSnow said:
Maybe you should get a grip. This isn't some presidential debate where you can shout comments like "He has small hands" or "He's an orange!".

He can say what he wants whether it's right or wrong. Nobody deserves passive aggressive comments here. Notice the word "Nobody". You can refute it with as many as thousands of words or as few as one. If you find everything I'm saying as some offensive statement or you can't see how your comments came off maybe you should step away from the site until you can post something in a different manner.
Click to expand...
fine, I'll attempt to be nicer... :)
 
MichaelJ said:
You should know that that 97% figure was based on an internet poll with no controls whatsoever. You could vote as many times as you like and the vast majority who were asked to respond were already AGW adherents. I challenge you to find a scientifically designed truly representative poll which shows anything of the sort. Please post it here if you find one and show the breakdown of which science disciplines are represented in the numbers by percentage.
Click to expand...
who are some reputable climate change deniers, ones with atmospheric science, climatology, PHDs? Other than Fred Singer, who I'm familiar with...
 
MichaelJ said:
You should know that that 97% figure was based on an internet poll with no controls whatsoever. You could vote as many times as you like and the vast majority who were asked to respond were already AGW adherents. I challenge you to find a scientifically designed truly representative poll which shows anything of the sort. Please post it here if you find one and show the breakdown of which science disciplines are represented in the numbers by percentage.
Click to expand...
"A 2013 study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research Letters analyzed 11,944 abstracts from papers published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature between 1991 and 2011, identified by searching the ISI Web of Science citation index engine for the text strings "global climate change" or "global warming". The authors found that 3974 of the abstracts expressed a position on anthropogenic global warming, and that 97.1% of those endorsed the consensus that humans are causing global warming. "
 
whamby said:
who are some reputable climate change deniers, ones with atmospheric science, climatology, PHDs? Other than Fred Singer, who I'm familiar with...
Click to expand...
Is this a serious question? If it is, I will provide one tomorrow for you because I have another project to finish tonight
 
MichaelJ said:
Also please don't post these type graphs with no attribution footnotes. Snowlover at leasts shows where the figures and graphics come from, that is how real science is done
Click to expand...
Robert A. Rohde
 
whamby said:
by proponents of AGW you mean 97% of Climate Scientists on Earth? Oh wait, that number's wrong too, because, blah blah blah... wait, I know, 'climategate' scandal.. yeah, that's it! Everything you say after 'climategate' is simply suspect. https://skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm
Click to expand...

The statistic simply shows that a large number of climate scientists believe man contributes in some way to the warming we have seen in recent years (due to CO2 increases). It does not indicate if they are right or wrong; it’s a simple metric used to add weight to the “AGW is entirely man-made and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong” view. Here’s some good info on it from Dr. Roy Spencer...

And that is one of the (many) problems with the Cook literature review study. It only established that there is widespread consensus that humans contribute to (not even dominate) global warming, a position that the vast majority of climate "skeptics" agree with - including myself. I do not know of any climate skeptic researchers who claim that humans have no influence on the climate system. The existence of trees has an influence on the climate system, and it is entirely reasonable to assume that humans do as well.

The most pertinent questions really are: just how much warming is occurring? (not as much as predicted); how much of that warming is being caused by humans? (we don't really know); is modest warming a bad thing? (maybe not); and is there anything we can do about it anyway? (not without a new energy technology).

Regarding just how wrong scientific consensus can be, I like to use the example of peptic ulcers. With millions of sufferers being treated over the last century by doctors, you would think we would know what causes them. Until relatively recently it was assumed that eating spicy food or stress caused them. But two Australian doctors, Robin Warren and Barry Marshall, had a theory that they were caused by bacteria, a fringe idea that led to them being shunned and ridiculed at conferences.

Yet they were correct, and were awarded the 2005 Nobel Prize in medicine for their work. One can only imagine the thousands of published medical papers that simply assumed that ulcers were caused by stress or spicy food. Would it have been 97 percent? Or even more? I don't know. Yet they were all wrong.

Now, if the physical cause of millions of peptic ulcers went undiscovered for so many years, isn't it possible that there are natural causes of climate change? Climate change is a relatively young science. Computerized climate models do a reasonably good job of replicating the average behavior of the climate system, but have been almost worthless for forecasting climate change. They have not even been able to hindcast (let alone forecast) the warming rate of the past 30-50 years, generally overstating that warming by about a factor of two.

The extreme popularity and success of the 97 percent meme tells us something about the global warming debate and how it is received. People gravitate toward simple ways to support and defend their preconceived beliefs. Global warming is one of those issues that the believer holds onto with an almost religious fervor. As a scientist I learned long ago that there is no point wanting this or that theory to be correct. Mother Nature really doesn't care what you believe. Instead, I just follow the evidence and generally assume that whatever is developed as an explanation is most likely going to be proved wrong eventually ... as is the case with most published science.
https://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/03/the_myth_of_the_97_percent_glo.html
Click to expand...

Further information on how the 97% statistic is incredibly misleading and the author of the report you cited was intentionally misleading with this statistic.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”

—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”

—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/
Click to expand...

As cited early, “climategate” revealed through emails and exchanges that leading scientists were in fact manipulating data and actively working to suppress alternative viewpoints. Here’s some data cited with multiple sources indicating the problems.

Olson, 2018 Opinion polls and other research show a public that frequently perceives climate science and associated AGW threats as complicated, uncertain and temporally and spatially distant (Anghelcev et al., 2015; Bennett et al., 2016; Gordon et al., 2011). Thus climate scientists, celebrities, public policymakers and other AGW social marketers face a daunting task in convincing a lackadaisical and often skeptical public to support AGW mitigating behaviors and policies. The difficulty of this marketing assignment has also led to the utilization of ethically questionable tactics that hype the severity, immediacy and certainty of AGW threats (O’Neil and Nicholson-Cole, 2009; Rogers, 1975; Rosenberg et al., 2010).
For example, the past 25 years have witnessed a large number of greatly exaggerated predictions regarding the speed and scope of temperature increases and AGW dangers from a variety of AGW “endorsers,” which have fortunately proven to be false alarms (Bastasch, 2015; Grundmann, 2011; Michaels, 2008; Newman, 2014). Another ethically questionable example is provided by the Climategate scandal involving members of the climate science community and their attempts to increase public certainty regarding the methods and predictions of “mainstream” climate models by blocking the publication of research not supportive of the AGW paradigm (Curry, 2014; Grundmann, 2011).
Click to expand...

While several leading studies suggested Mann and other scientists in “climategate” did no wrong, others disagree. The skeptical science article referenced conveniently left out that data and failed to analyze any data that might indicate there was actual wrongdoing or at the very least some questionable/unethical things going on. Here is some additional info.
“Today, Mann defends himself by saying his university has looked into the e-mails and decided that he had not suppressed data at any time. However, an inquiry conducted by the British parliament came to a very different conclusion. "The leaked e-mails appear to show a culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted to avoid disclosure," the House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee announced in its findings on March 31.
http://www.spiegel.de/international...-global-warming-was-compromised-a-695301.html
Click to expand...

Going further, do you accept this email exchange as ethical or not? Is the intentional suppression of alternative views going to promote or hinder scientific advancement?
It is pretty clear that thee skeptics here have staged a bit of a coup, even in the
presence of a number of reasonable folks on the editorial board (Whetton, Goodess, ...). My
guess is that Von Storch is actually with them (frankly, he's an odd individual, and I'm
not sure he isn't himself somewhat of a skeptic himself), and without Von Storch on their
side, they would have a very forceful personality promoting their new vision.
There have been several papers by Pat Michaels, as well as the Soon & Baliunas paper, that
couldn't get published in a reputable journal.
This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the
"peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal!
So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board...
Click to expand...

Phil Jones sent an email to Michael Mann (commonly cited, hockey stick graph guy) citing he would delete/destroy the CRU station data if ever requested under the FOIA. Here is what one of the leaked emails he sent said, dated February 2, 2005: “The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone.” Conveniently, four years later, when the FOIA was requested this data was “lost or destroyed.” It’s almost as if they are trying to hide something...
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/

These are just two examples of many that climategate revealed. Do you not have a problem with leading scientists acting to suppress alternative views or failing to be transparent with data and then destroying/hiding it when transparency is requested? I don’t know about you... but these two examples (and many others, read the emails for yourself to see) are anti-science, unethical and a MAJOR PROBLEM to me.
 
Last edited:
This is probably a minor point, but does 97% of "man contributing to GW" papers equal 97% of scientists saying man contributes? What about multiple papers from one scientist? What if a handful of scientists on the "man contributing" side wrote numerous papers? Could that be enough to skew the % up much? Maybe it is really only 90% or even 80% of scientists that wrote the 97% of papers.
 
Maybe it's really 0% and AGW is a hoax or something.. maybe.. who knows... *rolls eyes*
 
Last edited:
whamby said:
if he can post nonsense like saying 'climategate' is real.. then he deserves contempt.. it's a falsehood. Anything else he has to say after that is suspect.
Click to expand...

Read my post above, you’ll find some interesting info in it if you read through all the data points and articles cited. The “climategate” is a reference to the leaked emails in 2009 and also 2011. Some of them did in fact reveal some serious ethical issues and while some sites and studies cleared them of wrongdoing, others expressed concern or questioned the ethics involved as well. I have read through entire email chains that are publicly available and while many are no issue whatsoever, there are some concerning things as well contained within the full context of them too. If you want links to the full email exchanges, specifically the ones that raise some serious questions, I will be more than happy to provide them so you can read them for yourself and make a conclusion. If one is truly open-minded, they will be willing to examine and consider all data whether it agrees or conflicts with their currently held view :)
 
whamby said:
Maybe it's really 0% and AGW is a hoax or something.. maybe.. who knows... *rolls eyes*
Click to expand...

Since you asked... specifically relating to your paper referenced.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”

—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”

—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/
Click to expand...
 
GaWx said:
This is probably a minor point, but does 97% of "man contributing to GW" papers equal 97% of scientists saying man contributes? What about multiple papers from one scientist? What if a handful of scientists on the "man contributing" side wrote numerous papers? Could that be enough to skew the % up much? Maybe it is really only 90% or even 80% of scientists that wrote the 97% of papers.
Click to expand...

You’re on the right track. As I mentioned above, the author that made the 97% claim famous misrepresented the conclusions of many papers/scientists based on the search and classification parameters used.

In other news, I found this recently posted online where someone found an archived 1971 National Geographic ice extent map for the end of summer and then imposed the current sea ice extent on top of it. Not much change really.
upload_2018-8-14_1-7-10.gif

Another interesting data point, the charts always start in 1979 when ice hit a peak. Why would they choose to start all ice extent charts for the Arctic at 1979 instead of other years in the 1970s that showed a much lower or normal range? The 1990 IPCC report noted the decline seen in the early 1970s follow by rapid growth and a peak around 1979, the same timeframe that NSIDC, PIOMAS and other sites use as their starting point.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf
upload_2018-8-14_1-10-7.jpeg

Some believed in 1969 that the Arctic had reached a tipping point that would unleash catastrophic changes with an ice-free Arctic in one or two decades. That never transpired with 1979 hitting significantly higher levels merely 10 years later from this concerning low point. Ironically, the language used in this newspaper clipping is similar to the fear mongering you see today.
upload_2018-8-14_1-14-31.png
upload_2018-8-14_1-14-50.png
 
Whenever I hear that the science is settled around something as complex as the atmosphere and climate, it immediately makes me want to walk away from the table and not consider anything else that person has to say, whether they are a "reputable and well-credentialed scientist" or not. That's like big pharma saying, "oh well, it's settled...there will never be a cure for cancer. Now shut up and buy my medicine, dummy."

The common theme I hear from the AGW group is that there is no room to debate anything. If you have any doubts, skepticism, or questions, then you are immediately a denier and any alternative evidence, data, or hypotheses are dismissed out of hand. That attitude does not converge with how a true scientist should view the scientific method and the learning process in general. Science is almost never settled. Sure, you have anti-AGW people who are unwilling to hear the other side. But most of the time, whenever I have even discussed climate change with someone on the AGW side, you get treated with contempt almost immediately.

None of that, however, means that humans aren't playing a role in damaging our environment. I believe we are. We are incredibly messy and care very little about anything that doesn't have an immediate impact on our lives. We generate too much waste, produce too much pollution, and care too little about the land in which we live. However, that can be true without an irreversible catastrophe lying at our doorstep. There is a high likelihood that there is much about the environment and the interconnected relationship between the elements of it that we have yet to understand. It may well be possible that the earth has been so well designed as to mitigate some of these "catastrophic" factors before some critical threshold is crossed. We can't account for or accurately model what we don't know. There is so much we have yet to learn. But one thing, at least, is certain -- an abundance of foolish settled truths litter the landscape of human history. And many more lie ahead.
 
whamby said:
who are some reputable climate change deniers, ones with atmospheric science, climatology, PHDs? Other than Fred Singer, who I'm familiar with...
Click to expand...
Here are some names you can google to get their Curriculum Vitae if you need to see their creds, much too extensive for me to put here:

Dr Richard Lindzen
Dr Roy Spencer
Dr. John Christy
Willie Soon
Dr. Judith Curry
Dr Richard McNider
John Coleman
Dr Ryan Maue
Dr Roger Pielke Sr
Kiminori Itoh
Ivar Giaever
Will Happer
Ian Plimer
Patrick Michaels
Lennart O. Bengtsson
Nir J Shaviv
Bjorn Lomborg
Craig Loehle
Patrick Moore
Garth Paltridge
Denis Rancourt
Phillip Stott
Anastasios Tsoni
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg.
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.
Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist, member of the French Academy of Sciences
Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo.[89][90]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.
Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.
Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri
Jennifer Marohasy, an Australian biologist, former director of the Australian Environment Foundation
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.
Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado.
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University.
Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo.
Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center
George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State Universit
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).
Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.
Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.
Stanley B. Goldenberg a meteorologist with NOAA/AOML's Hurricane Research Division.
Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes.
Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Kary Mullis, 1993 Nobel laureate in chemistry, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method.
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.

And of course, our very own and estimable 1300m


 
1300m said:
I have two colleagues who share similar feelings to me also (M.S. Meteorology and one B.S. Meteorology and is a NWS employee). I also know that several (at least 2 or 3 that I discussed it with) of the NWS Raleigh meteorologists shared similar or stronger skepticism to the state of the debate than myself when I worked there in 2011. In fact, no degreed meteorologist I personally know believes in the fear mongering or extremism of the AGW alarmists.

My experience has always been that it is the research community (universities) who have the strongest/most extreme feelings on the subject and it's just so hard to understand why that could be. It isn't like their funding is dependent upon convincing folks of the importance of climate change or anything...
Click to expand...

Excellent points by both you and Rain Cold this morning. Well said.
 
1300m said:
I have two colleagues who share similar feelings to me also (M.S. Meteorology and one B.S. Meteorology and is a NWS employee). I also know that several (at least 2 or 3 that I discussed it with) of the NWS Raleigh meteorologists shared similar or stronger skepticism to the state of the debate than myself when I worked there in 2011. In fact, no degreed meteorologist I personally know believes in the fear mongering or extremism of the AGW alarmists.

My experience has always been that it is the research community (universities) who have the strongest/most extreme feelings on the subject and it's just so hard to understand why that could be. It isn't like their funding is dependent upon convincing folks of the importance of climate change or anything...
Click to expand...

I'm curious if you have any studies or journals you've read which postulate alternative explanations for the warming we've read? I would like to read through some additional resources. What are your thoughts as to possible explanations that could explain the recent warm shift we've had?
 
EastAtlwx said:
just so everyone knows he isn't a climate change denier lol..... https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/927203368841379840
Click to expand...
Well I can tell you I have talked with him personally several times and he is what I would refer to as a lukewarmer. Like most of us, he acknowledges that the earth has warmed some in the past 100 years but the amount, causes and percentage applied to CO2 is still in question and he DEFINITELY does not believe in run away Anthropogenic Global Warming nor does he believe we are past or near a tipping point for the planet. Hope that clears it up for you a little
 
MichaelJ said:
Well I can tell you I have talked with him personally several times and he is what I would refer to as a lukewarmer. Like most of us, he acknowledges that the earth has warmed some in the past 100 years but the amount, causes and percentage applied to CO2 is still in question and he DEFINITELY does not believe in run away Anthropogenic Global Warming nor does he believe we are past or near a tipping point for the planet. Hope that clears it up for you a little
Click to expand...
Yeah that's sort of how I think of it as. Yes, earth has warmed and there are some issues with the amount of CO2 and other emissions that are being released, but the climate isn't going to completely fall flat tomorrow like alarmists believe. Solutions to emissions are always being worked on and the introduction of new CO2 reducing technology or methods that produce less always help. I am sure that in the coming decades we can peak our emissions and even decline as more renewable or efficient energy production will become available. I'm also certain that the icecaps will still be intact by then too. There may be less ice, but the ocean won't be 5 feet higher and Florida most definitely will not be submerged like alarmists like to say.
 
MichaelJ said:
Well I can tell you I have talked with him personally several times and he is what I would refer to as a lukewarmer. Like most of us, he acknowledges that the earth has warmed some in the past 100 years but the amount, causes and percentage applied to CO2 is still in question and he DEFINITELY does not believe in run away Anthropogenic Global Warming nor does he believe we are past or near a tipping point for the planet. Hope that clears it up for you a little
Click to expand...
you aren't clearing anything up. You are already stated what i already know about the guy..... you are the one who you put under a list of climate change deniers..... and i simply pointed out this as incorrect. I should of probably been explicit that he was a skeptic that understands the basic physics on how greenhouses gases actually work.... traps heat unbalances earth energy budget which causes the earth to warm. Looking at natural indices we should last i check be cooling but the warming we have been seeing as matched up well with c02 levels and predictions. The way i see it is that the two extremes of the spectrum that being warmist and deniers are wrong and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The question at this point is how much warming are we going to end up having not that c02 is the driver for the warmth the last 100 years...
 
EastAtlwx said:
you aren't clearing anything up. You are already stated what i already know about the guy..... you are the one who you put under a list of climate change deniers..... and i simply pointed out this as incorrect. I should of probably been explicit that he was a skeptic that understands the basic physics on how greenhouses gases actually work.... traps heat unbalances earth energy budget which causes the earth to warm. Looking at natural indices we should last i check be cooling but the warming we have been seeing as matched up well with c02 levels and predictions. The way i see it is that the two extremes of the spectrum that being warmist and deniers are wrong and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The question at this point is how much warming are we going to end up having not that c02 is the driver for the warmth the last 100 years...
Click to expand...

Not to bicker too much but I only quoted someone else in using the term denier (which I don't like and think is inaccurate). The Climate is changing (and I think most skeptics acknowledge that) but it has always changed with or without any mankind influences. Could we be adding to it? I think that is possible but not to an extent where we need to change the global economy or standard of living for.
 
Good follow up to the paper that the media and myself included (blaming the coffee) blew out of proportion.

https://theintercept.com/2018/08/14/hothouse-earth-climate-change-neoliberal-economics/

And another interesting one about different hothouse states. The one during the Pliocene would probably be better for civilization in the long term due to warm temperatures near the poles making cities more livable there with little additional heat in the tropics. It’s getting there that would be rough.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hothouse-earth-planet-apos-looked-145310050.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Rain Cold said:
Whenever I hear that the science is settled around something as complex as the atmosphere and climate, it immediately makes me want to walk away from the table and not consider anything else that person has to say, whether they are a "reputable and well-credentialed scientist" or not. That's like big pharma saying, "oh well, it's settled...there will never be a cure for cancer. Now shut up and buy my medicine, dummy."

The common theme I hear from the AGW group is that there is no room to debate anything. If you have any doubts, skepticism, or questions, then you are immediately a denier and any alternative evidence, data, or hypotheses are dismissed out of hand. That attitude does not converge with how a true scientist should view the scientific method and the learning process in general. Science is almost never settled. Sure, you have anti-AGW people who are unwilling to hear the other side. But most of the time, whenever I have even discussed climate change with someone on the AGW side, you get treated with contempt almost immediately.

None of that, however, means that humans aren't playing a role in damaging our environment. I believe we are. We are incredibly messy and care very little about anything that doesn't have an immediate impact on our lives. We generate too much waste, produce too much pollution, and care too little about the land in which we live. However, that can be true without an irreversible catastrophe lying at our doorstep. There is a high likelihood that there is much about the environment and the interconnected relationship between the elements of it that we have yet to understand. It may well be possible that the earth has been so well designed as to mitigate some of these "catastrophic" factors before some critical threshold is crossed. We can't account for or accurately model what we don't know. There is so much we have yet to learn. But one thing, at least, is certain -- an abundance of foolish settled truths litter the landscape of human history. And many more lie ahead.
Click to expand...

This is one of the most intelligent posts I've ever seen, I personally lean towards the AGW side but I'm open to hearing other arguments and lately I've seen from very convincing arguments from the anti-AGW side. I think personally regardless of who's right or who's wrong, we should still take steps to lower pollution and waste.
 
It seems like the se has escaped most of the extreme summer heat from AGW so far. I wonder how long it will last.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Hurricane season looks to be a dud. Waters off of the west African coast are well below normal. For the sake of argument, does this line up with AGW predictions? I thought hurricanes were supposed to get bigger and larger in volume
 
Last edited:
Jimmy Hypocracy said:
Hurricane season looks to be a dud. Waters off of the west African coast are well below normal. For the sake of argument, does this line up with AGW predictions? I thought hurricanes were supposed to get bigger and larger in volume
Click to expand...

Actually it may be the opposite or roughly the same being that we may end up in a permanent El Niño state like in the Pliocene that had co2 lvl like today and was about 2 degrees C warmer. Some studies show that temps in the tropics was about the same as now with intermittent Summer sea ice. Maybe the extreme heatwaves we are seeing is from a transitional period when there is still enough ice left to cause intermittent strong ridges and troughs to form. When the sea ice is gone in the summer the jet stream will be very weak and you would end up with a more even height field in the mid latitudes just like near the equator which would even out extreme temperatures.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BHS1975 said:
It seems like the se has escaped most of the extreme summer heat from AGW so far. I wonder how long it will last.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

What extreme heat? Within the grand scheme of things, heat waves are pretty normal every summer whether they setup in the West, Central or Eastern US or in other countries. The problem is the news media hypes up any heatwave as “climate change” when in fact they are pretty normal. In fact we’ve seen a decline in max temp averages over the past 100 years with 1936 as the warmest.

upload_2018-8-18_22-0-27.jpeg

Percent of stations over 100F for August 16 is declining as well and has been for over 100 years now...
upload_2018-8-18_22-13-6.png

In the Midwest US, the percent of days reaching 95F or greater has been declining as well.
upload_2018-8-18_22-18-33.png

Record summer highs in the US tied or broken have been steady with a decline recently...
upload_2018-8-18_22-29-7.png
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top