What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Boston]

readers please take note

global climate skeptics have once again failed to adequately address the issues presented and instead have generally distracted from them

if the temp is not rising
why is all this ice melting
(skeptics have only speculated that the unquantified element of volcanic activity is to blame rather than consider any of the known forcing agents )

skeptics have failed to admit there is plenty of data supporting tropical tropospheric warming
when they had said categorically there was none
( see post #1660 )

skeptics have failed to admit that water vapor makes up only ~50% of the greenhouse effect and not the 60%, 96%, 98% they have so far claimed
( a complete deconstruction of there claims can be found at post # 1678)

any ideas on why
why is it skeptics fail to admit or address these points and instead post cartoons to distract us

and the most self incriminating and damaging evidence presented by the skeptics is there continued use of avowed industry stooges as sources for there beliefs

I would present the following examples from post # 1678


we have a essay from
Joel M Kauffman 004
published in the journal of scientific exploration
I would note the journal of scientific exploration is not exactly a peer reviewed publication dealing with hard science

Some observers regard the JSE as a legitimate attempt to explore the frontiers of science,[8][9] while others view it as a forum for scientifically objectionable or dubious ideas.[10] Some academics have noted that JSE publishes on anomalous issues, topics often on the fringe of science.[11]
Of the SSE and JSE, journalist Michael Lemonick writes, "Pretty much anything that might have shown up on The X-Files or in the National Enquirer shows up first here. But what also shows up is a surprising attitude of skepticism." [12]
Kendrick Frazier, Editor of Skeptical Inquirer and CSICOP fellow has criticized JSE and argues that:
The JSE, while presented as neutral and objective, appears to hold a hidden agenda. They seem to be interested in promoting fringe topics as real mysteries and they tend to ignore most evidence to the contrary. They publish 'scholarly' articles promoting the reality of dowsing, neo-astrology, ESP, and psychokinesis. Most of the prominent and active members are strong believers in the reality of such phenomena.[13]

Kauffman also made Inhofe's climate skeptics debunked list

Quote:
193. Joel M. Kauffman,
PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia,
U.S. Retired. Doesn't have any discernable climate experience.
http://www.usp.edu/chemistry/faculty...aphy.asp?id=43

in which Kauffman quotes

Richard Lindzen

[QUOTE professor and agriculture consultant who claims that organic food is bad for you and charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."[3][/quote]

and
Fred Singer

Quote:
In 1993, Singer collaborated with Tom Hockaday of Apco Associates to draft an article on "junk science" intended for publication. Apco Associates was the PR firm hired to organize and direct the front group The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition for Philip Morris. Hockaday reported on his work with Singer to Ellen Merlo, Senior Vice President of Corporate Affairs at ( the tobacco giant )Philip Morris.[1]
In 1994, Singer was Chief Reviewer of the report Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination published by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI). This was all part of an attack on EPA regulation on environmental tobacco smoke funded by the Tobacco Institute. [6] At that time, Mr. Singer was a Senior Fellow with AdTI. [7]
"The report's principal reviewer, Dr Fred Singer, was involved with the International Center for a Scientific Ecology, a front group that was considered important in Philip Morris' plans to create a group in Europe similar to The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), as discussed by Ong and Glantz. He was also on a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces on "junk science," defending the industry's views.39" [8]Sherwood et al

together these essays skeptics present contain no pertinent peer reviewed work
and in defense of the skeptics claim that water vapor makes up 98% of the greenhouse gas effect there noted source is found out to be industry spin written by known industry stooges in mostly industry funded rags

the truth will out again friends
the truth will out

regards
B

[masalai]

Boston, YELLING, is using BIG letters, COLOURS, or CAPITALS, and is quite unnecessary in "serious" debate.....

Meanz, a well taken high ground case...

[Boston]

oops !!

this is serious ?
cant be
its so pathetically easy to just demolish all the silly arguments and horrifically bad sources not to mention the pseudoscientist's and there industry affiliations
hell its like shooting fish in a bucket as someone pointed out earlier
the skeptics have proven themselves to basically not even know how the science is conducted let alone what the findings are
even lacking a basic understanding in the terminology of the science
cant be serious
no way
were just egging one another on here
there is no way this would ever be considered a serious debate
firstly
you would have to require that only refereed peer reviewed work be presented in defense of a position
then there would be a moderator that was actively involved in awarding positions properly defended
no way this is serious
hell we got people presenting cartoons as evidence around here
i'm just killing time and a few badly defended skeptics views

I just use the big red letters so that the ocational reader who drops in doesnt get tricked by any of the ridiculous pseudoscience that gets regurgitated by the climate skeptics
not trying to yell at anyone

best
B

[masalai]

Shhhhh you may spoil a bit of entertainment..... When Oil & food run out and space on land this debate will become irrelevant? no? - at least with the Global warming postulation there was another population reduction mechanism (drowning?)

[Boston]

thats bloody hilarious man

ah the greenhouse effect and the food problem are running about neck and neck in terms of timing
oil isnt far behind but I cant see it catching up to the previous two
food production is directly tied to weather patterns
soooooo
thus they are related
change the climate
and you change the food production
most of the world lives off rice and fish
the fish are nearly gone
and the rice aint doing so well either
hell the maldives government has purchased land to relocate the hole nation if I remember
what are they, one millimeter above sea level ;-)
the last four years in the arctic have been show stoppers
not much denying that

I say eat drink and be merry
for tomorrow
we're screwed

[masalai]

Arrrrgh, Boston, you are such an optimist...

[Guillermo]

Of course this is of not relevance in a global perpective, but our National Mets Agency already considers 2008 as the coldest year of the century in Spain.

Most probably 2008 will be the 16th cooler year in the last 30 years.

Attached there is an interesting graph showing the extraordinary matching between CO2 and lower troposphere temperature.
(raw data here: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2)

I propose we sing a song all togeteher:
(music: PP&M's 'where have all the flowers gone')

Where has all the warming gone
long time passing....?
where has all the warming gone
long time ago.....?
where has all the warming gone?
gone to nowhere all of it!
oh, when will they ever learn!
oh when will they ever learn!

Cheers.

[Boston]

its called global climate change
not local
guess your not going to address the deconstruction of your previous claim
and obfuscate a little as Jim likes to say

look, its always fun but I gotta go
I get to do some consulting at the museum today
not sure what but I got a call so Im all happy to have something to do
laters
B

real quick
how come the graph stops at 2002 when your claiming century lows
hint
the century starts on 2000 not 2001

[Guillermo]

U. S. Senate Minority Report:
More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008
Released: December 11, 2008
(Update of the 2007 Report: “Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007”)

"The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers."

All of them doing 'ridiculous pseudoscience regurgitated by the climate skeptics'.

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales. The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming.
..................
"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said Morison.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131


Also:
"We speculate that warming alone cannot explain the retreat of Arctic ice observed in the 1980s–90s. Also crucial to this rapid ice reduction was the low-frequency shift in the atmospheric pressure pattern from anticyclonic to cyclonic. Positive and negative LFO phases of the SAT are shifted by 5–15 yr relative to those in the SLP record. The complicated nature of Arctic temperature and pressure variations makes understanding of possible causes of the variability, and evaluation of the anthropogenic warming effect most difficult"
(Variability and Trends of Air Temperature and Pressure in the Maritime Arctic, 1875–2000)


More:
Temperatures were warmer in the 1930s and 1940s in Greenland. They cooled back to the levels of the 1880s by the 1980s and 1990s. In a GRL paper in 2003, Hanna and Cappelen showed a significant cooling trend for eight stations in coastal southern Greenland from 1958 to 2001 (-1.29ºC for the 44 years). The temperature trend represented a strong negative correlation with increasing CO2 levels.
(See attached graph)

Cheers.

[Meanz Beanz]

Originally Posted by Boston

food production is directly tied to weather patterns

Its more directly tied to energy, it takes 10 calories of oil to deliver 1 calorie of food using our modern systems. Boston I fear you may suffer from the myopic disease that haunts most of our specialist these days as we learn more and more about less and less.

By the way... its snowing in Vegas... LOL, now that would be interesting! Damn cold down here to for "summer"...

[Jimbo1490]

The source for the 95% attribution of the greenhouse effect to water vapor is a well-accepted, peer reviewed paper:

S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264


Realclimate and other AGW blogs have railed against this figure, although it is well accepted in climate science and the parameters that give us this generalized average are used in many GCM's.

Meanwhile. Relaclimate offers NO peer reviewed refutation, only a sarcastic, flippant rebuttal page insisting that these parameters must be wrong.


Tearing down the credibility of detractors (without addressing the gist of the detractor's argument) does not constitute a "demolishing" of the detractor's argument.

Everyone reading this thread knows this, well maybe with one exception

Jimbo

[Guillermo]

Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC cocoordinating lead author on the Technical Report on Carbon Capture & Storage, Lloyd rejects man-made climate fears. “I have grave difficulties in finding any but the most circumstantial evidence for any human impact on the climate,” Lloyd wrote to EPW on January 18, 2008. “The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil. I have tried numerous tests for radiative effects, and all have failed. I have tried to develop an isotopic method for identifying stable C12 (from fossil fuels) and merely ended up understanding the difference between the major plant chemistries and their differing ability to use the different isotopes. I have studied the ice core record, in detail, and am concerned that those who claim to have a model of our climate future haven't a clue about the forces driving our climate past,” Lloyd wrote. “I am particularly concerned that the rigor of science seems to have been sacrificed on an altar of fundraising. I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” he concluded.

[Meanz Beanz]

Its become an industry... too many jobs rely on it to get a clear picture of whats going. Boston slags off the self interested energy industry but on the otherside there are just as many funding whores willing to do what ever it takes to keep the gravy flowing.

[Guillermo]

Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the Senate Environment & Public Works committee, explained how much money has been spent researching and promoting climate fears and so-called solutions.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...-27197,00.html
“In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one,"

The U.S. alone has spent $30 billion on federal programs directly or indirectly related to global warming in just the last six years, according to one estimate ($5.79 billion in 2006 alone). Adding to this total is funding from the UN, foundations, universities, foreign governments, etc. Huge sums of money continue to flow toward addressing climate fears. In August, a State Treasurer in California "proposed a $5 billion bond measure to combat global warming," according to the Sacramento Bee. Even if you factor in former Vice President Al Gore's unsubstantiated August 7, 2007 assertion that $10 million dollars a year from the fossil fuel industry flows into skeptical organizations, any funding comparison between skeptics and warming proponents utterly fails.

(Note: this info was from mid 2007. Amounts today are probably much, much bigger)

Cheers.