What Do We Think About Climate Change

[masrapido]

Yes, these assertions are plausible, but they must be tested to verify that they are true and correct before we begin to behave as if they were true and correct.

Start with CO2 as a greenhouse agent.


Jimbo

Jimbo,

CO2 has been proven to absorb the heat long time ago. In the three-part documentary made by Iain Stewart, scottish geologist, who knows more about geology than mark775 and his second nick marc1 (being the same person), and other denial-obsessed posters here.

To all these "knowledgeable" couch potatoes who pretend to know a lot, and better than others, I suggest to watch the three episodes, and them hopefully shut up and restrain themselves from bullshiting about things they know nothing. Like the retard who reads my posts and still understands **** (honey, you know who you are).

Which is good. I do not expect a retard to understand anything anyway, so no fear there that a meaningful conversations might develop.

I do admit to agree with deniers on one thing. CO2 is not the worst greenhouse gas. That title belongs to methane.

To all those who do not know why, please do your homework before you start bullshiting about methane now...

The cooling of the earth has been well researched and documented in the past sixty years. So is now the sudden warming.

Both sides are full of ****, but for a persistent reader, there is enough information out there presented by as impartial as humanly possible scientists who, as theyall should, are more interested in the facts than in crap attitude and personal gains.

Much unlike the resident retard whose only desire in life is to be the widest ******** with the largest output of **** and gasses possible for a handful of points that mean nothing to a mentally balanced person.

So, all please do yourself a favour and watch the series, because it was made well and it presented both sides impartially. Then it investigated and the conclusions are cold verified facts that are somewhere in between both sides. For an intelligent person it will be quite informative. For the large majority it will be beyond understanding. It requires that a viewer has at least average IQ to grasp it, which is not the case around here...

 

[troy2000]

Your remarks about my "destructiveness" reminded me of (I think it was) Keith Briffa, who said he did not want to release his data for review/confirmation (a normal part of the peer-review process, Troy) because "my critics are only going to tear it apart"

I guess you'd 'blame' the M & M team for "destroying" MBH-98, too. No credit goes to the several hundred scientists who did good, honest temperature reconstructions over the years prior to the hockey stick that stand up to rigorous peer review, not the 'back slapping' type done at the IPCC.

Jimbo

Persistent little bugger, aren't you?

 

[Jimbo1490]

ok so here's that data straight from the NOAA and clearly the graph posted leaves off the relevant data ( again ) of the last hundred years
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pa...gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt

thing to remember is that the graph provided was a reconstruction of dubious intent that failed to provide data for the time to present but instead and as is normal for the conspiracy theorists cherry picked data from a limited time frame of one local area of analysis, in this case Greenland.

the temps to date will be provided because if you notice the data set that was quoted stops at ~95 years before present ,which is the pertinent measure, that is what we're supposed to talking about isn't it? Today's rapid climate change and how it compares to the paleoclimate of the past, then it stands to reason to look at the data concerning the present as well as the past


which clearly shows a jump in temps in Greenland from the end of the NOAA Greenland data set by ~ 2.5° C to 3.5° in less than a hundred years, the time frame left out by the conspiracy theorists. This data when included into the local analysis ( the theory is one of global change by the way ) places the present average ice temp of Greenland conservatively at ~ -29.00 to -28 C or less and skyrocketing. So to be fare you would have to paint a vertical line continuing that graph going from near bottom to off the chart top and representing the most dramatic single temp jump in the history of the local graph of temp over time in Greenland. Ice permeability prevents the Ice data from accurately depicting these last hundred years, so other measurement considerations are necessary to get a "complete" picture of the data stream.

So the question is why do the conspiracy people cherry pick and leave out pertinent data if there position is so solidly based on a preponderance of scientific data

I have no doubt that nothing will dissuade the few from there cause to spread disinformation, but the science is clear. 97% agree
I tried to be as polite as possible and Ive no doubt I'll still get insulted, ridiculed, chased, abused and otherwise harassed for presenting the full data set.
Simple truth is that local climate change and global climate change are far from the same thing. One may or may not support the other although in this case if data to present is considered it surely does. The challenge to explain the local data cherry picked from numerous analysis of the local area was really no challenge at all and once again the conspiracy theorists are back to ground zero to formulate a new script of disinformation. Best of luck with that. Im outa here.

love
B

The data and graphs posted are perfectly valid in the context that they are presented, which is to show that there is nothing unusual about present temperatures on Greenland, and that even if it were to warm there 2-3 degrees more than present, this is still within the range of natural climate variation.

AGW alarmists are always carping on about Greenland, and how if it warms there by a couple of degrees, the ice sheets will melt and sea levels will rise 'X' number of feet, and all sorts of awful things will happen. This data simply shows that to be yet another false premise as it has already been as warm on Greenland only few thousand years ago. If this resulted in higher sea levels or other catastrophes, what are we to make of that? Atmospheric CO2 levels had nothing to do with that warming event back then just as they have nothing to do with recent warming. There simply is no mechanism by which CO2 can do that.

If that recon was of"dubious intent", what are we to make of MBH-98, the graph of which YOU recently re-posted AGAIN (what is that now, like 20 times now) indicating that you STILL believe in the conclusions of MBH-98.

Such a belief retained in the light of what has happened since publication of that hatchet piece can only be attributed to a sort of religious faith; for you there's absolutely NOTHING that can falsify it.

You have forfeited any stature to criticize skeptics about "cherry Picking" data unless and until you address the MBH-98 'bristlecone pine' fiasco, and the even more blatant case of Yamal, FINALLY released in September of 2009, fully 12 years after the first request for the data.

Jimbo

 

[dskira]

P.S. Still waiting for some of the friends in the "warmers" front to comment my post on NOAA's Greenland temperature record for the last 5000 years. I'm wondering why no one has commented. May be it is of no interest for them but only to "coolers"? A bit of worrying about where a simple reasoning may bring us, perhaps....? Troy? dskira? wardd....?

Guillermo I am lost in the thread. Could you gave me your post number on NOAA's Greenland so I can read it and respond it.
I apreciate
Thank you
Daniel

 

[troy2000]

Your remarks about my "destructiveness" reminded me of (I think it was) Keith Briffa, who said he did not want to release his data for review/confirmation (a normal part of the peer-review process, Troy) because "my critics are only going to tear it apart"

I guess you'd 'blame' the M & M team for "destroying" MBH-98, too. No credit goes to the several hundred scientists who did good, honest temperature reconstructions over the years prior to the hockey stick that stand up to rigorous peer review, not the 'back slapping' type done at the IPCC.

Jimbo

Here, Jimbo. I'll toss you a bone to gnaw on, whilst I have a beer and get ready for bed. You've probably seen it before; you may even have addressed it in this thread before and I missed it:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/

A survey published at the beginning of this year. They asked over 3,000 scientists about global warming, getting their names from the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments. Read it and weep.

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.

"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," said Peter Doran associate professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and one of the survey's authors.

"Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."

However, Doran was not surprised by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.

"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it.

"The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes," said Doran.

Do you seriously expect to convince me that 97% of climatologists (you know...the people who actually study and work in the field) are either incompetent fools or lying ********, or both?

I suspect you're going to try. But you'll have to wait until I get some sleep; I'll check in this evening.

I was never really into arguing about climate change, until I ran into these two threads. But the deeper I dig, the more I'm struck by the similarity between climate change deniers and Young Earth creationists.

 

[Jimbo1490]

Jimbo,

CO2 has been proven to absorb the heat long time ago. In the three-part documentary made by Iain Stewart, scottish geologist, who knows more about geology than mark775 and his second nick marc1 (being the same person), and other denial-obsessed posters here.

The greenhouse warming properties of CO2 and methane have already been discussed in the smallest detail on this thread, back around page 150, IIRC. There's nothing really new about this part of the AGW hypothesis that you are now going to bring to the discussion. Nobody reading this thread even contests this point.

What I'm guessing that YOU don't realize is that CO2 is not an important greenhouse gas by itself; it's a very efficient absorber for only its first 100ppm or so. After that its absorption diminishes rapidly, exponentially, really, so that after 200ppm or so, it is at spectral saturation, having provided more than 90% of all the greenhouse warming that it can.

All the scary warming scenarios come from an assumed coupling of CO2 concentration with water vapor concentration through simple thermal perturbation of the climatic system. Since this assumed coupling is supposedly through a simple thermal perturbation, ANYTHING that likewise causes such a perturbation can also participate in this coupling with water vapor. This makes this part of the hypothesis testable, because we can look at other examples of thermal perturbations to the atmosphere's heat budget and see if the water vapor concentration responded in a similar way.

There are other ways the hypothesis can be tested. Since the mechanism of so-called greenhouse warming is actually by reflected infrared or long wave radiation (LWR) being reflected downward by the greenhouse agents in the atmosphere, such warming will necessarily reduce the amount of radiation that would normally escape back into space. From an observer outside the earth's atmosphere, this would appear as a reduction in outgoing long wave radiation radiation (OLR) from a vantage point in space. Such a reduction would be readily detectable by an orbiting satellite.

So tell me, what do you think we can observe when we test this pivotal detail of the AGW hypothesis?

If AGW via CO2 coupling to water vapor concentration is the reality, then we expect to see:

• Water vapor concentration increasing with any and all thermal perturbations, amplifying such perturbations just as the AGW hypothesis supposes happens when CO2 increases cause such a perturbation
  
  
• Outgoing long wave radiation decreasing during thermal perturbations, indicating that greenhouse warming increases during such perturbations, thus increasing the atmospheric temperature.

The results of these tests of the behavior of water vapor would be expected to be applicable to the interaction between CO2 and water vapor, since it is by simple thermal coupling that CO2 supposedly drives water vapor concentration.


These parts of the AGW hypothesis have been tested. Care to make a prediction as to the results?

Jimbo

 

[wardd]

it's cold here today so i guess the warming trend is at an end

 

[Jimbo1490]

it's cold here today so i guess the warming trend is at an end

Put the ice cream back in the fridge, you little pig

 

[dskira]

Troy, dskira, etc,
Please post here ONE (just one will be enough for me) scientific study proving beyond doubt that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are the cause of the XX century mild global warming (not anymore warming this XXI century, I'm afraid).

Cheers.

Guillermo,
I can't give you a scientific study. I find the NOAA,s graph and it seams the ice is colder now than ever if I read well.
I am not a scientific in weather. I just see the ice melting faster than ever, the polar bear swimming without ice, and the palm tree starting to grow in Switzerland, the draught in Africa, and the Sahara advancing at greater pace than ever. All that are factual and recorded.
I am born in 1944 with 2 billions peoples we are now 6,5 billions. the agricultural land will need far more water than now. Only a part of the population eat to the normal medical satisfaction, not all the population. If we don't take care of the international draught something bad will happens.
Do we need to be a scientist to see the devastating effect of the draught?
Do we need more study to see the human tragedy occuring because of the lake of water in poor countries?
Cheers
Daniel

 

[Jimbo1490]

"Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement."

Wow, the weather guys are paid shills of Big Oil, too?!?!

Who'da thunk it??

Oh yeah, now it makes sense:

"Tonight's weather forecast is brought to you by our sponsors Exxon-Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell"



Jimbo

 

[troy2000]

"Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement."

Wow, the weather guys are paid shills of Big Oil, too?!?!

Who'da thunk it??

Oh yeah, now it makes sense:

"Tonight's weather forecast is brought to you by our sponsors Exxon-Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell"


Jimbo

Try not to be so painfully predictable, Jimbo; you're disappointing me.

Short-term weather prediction creates little or no expertise in long-range climate trends. But even they supported global warming two to one.

Good night....

 

[Guillermo]

Well, thanks everybody for your reactions to my post, including the one of Boston (don't part away so soon, Boston! This thread is not the same without you!), who is very right when he says recent data is missing in that graph Note: the words "Hockey stick" at the graph doesn't mean Mann´s infamous hockey stick, but indicates that even before the times of instrumental data it already seemed there was a kind of hockey stick process going on.

The reason for recent data missing in such graph is that data from ice cores (from NOOA's website ) doesn't go past the year 1900 because ice is formed by the compaction of snow, and that takes time. Young snow, and snow in transition to becoming ice through compaction is not a reliable indicator yet.

But having a look at the graph, we could realize temperature in Greenland during historical times has had big and fast variations, just for natural causes without man having whatever impact on them at all. Negligible anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere during that time. OK?

Now let me introduce now the same graph including the very last years of instrumental recorded data:

Now, what do we see here?

Can we say present temperature or the warming speed (by the way this last looking quite constant since 1900), is out of natural variability?

Can we say present temperatures (at least for Greenland) are "the higher in historical times"?

Can we reasonably be alarmed about humans causing present warming?

Can we reasonably think our efforts to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emmissions are going to have some kind of effect in Greenland's warming or cooling as they quite clearly seem to do nothing whith such emmissions?

Or to that end, can we expect such efforts will have whatever effect on the mean athmospheric temperature?

And, what if we do a longer look?

Or even longer?

Or even loooooooonger?

Your comments, please. Once we finish with Greenland, we will debate other worldwide locations and effects, one by one, till we get a global picture. OK?

Cheers.

Cheers.

 

[Marco1]

Guillermo, those set of graphs are quite revealing, I saw then when you first post them and couldn't miss the fact that our present era little heating period that by the way stopped 10 years ago is completely lost and meaningless among the historical data of years gone by. The arrogance of man who wants to pretend to have a say in changing this is beyond belief.

Posted by masrapido

mark775 and his second nick marc1 (being the same person), and other denial-obsessed posters here.
To all these "knowledgeable" couch potatoes who pretend to know a lot...... shut up and restrain themselves from bullshiting about things they know nothing. Like the retard who reads my posts and still understands **** (honey, you know who you are).

Masrapido, you are a strange person. What makes you think that I am the same person as the one signing mark775?
As for your personal invectives, they are dissapointing. Besides getting you banned over and over, hopefully permanently this time, what do you think you can achieve calling people names over the internet all the way from Chile? Real valiant you are. Why can't you have a normal conversation? You have an opinion I have a different one, so? You like comunism I prefer to live under a different regime, that is why I live here and you live there. Is that so bitter for you? I am sorry but I can not help you.

 

[fasteddy106]

Troy, if the science were so perfect and the consensus so real, why the need to hide data, hijack the peer review process, defy FOI laws, and intimidate skeptics.

 

[wardd]

whats the problem, ive always wanted to live in the desert