Global Warming? are humans to blame?

[troy2000]

No, the groups were not independent. They used at least some common data. Still, most skeptics have always agreed that the earth got warmer in the 20th century. So far, the warming trend has not continued in the 21st century, and none of the models used to justify the global warming alarmism predicted that. For someone who really wants to know the truth, this would be a serious issue.

Actually, I should say that most climate skeptics agreed that the earth had warmed in the 20th century until Climategate demonstrated how the alarmists were hiding the decline and using political pressure to keep skeptical scientists from getting published, and sharing data and work with the other supposedly independent groups more than had been previously acknowledged. This raised serious questions about the methods that led to finding the warming trend. The only thing this recent study did was restore some confidence that was lost by Climategate. It couldn't restore all of the confidence, though.

It's revealing, Boston, that you assume this study is so painful to climate skeptics. I guess it's because you assume that we are all just like you, who treats this like a football game, booing the opposition and cheering when your team scores a touchdown. But not everyone treats this issue like a sport. Real skeptics are just people who refuse to be railroaded into important decisions on the basis of inadequate evidence. They just want to know the truth, and are never disappointed at having more information.

Unfortunately, most of the people who claim to be skeptics are actually deniers instead. No argument or evidence will ever satisfy them and change their minds. Every time one of their objections is answered, they simply move on to the next one.

And in discussions online like this, the threads start recycling after a while. Arguments and claims that were refuted twenty pages before get resurrected, and have to be dealt with all over again.

That the subject has become a political football doesn't help matters any. Conservatives are blindly determined to refute anything they consider tainted by 'liberal' beliefs, and the facts be damned. Spend a few minutes with an open mind listening to Rush Limbaugh on the topic, and you'll see the problem.

 

[Boston]

wow, a very interesting view of things Dave.

clearly our subject is global warming, not much chance of forgetting that one. The distraction from the fourth of our independent studies which specifically addressed the deniers view of the data sets available, was if the lead investigator, a noted denier by self admission on numerous occasions, ( see example below ) was ever a denier in the first place. I gotta admit its an interesting tact to take in the conversation, if there were an award for the interjection of the most banal nature possible, this one might just have won it. Although I do particularly like when people try and tell me that water vapor drives temp, rather than the other way around.

that help you were asking for

"The skeptics raised valid points and everybody should have been a skeptic two years ago," Muller said in a telephone interview. "And now we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias."

Muller said that he came into the study "with a proper skepticism," something scientists "should always have. I was somewhat bothered by the fact that there was not enough skepticism" before.

So even now he's admitting he was a denier and didn't trust the methodologies of his own colleagues to subject the data sets to rigorous enough review to develop the robust conclusions self evident to 97+% of the rest of the scientific community.

Sounds like denial to me.

But again thats not the point. Never was, its just another something to argue about and distract from the meat and potato's of the thread.

Global warming is real, its happening now, its both qualified and quantified in all four of the major studies collating the data pool, and although this most recent work does not address the cause, Muller himself admits its most likely, and again I'll quote his own words on this one.

Muller said it makes sense to reduce the carbon dioxide created by fossil fuels.

"Greenhouse gases could have a disastrous impact on the world," he said.

and he then went on to criticize the findings again of the IPCC and there estimates of what the effects of global warming might be. So again confirming his denial of any aspect of the situation he has not personally investigated.

Deal is the essence of denial is to argue endlessly, in spite off all scientific evidence to the contrary that somehow, beyond all data to the contrary, global climate shift is not occurring.

In this case the distraction is to argue the position of a man who's a self admitted denier. Rather than admit even the deniers own study, funded and chaired by deniers, found the evidence overwhelmingly in support of all previous studies. Not some, but all three.

So once again I'm not clear on why your suggesting that the 21st century hasn't seen a rise in temps. Or is that another effort to detract from this most recent and most astounding admission. Apparently, even the deniers themselves cannot look at the evidence and not come to the inescapable conclusion of the realities of rapid global climate shift. Even the deniers own study concluded that warming was occurring, this century.

I find it one of the most entertaining things I do, is debunk the debunkers who aim at the science of rapid global climate shift.

 

[hoytedow]

The real question is "Is the global warming caused by man?".

The real answer is "Nope, it is caused by the sun and the moon, partially by direct solar radiation and partially by friction caused by the tidal pull from the two heavenly bodies!".

 

[hoytedow]

Has anybody noticed it just snowed in New York and neighboring environs?

It would be better if you joined the Skeptics Camp.

 

[bntii]

OK- edit... "I am joining the 'Skeptics' camp.

 

[Boston]

long term correlation is an interesting subject. I think its important to realize that the natural cycle has been broken. Its just not natural to dig up every drop of oil and burn it. So what we have done to the atmosphere in the industrial age "must" be considered as a unique event. That in mind, history is a pretty good indicator of what happens when the atmospheric chemistry is changed.

Oh and I might digress a little myself and point out that I've been skeptical of the deniers diatribe for some time. So in what I consider to be the true sense of the word I also am a skeptic.

If we look at the three largest of the extinction events its pretty clear all were accompanied by rapid alterations in the atmospheric chemistry. The cause is by and large irrelevant, its the effect that we are interested in and its association with climate shift.

In the high Permian extinction there was the Siberian trap event which over about a million years released so much CO2 that it triggered the methane hydrate to release also. Took that about 40 thousand years to bring the temps up about 10°C and wipe out everything down to about 2 lbs. Same with the KT boundary extinction, its presumed an asteroid did it but thats besides the point. The result was a catastrophic release of methane hydrate and CO2 over a very short period of time. There is a demonstrable change in the atmospheric chemistry and everything down to about 12 lbs died. Then if we look way back to the snowball earth event it gets really scary. The whole planet froze over for about 50 million years. That ones a little harder to analyze but there's a whole bunch of other smaller die offs in there that can be attributed to worldwide climactic events.

I"m surprised you mention "Silent Spring" and not realize that ole Rachel C's work from what, the mid sixties or maybe early seventies, that has almost to a T described the state of every estuary across the industrialized world. Is not enough to convince you that the predictions made, based on the science are somehow insufficient. I'd say her work was one of the most astounding predictions of any century.

cheers
B

 

[hoytedow]

OK- edit... "I am joining the 'Skeptics' camp.

Congratulations.

 

[Boston]

I wouldn't start jumping up and down to fast there Hoyt.

if you recall the last time bntii asked this question about long term temp/co2 you'll know why.

Remember that graph which showed temp vs co2 going back about 600 million years I think it was. Turned out it was a composite, and not a very good one given the varying margin of errors between the two studies. Neither of which could be considered all that reliable as a single data set.

 

[hoytedow]

Too, Boston, too!

 

[Frosty]

I wouldn't start jumping up and down to fast there Hoyt.
.

No No ---wont that stop the world from spinning or something,---it must do something.

I think I read that jumping up and down would stop the world or was it everybody jumping up and down at the same time --.

<jumpingupanddownworldstoprevolving.com,html>

PS its not a real link --I made it up like you guys doo.

 

[Boston]

where the excess CO2 came from is a no brainer, and anyone who's honestly asking the question can find more than adequate answers at http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ncreases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/ The question of what the earths response to past alterations in the atmospheric chemistry are is equally obvious. Mass extinction. All previous mass extinction events, regardless of what triggered the alteration in the atmospheric chemistry, where accompanied by such changes. The effects are catastrophic

well Bntii I'd have to point out this article again found at realclimate. If you notice they offer multiple power points on the origins or the excess CO2 in the atmosphere. And it links to more detailed work in that area. So again the science is pretty clear on where all that excess CO2 came from.

CO2 as a greenhouse gas is not exactly a new science either

CO2 was discovered way back in the early 1600's by a guy named Helmont and defined as a greenhouse gas in the 1820s by Fourier and that work was quantified in about the 1890's by a Swedish physicist named Arrhenius. Direct laboratory tests qualifying and quantifying its effects as a greenhouse gas have been around for about 120+ years. No one was arguing the issue till the oil and gas industry caught wind of a speech made to congress in about the 1960's. Once the environmental movement got off its fat *** the response by industry was to attempt to rewrite the science and confuse the public.

we have some great examples of confused public handy but now its my turn to "digress"

the simple facts of why and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas are pretty much written in stone at this point. Arguing it is pretty pointless.

So what do we know

we know that there has been an increase in CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels
see link in the quote above

we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas

we know that the there has been a corresponding increase in temp
see Berkley global temp study as well as NASA IPCC and East Anglia

 

[Dave Gudeman]

So even now he's admitting he was a denier and didn't trust the methodologies of his own colleagues to subject the data sets to rigorous enough review to develop the robust conclusions self evident to 97+% of the rest of the scientific community.

No, he never said that he was a "denier". He criticized some of the previous research efforts. That's not the same as being a climate skeptic. And even if he had "admitted" he was a denier (and he didn't) that would not be very convincing, coming from a climate alarmist who wants to convince skeptics. Telling people "I used to think like you but I changed my mind" is a good persuasion tactic. It isn't a statement against interest like you seem to think it is.

But again thats not the point. Never was, its just another something to argue about and distract from the meat and potato's of the thread.

Yes, that was the point. The fact that he is falsely being painted as a former climate skeptic is the exact point I was making.

Deal is the essence of denial is to argue endlessly, in spite off all scientific evidence to the contrary that somehow, beyond all data to the contrary, global climate shift is not occurring.

Since the "denialist" movement is a made-up Nazi-like boogey man that doesn't actually exist, I guess you can make the "essense" of it whatever you want. But that is not what most climate skeptics believe or behave like. Climate skeptics mostly acknowledge that the climate did warm over the 20th century and their arguments are just as much based on science as the other side.

That's what science is, you know --a long drawn-out argument. People who think the science only supports one side of a complex issue like this just don't understand science.

Rather than admit even the deniers own study, funded and chaired by deniers, found the evidence overwhelmingly in support of all previous studies.

No, they confirmed warming from about 1950 to about 1998. There have been many more studies that this study did not address at all. Still, the pseudo-Nazi "deniers" funded a scientific study and said that there has been some warming, but you are still certain that those Nazi-like "deniers" all just deny science --in the same post where you talk about how their science went against your caricature of what they all are determined to prove despite science. How can you wrap your head around that sort of contradiction? Does bending it that way hurt?

So once again I'm not clear on why your suggesting that the 21st century hasn't seen a rise in temps.

Because that's what the SCIENCE shows. You know, the SCIENCE that those pseudo-Nazi deniers are always denying. In this article, they interview one of the scientists on the team for Muller's study and show the graph magnified for the last few years.

Even the deniers own study concluded that warming was occurring, this century.

No, those pseudo-Nazi deniers showed no warming this century. See the article I linked above.

I find it one of the most entertaining things I do, is debunk the debunkers who aim at the science of rapid global climate shift.

Two problems here. First, it's not supposed to be the science of rapid global climate shift, it's supposed to be the science of climate. Second, the fact that your goal is to defend one side is why you are not capable of understanding the skeptics. Your own highly partisan and subjective attitude makes you see every argument as partisan and subjective. You aren't capable of recognizing honest skepticism because to you it's all just testosterone therapy.

 

[JohnTeigh]

If you've seen the doc an inconvenient truth it certainly seems so. I believe we are to blame as from what I have seen since industrialisation the affects have steadily risen. However I am aware there are counter arguments and this is my personal opinion based on what I have seen.

 

[bntii]

Good morning Boston-

We both without question take the science as the last word.
I don't question the finding of effect- just potential amplitude of that effect.

Co2 in the atmosphere without question can capture energy and alter the albedo of the earth.

I depart from the finding when they are placed as the controlling mechanism on the long line- that is the millennial long temperatures changes experienced on the planet. There is an upper and lower line of temperature on the planet. These lines exist at ~12 c and 22 c (give me a break- first cuppa I could be off a bit on those...).
These lines set the range between which we see the planet temperature oscillating over time. The period of these oscillations is measured in tens and sometimes hundreds of millions of years. I do not except that the evidence supports that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are the driving force of these temperature perturbations.

I grant- CO2 effects temperatures 'about the line' in other words the swings in temperature which are seen as the static along the long line are expressions of atmospheric composition, earths albedo, plant cover composition etc.

Remember that the focus and 'proof' provided for the role of CO2 is provided on a base of the last 600 thousand years or so.
On this time scale, the long line of global temperatures is a FLAT line at the bottom of the range of temperatures the planet experiences.

The romps of the glacial/interglacial periods are not even visible as temperature changes on this scale.

Take a market analogy:

The 'Greece news' is controlling DOW activity for the last month or so.

Draw out the exchange activity to the last one hundred years and the drama of all these little spikes on exchange price are simply static on a long wave of decades long oscillations.

I take the current science to be focusing on a Greece effect and proscribing the real current change as being more potent to the long line than is in fact supportable by evidence.

 

[Boston]

I think your making a classic error in your thinking about past climate shifts. The resolution of a graph going back millions of years is always going to be lacking when trying to see details by the month. Also CO2 is "today" our big concern because its the gas we emit as a pollutant and one that is also a green house gas. But there are lots of gasses that can contribute to the greenhouse effect. Methane for instance. So although today CO2 is a primary "concern" its not the only player in the game.

The Greece analogy just doesn't apply because it effects a fiat currency system which can always be artificially corrected. The climate system took the entire might of the entire existence of the industrial age to alter. Its not like we can just sign a bill or law into effect and suddenly go back to the way it was. The idea that its a small player causing an emotional system to panic I'm going to have to take issue with as well. CO2 is our primary greenhouse gas, something like 60% of the greenhouse effect is caused by CO2, so a better analogy would be to say if the US, Canadian, S American, Australian and Euro economies combined went bust.

While I'd agree there seems to be an upper and lower limit to temp fluctuations the evidence supporting that is somewhat less than robust. I believe there is only one study that used several data sets to attempt to recreate the paleo climate going back over that 600k year period you mentioned. Although I think continuing work has brought that figure up to about 1m years recently.

The climate system will change due to a lot of factors, surprisingly, some of which have nothing to do with the atmosphere. Topography is one that folks often fail to consider. Before the break up of Pangea weather patterns over land were not so dependent on ocean dynamics, but now that there's more and smaller continents the ocean system comes into a larger role in climate. Also the topography of the ocean floor seems to make a big difference. Deep ocean currents are another big player.

for more on the oceans role and interactions check out the video lecture by DR Jeremy Jackson. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...NS3wxKQqgIFul5VmQ&sig2=v5AfaZZ6T9fwRjQw0hR06g

He's pretty much the wolds leading authority of the state of the oceans and since they play a vital role in the atmospheric chemistry I think its a must see if we are going to actually have an informed conversation. Which I appreciate by the way. Science never fears a polite devils advocate.

getting back to CO2 for a moment, the alterations in atmospheric chemistry that have occurred over the last 30 or 40 years aren't going to show up very well on a graph going back millions of years. But its important to remember that its the rate of change and not just the amount thats causing so much trouble. Yes its hard to go back millions of years and find spikes of 100 or less years, even 1000 but the climate system tends to want to change slowly anyway. With abrupt alterations being fairly rare.

If there is a cap to the range of fluctuation in temp, which I agree there should be in this type of system, then its a reflection of the feed backs in the system, which take time to have there effect. IE if you alter the system to quickly in any one parameter its likely; and there does seem to be a lot of evidence supporting this, that a bounce effect is realized throughout the system. So I don't think those parameters are set in stone. I'd use the snow ball earth event as an example. Things got mighty chilly way back about 600m years ago.

CO2 is today our primary concern because its the one parameter we've altered much faster than anything we can see in the past. The speed of that alteration is a big part of the problem, had the same change occurred over a few million years it might not be such a big deal, but it didn't, and we are directly to blame for it. If you checked the link in my previous I think we must agree that science has very strong evidence. We and only we are to blame. We were at the top of the curve, if you look at the temp records over the last 1m years or so. CO2 in the natural cycle should have begun to slide downwards along with temp. Or at least it should have happened that way.

Didn't because we artificially increased the levels of CO2 and now levels of methane are up dramatically as well (150%). While its difficult to see the exact time frames involved the high Permian extinction event is pretty well studied and offers some real insight into what happens when these parameters have changed in the past. There's a pretty good video that, although its kinda old, touches on the original findings. Which have been further studied and are at this point enjoying a fairly high consensus.

I'm pretty sure its found in episode 2 part 4 of the video series, "miracle planet" but as I'm watching it there still talking about how it ended, not how it began yet, but its in there somewhere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWl9...PL2676EBC05A1AA53D&lf=results_main&playnext=2