Global Warming? are humans to blame?

If you get a prognosis from a doctor, you get more medical opinions. Why? Because doctors are frequently wrong. Fatally wrong. Now some doctors have god complexes. Are scientists more infalible than doctors? Is science a religion and scientists high priests with a direct line to the Almighty?
Nope. They're just human. Are they particularly noble or superior or extremely intelligent or extra wise? Nope.
When I see bad science, obvious transparent attempts to manipulate and control, I call it as I see it.

 

You called it right.

 

A number of posts in this very forum have presented scientifically-accepted peer-reviewed data ad nauseam to answer all your questions below. You have just chosen to ignore it all and try to deflect (over and over again) with "There's no data". You remind me of the Monty Python Argument Clinic.

But since you say that you're not required to comment on anything, it's a shame that when you do it's to simply twist someone else's words (like what you did with Boston) and accuse them, demonstrably wrongly, of being inconsistent. And then when you're pulled up short, you use the below to deflect and refuse to answer.

Even those who do not accept global warming must be annoyed to see this kind of tactic.

 

National Geographic News, Reporting Your World DailyThursday, October 28, 2010MAINANIMAL NEWSANCIENT WORLDENVIRONMENT NEWSCULTURES NEWSSPACE/TECH NEWSWEIRDPHOTOSVIDEO
Global Warming Fast Facts<< Back to Page 1 Page 2 of 2
• "Very likely," the IPCC said in a February 2007 report.

The report, based on the work of some 2,500 scientists in more than 130 countries, concluded that humans have caused all or most of the current planetary warming. Human-caused global warming is often called anthropogenic climate change.

Printer Friendly

Email to a Friend

What's This? SHARE
Digg

StumbleUpon

Reddit

RELATED
Global Warming: How Hot? How Soon? Global Warming Can Be Stopped, World Climate Experts Say Global Warming Interactive: Learn About Its Causes and Effects • Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, all greenhouse gases that help trap heat near Earth's surface. (See an interactive feature on how global warming works.)

• Humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere much faster than plants and oceans can absorb it.

• These gases persist in the atmosphere for years, meaning that even if such emissions were eliminated today, it would not immediately stop global warming.

• Some experts point out that natural cycles in Earth's orbit can alter the planet's exposure to sunlight, which may explain the current trend. Earth has indeed experienced warming and cooling cycles roughly every hundred thousand years due to these orbital shifts, but such changes have occurred over the span of several centuries. Today's changes have taken place over the past hundred years or less.

• Other recent research has suggested that the effects of variations in the sun's output are "negligible" as a factor in warming, but other, more complicated solar mechanisms could possibly play a role.

What's Going to Happen?

A follow-up report by the IPCC released in April 2007 warned that global warming could lead to large-scale food and water shortages and have catastrophic effects on wildlife.

• Sea level could rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 to 59 centimeters) by century's end, the IPCC's February 2007 report projects. Rises of just 4 inches (10 centimeters) could flood many South Seas islands and swamp large parts of Southeast Asia.

• Some hundred million people live within 3 feet (1 meter) of mean sea level, and much of the world's population is concentrated in vulnerable coastal cities. In the U.S., Louisiana and Florida are especially at risk.

• Glaciers around the world could melt, causing sea levels to rise while creating water shortages in regions dependent on runoff for fresh water.

• Strong hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, wildfires, and other natural disasters may become commonplace in many parts of the world. The growth of deserts may also cause food shortages in many places.

• More than a million species face extinction from disappearing habitat, changing ecosystems, and acidifying oceans.

• The ocean's circulation system, known as the ocean conveyor belt, could be permanently altered, causing a mini-ice age in Western Europe and other rapid changes.

• At some point in the future, warming could become uncontrollable by creating a so-called positive feedback effect. Rising temperatures could release additional greenhouse gases by unlocking methane in permafrost and undersea deposits, freeing carbon trapped in sea ice, and causing increased evaporation of water.

What is Climategate?

In late November 2009, hackers unearthed hundreds of emails at the U.K.'s University of East Anglia that exposed private conversations among top-level British and U.S. climate scientists discussing whether certain data should be released to the public.

The email exchanges also refer to statistical tricks used to illustrate climate change? trends, and call climate skeptics idiots, according to the New York Times.

One such trick was used to create the well-known hockey-stick graph, which shows a sharp uptick in temperature increases during the 20th century. Former U.S vice president Al Gore relied heavily on the graph as evidence of human-caused climate change in the documentary An Inconvenient Truth.

The data used for this graph come from two sources: thermostat readings and tree-ring samples.

While thermostat readings have consistently shown a temperature rise over the past hundred years, tree-ring samples show temperature increases stalling around 1960.

On the hockey-stick graph, thermostat-only data is grafted onto data that incorporates both thermostat and tree-ring readings, essentially presenting a seamless picture of two different data sets, the hacked emails revealed.

But scientists argue that dropping the tree-ring data was no secret and has been written about in the scientific literature for years.

Climate change skeptics have heralded the emails as an attempt to fool the public, according to the Times.

Yet climate scientists maintain that these controversial points are small blips that are inevitable in scientific research, and that the evidence for human-induced climate change is much broader and still widely accepted.


Integrity?

 

what does "facing" extinction mean. What does "may" increase storm intensities, ect, ect, ect.
These aren't facts. Just wild maybes. Predict enough wild maybes and if anything similar happens you claim, "I told you so!"
I have no respect for people that do that.
You can't make proper decisions based on lies or false data.
Once someone lies to me, trust is broken forever!

 

peer reveiwed? hmmm? Alibis by fellow miscreants closer to the truth.
Boston is rather quick to ridicule others points of veiw. It's only justice he gets back what he dishes out.
Is it your intent to take me on? Are you challenging me?

 

Translated into the Simpsons...

"Sir, you have insulted my honor! I challenge you to a duel!"

 

Go to the IPCC data base, its the largest climate research data base by far. And I'm sure they can provide you with the raw data from each of the three major studies. There's a fourth, funded by the Kotch brothers ( deniers themselves ) that came up with an even stronger warming trend, but I somehow doubt that data will ever get published. Unfortunate really cause four out of four is highly improbably from a statistical point of view.

I suppose I could link you with the information myself but I'm kinda tired of doing all the leg work on the subject only to have some few be so totally disrespectful of the efforts

Whats kinda funny is I'd admit in a heartbeat that there's areas of climate research that desperately need more work. But the fundamentals are basic physics. What makes something a greenhouse gas and why some things drive the climate and why others amplify it are all pretty basic stuff.

The temp data that your after is in the IPCC data library and your more than welcome to analyze it for yourself. I'm sure they'd be interested in cataloging your research assuming you wish to go to that extent.

 

Well Yob I just caught a glimpse of your finest from Ray's quote. and I must say, why would I even bother. We've been over the basics of feedback and forcing again and again. Your just not getting it. So why waste my time.

cheers
B

 

Boston
You keep insisting it is and I keep insisting it isn't. You aren't an authority. I find plenty of scientists to say CO2 doesn't drive climate.
You job isn't dependent on aquiring or maintaining grants for your university. So, what's your agenda in this debate?
Assuming you could influence people to your veiw, what would you hope to achieve?

 

My agenda is for people to think for themselves. Research for themselves. Recognize hype and propaganda when they see it. And not allow panic manders to influence them.
Nobody pays me. Counciling rational thinking is good for all of us. I consider it a civic duty.
A vice president of a major corporation once defined his function as "preventing stupidity". I like that.

 

If you want to understand why global warming is a psuedo-science fraud look at this documentary. Whether you agree with the conclusions entirely or not, there is a lot of thought provoking evidence in it.

http://veehd.com/video/4504118_THE-OBAMA-DECEPTION-2009-Alex-Jones-7P-Documentary-Collection

 

You could have just said that you couldn't do as I asked and saved a lot of words. The reason you can't do it is, no such master database exists despite what you say. The easy way to prove me wrong is to provide a URL, I'll check it out by querying it for data that I personally know exists and can find in other repositories, then get back to you. You can't or won't provide any URL, ergo my statement stands.

If you look at http://www.ipcc-data.org/obs/index.html then you'll see just how limited their online data actually is.

I suspect I'm a lot more familiar with the data sets available than you are. You're not a scientist, you don't work in the field(s) and you just selectively quote other sources. I designed some of the systems used to hold environmental data here in Australia and I personally was involved in the fieldwork to acquire data and cross-check it, and collaborated with o/s organisations on data interchange. I was retired until asked to do some consulting work in this area.

As for the data I'm working up, it comes from a Govt funded program for the Southern Ocean and already *has* a home in an internationally recognised data warehouse. Said data warehouse being an international one and NOTHING AT ALL to do with the IPCC. Some of the data may eventually make its way into various models as used by scientists and quoted in IPCC reports, in fact this is almost certain, but that does not mean that the data is part of an IPCC database. I don't think that you understand the distinction, but it's an important one. There *is* no master IPCC database holding all the data available.

You simply don't get what the IPCC is. You don't understand modelling. You don't understand the limits of the data *or* the modelling software. What you post is just parrot-like. I don't think it's worth my time to bother further because it'd be like arguing evolution with creationists, you being the creationist.

PDW

 

Boston likes a lot of words as long as they are his. He isn't too keen on words that refute his words. Bye bye, again.

Whatever happened to the OP?

 

You have failed to answer my comment so I'll reproduce:

"A number of posts in this very forum have presented scientifically-accepted peer-reviewed data ad nauseam to answer all your questions below. You have just chosen to ignore it all and try to deflect (over and over again) with "There's no data". You remind me of the Monty Python Argument Clinic.

But since you say that you're not required to comment on anything, it's a shame that when you do it's to simply twist someone else's words (like what you did with Boston) and accuse them, demonstrably wrongly, of being inconsistent. And then when you're pulled up short, you use the below to deflect and refuse to answer.

Even those who do not accept global warming must be annoyed to see this kind of tactic."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yobarnacle
I am not required to comment on anything other than I choose. Nor are you or Boston. It's obvious nether you or Boston care to comment on the fact that water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse effect and CO2 only a few %. Why not adress that? Because you can't argue with that. Your entire argument that manmade CO2 is driving climate change bites the dust where water vapor comes up and CO2 diminishes to insignificant.
As far as catastrophic temperature changes, I don't see that ocurring. No data to support it exists. Just more hype! Wild claims to scare people.
To what purpose?