What Do We Think About Climate Change

warning to the readers

The majority of what you read on these pages is blatant industry spin attempting to downplay the role of fossil fuels in the issue of rapid global warming. It is designed to confuse those of you not familiar with the physics involved and the scientific process. It is likely some of the contributors to this thread are industry sponsored and a healthy percentage of the evidence offered in defense of the oil and gas industry is also produced by that industry, in a process that has become known to the scientific community as agnotology. I urge any new comers to read carefully and see how often these sources have been found out and note that on numerous occasions, rather than lead to a retraction of that evidence, has only led to a bombardment of sources of similarly dubious value.

I urge you all to consider the following
there is a reason 97% of climate scientists agree
the earth is warming
and the activities of man is having an impact

agnotology
definition from Wikipedia

 

Nope sorry Boston, your credibility is gone. You deliberately mislead, and distorted the poll data. I would get a second opinion now if you told me what the time of day was. If you pulled a stunt like you have here in academia you would lose tenure and be disgraced. I'm sure you do see it that way, but essentially you lied by not telling the whole story. This thread is over for me, I don't see any reason to continue to encourage a liar and an intellectual bully to spread misinformation.

One final link though for the rest who are interested in learning vs those who want to inflate their ego through deception..........


http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/richard-lindzen-3.ppt

 

nope, sorry, I accurately reported the poll findings and anyone who wants to can look it up and see for themselves
97% agree

and I am in academia and am doing quite nicely thank you having been recently accepted into a very prestigious facility dedicated to the higher sciences
oh
I also attended MIT and was mentored by Doc Edgerton, so academia is quite familiar to me
I think its quite clear you are just in a state of denial concerning poll results and unable to admit that 97% is a huge consensus
clearly you are grasping at straws on that one
face it
your pet theory isnt working out to well and when faced with someone who does understand how the science works it falls apart pretty dam fast
essentially your a poor looser and going to make whatever baseless accusation you can to distract from the larger issue

my favorite part is that you go on to reference a site for a guy who takes industry money to write for industry front organizations
thanks for proving my point made in my previous warning to the public. Just cause he is an MIT man doesnt keep him above the industry money he has accepted. If you want an example of his honesty, in the following publicly available article he first states that he has never taken industry money and then its proven he has. Its your source thats a proven lier not I mate.

from source watch

the following and previous information is in the public domain and is reported by an organization called source watch
should any of this be inaccurate this organization dedicated to the accurate assessment of the scientific objectivity of various members of the scientific community would have been sued into oblivion long ago

and if you want to discuss the honesty issue

and this guy is considered one of the most viable of the deniers and given a seat on the IPCC which he quit because his view could not tolerate debate. Pretty weak if you ask most people who are aware that he stormed out of a meeting after his views were laughed at

he holds some interesting views
On Tobacco for instance

as reported by Factsheet

your barking at the wrong dog Jack
97% is entirely accurate and if the lack of qualifiers is what your complaining about then obviously your struggling for complaints
when its your man Lindzen who is clearly lying to the public not only about were he gets his money but that the money is from an organization that has a vested interest in influencing his opinion.

you question someones honesty with some paper thin bs and then go on to quote a guy caught red handed with his hand in the corporate till
please
get a grip

 

I question your honesty because you implied that the 97% was of a sample of thousands of scientists, not 489. When the Petition Project was mentioned, you implied that the 31,000+ plus signatures was only a fraction of the 97%, not exceeding the 489. I question your honesty because you backfill the data from the poll by removing those who disagree with you. You again call anyone, and there are many, who disagree with you , that have substantial academic backgrounds, of selling out their ethics. I understand how polls work. I question your honesty because suddenly you are qualifying your 97% number, where in dozens of previous posts you did not.

I'm not a sore loser, I haven't lost anything. I'm not the one who thinks the future of the world depends on everyone accepting my narrow view of what mankind should be. You must live outdoors, no structure has been created that can contain your ego. I am so glad that you are on the silly side of the AGW issue.

I would encourage folks to deny this fraud a platform. Let him talk to himself, maybe he will even begin to believe his own ********.

 

it is among thousands of scientist you jerk

the study goes on to say they mixed the industry scientists in with the rest and its about the lowest numbers of all the polls
why
because they mixed the industry scientist in with the rest and you probably forgot that they skew the numbers down hill a lot

actually 3100+ answeres out of 10000 I think but Ild have to go look back and make sure

you have got to be drinking tonight or something

he did sell off his credibility
and then he lied about it to boot

for christs sakes man admit it

you acuse me of lying an a paper thin issue of not listing qualifiers and then go on to quote a guy who was caught red handed as some kind of shining example of scientific virginity

what is wrong with you

wow

its in the public record exactly as I have quoted
if you dont have the courage to look it up then you do have a problem dont you
he was accused and found out by others
I merely mentioned it in reference to a lack of qualifiers in my own statement
which were hardly necessary given the context of the conversation
which hardly constitutes a lie as we are on a climate thread talking about climate science and Ive been all along sclinging to the topic as discussed by climate scientists who 97% agree that the earth is warming and its the result of mans activities


I notice the industry reps have already been denied a debate as being unnecessary as the science is by and large settled, so they take there fruad to the internet were they try and dupe the public

sounds like your accusation is the one thats baseless and mine the one that is founded in publicly known fact

the only fraud around here is you and your not fooling anyone

I added the qualifier that is not even necessary for your benefit
one time
and now you cry foul
please

you are obviously petty and your arguments are pathetic and then you back yourself up with a scientist who has been proven on the take

wow

and I should be denied a forum eh
nice touch

 

Im starting to wonder if there is some condition common to the deniers psychosis
you guys are absolutely struggling for something
anything
to try and keep up the denial

this is getting obvious when you pull that kind of trash out of the barrel mate

might take a breather for the night as I have homework to do so
cheers mates
Im sure you will all keep right on denying

 

All I have to say on this subject is that all should review the Nasa data on the subject matter. I will use that uncontaminated data for my opinions.

 

More poppycock from the usual spouter of poppycock


Actually CO2 rise is slowing down even as anthropogenic emissions are soaring.





Dude, don't you get tired getting shot down over and over?
Not that you don't deserve it, but it has to be discouraging.


Jimbo

 

thats funny cause I just got called a fraud for using a non de plume by a guy using a non de plume

then I got accused of lying by a guy who's very next source was blatantly lying and had been caught out in the media
publicly exposed for being on industry pay role

now I am being told that the NOAA data I submitted to the group is
Popy cock
by a guy whos primary source for quotation has far more often than not been shown to be agnotistic source bought and paid for by industry

wow

great debate you guys have going

and you wonder why the scientific community isnt interested in this kind of drivel

best part
to top it off
Jim has some kind of break from reality and claims that I'm the one getting shot down regularly
my god man have you lost your mind completely

and you have to ask why I enjoy this thread so much

brilliant
absolutely brilliant

thanks for the laughs guys
cause this level of denial worthy of some kind of psychological study
CU has a large head shrinking department
next time Im in Boulder Ill drop in and post a request on the student project board and see if I can get anyone to come in and check this **** out
Ild love to see a work up on you guys
I really would

love and thanks for the laughs
B

ps
please see post 2941 for the hard data from the Maona Loa observatory clearly indicating that co2 is rising at an ever increasing rate

I will include it in detail again here so all can see that Jim's statement is in direct conflict with the data from this observatory and NOAA

year // anual increase % // level of uncertainty
in case it got scrambled at the top of the column

obviously the co2 in increasing
and obviously its rate of increase had shot up dramatically
and obviously there is no slowdown in say the last ten years

what
in the name of all that we hold dear
are you thinking man

its obvious

but
thank you so much for the laughs cause this is just the break I needed from serious science
ok
back to homework

again
thanks
I really appreciate that
my eyes were buggy from reading the boring stuff
and the laugh sorta resets the batteries so I can continue studying for the next few hours
gotta love this no matter what team your on cause you guys just cant be serious
B

 

Hey Punchinello B,

The graph I posted above is the graphical version of the data you posted in raw form. Yes both are from NOAA.

This is a classic tactic; You publish ACCURATE data (as NOAA did) but you don't graph it. Then you send a 'spokesperson' out to press conferences to declare that the data shows this or that terribly perilous thing, in this case that "so not only is co2 increasing but its increasing faster and faster all the time the snow ball is rolling and going faster all the time" spoken in a shrill voice with much hand waving.

Meanwhile, when you actually LOOK at the data, it shows something else

It's too bad you sniffed so much glue in your youth that you couldn't smell a rat if it was taking a dump on your upper lip

Jimbo

 

Meanwhile, we have this:




Now everyone in the warmer camp admits that the stratosphere is indeed cooling, but it's being spun by the warmers as the ghost of the 'fingerprint' which they predicted would be there, namely warming in the tropical troposphere.

But what about the MMVS explanation that Punchinello B keeps marching out every time I try to ask him about CO2 being at spectral saturation? If we can all agree there's cooling in the stratosphere, then the MMVS blog page must be false; the mechanism does not operate. If it's false, then we truly are at practical saturation and additional CO2 won't matter.

Now what if there really had been warming in the stratosphere as the MMVS predicted? You know the warmers like Punchinello B would be all over that news saying "See, I told you so!! This proves it!!"

But now instead, we have cooling in the stratosphere, NOT warming, but somehow, that still proves that there's anthropogenic warming!!

Tell me please, Punchinello B, what the stratosphere would have to do to show that there's NO anthropogenic warming.

Icebergs falling from the sky, maybe?!



If you can't think of a scenario that would falsify your precious theory, then your belief in same is NOT based on its scientific merit but rather on faith; your belief in the theory has become your RELIGION.

Jimbo

 

Jim:
Here is what NOAA's Climate Program Office says about CO2:

"Current models used to project future atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations assume that the carbon cycle will continue to operate in the same way it has operated in the recent past. These models do not take into account the limitations of the carbon sink on land, or how biological, chemical and physical processes in the ocean and land might change either due to natural variability or external forcing. For example, it has been suggested that long-term uptake and storage of carbon by the ocean may be reduced by climate change, resulting in an increased proportion of carbon dioxide remaining the atmosphere. By examining the carbon cycle as an integrated system, identifying how it interacts with climate and other influences such as land use patterns, and incorporating the carbon cycle into dynamic earth system models, more realistic predictions of future atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and potential abrupt changes in growth rate can be made."

http://www.climate.noaa.gov/index.jsp?pg=./cpo_pa/cpo_pa_index.jsp&pa=gcc&sub=1


They simply still don't know how carbon cycle works.

Cheers.

 

you are so completely busted

and this is the graph jim posted in #3016



oh I smell a rat alright
you buddy boy
now that is free and clear for all to see
Jim
you have been caught red handed
you are lying
in what can only be described as an attempt to deceive the unwary public

that graph is clearly not from NOAA

that graph that you claim is from NOAA is not from NOAA
nor does it represent the data collected by NOAA

that graph is not a representation of the data I presented

look at were the 380 ppm data crosses the time data
'it the second quarter of 2005 on the NOAA graph

now look at were the 380 ppl data crosses the time data on the phony chart that Jim presented
its in the third quarter of 2006

busted lying on the forum

it clearly has www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org printed on the top of it
it clearly has a negative statement directed at the IPCC something that NOAA would not be caught dead writing on a graph of impartial scientific data
this graph is not from the NOAA as you claim it is
nor does it represent data from the NOAA

this is what an official NOAA chart looks like



notice the groovy little seal Jimy boy
and the lack of disparaging remarks

exactly what the deniers are all about
presenting phony data and making wild claims about it

 

I have done my best to get through the myriad of posts to this point.....

Can someone attempt to clarify for me how good (or bad) the IPCC models are in predicting potential climate change. We can (and it seems have been) arguing back and forth about what they are based on and that is important in the construction of such models. But frankly I struggle to understand the discussions and tell whether concerns raised represent major issues or minor ones.

To quote some old addages:
"The proof of the pudding is in then eating" - but we cant just wait around to see how well the models perform or what is the point of having the models.

"All models are wrong, but some models are useful". Claiming that a model is wrong will always be generally a correct statement because the very nature of modelling is to make simplifications to a complex system in order to try and replicate as closely as possible (as closely as is needed to make the model useful). The models will in this case I think not be expected to predict every short term rise and fall in global temperatures but to establish long term trends that if the models are "useful" can be used as predictive tools and aid decision making today.

What I have not been able to understand is how the models have been validated to assess their "usefulness".

In my career as an engineer I have done alot of much simpler numerical modelling and am very familiar with the "crap in - crap out" phenomenon of unuseful models.

The way we always validated our models was to calibrate them to historical data sets until they could match multiple historical data sets or events as closely as possible within reasonable ranges of adjustment of the various variable parameters in the models which are meant to emulate natural system behaviour. Once we had calibrated to several events or data sets, adjusting parameters to get the best balance, we then validated against some other data sets or events without adjusting parameters to check how the model performed.

Only when we were satisfied with this would we proceed to make predictions and model changes to the system (more correctly the representation of the system within the model), recognising all the while that when we did make changes to the system we could have disturbed the balance we had acheived in calibration but also mindful that there was no way to test that except "wait and see".

So with all that preamble what I have not been able to understand through all the debate and information is how were the climate models used by the IPCC calibrated and validated to historical data and how did they perform? Were the models run over historical time periods of well known CO2, temperature etc data?
How well do they emulate the historical record?
What does this tell us about the reliability of their future projections?

I am sure you guys are going to give me diverging views so I am hoping for references I can look up and sources that are not "industry stooges" or "Greenpeace activists".

Cheers,
Andrew

 

fare enough andrew

and I apreciate the open minded aproach

for my part I will try to be as honest as posible

climate research involves a complex set of variables that deserve a good hard look from anyone actually interested in deciding for themselves

the easy way for me to answer your question is to direct you here so you can read for yourself what climate scientist say about climate science models

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/langswitch_lang/in#more-527

so let me get a drink and Ill try to develop a synopsis of the issues

ok
one of the first things to try and understand is the history of the science behind rapid global climate change
this video is kinda long but it explains a lot of stuff and it should be considered a prerequisite to any conversation concerning this issue



the flicker attempts to describe what you are generally going to be reading on this thread

and I urge you to look up the term agnotology and decide for yourself what you are reading

it sounds like you are ready to be impartial and not take anyones word for anything ( check out how thoroughly Jim was found out in just that last post of mine )

and by all means dont take my word for it either
check out everything I post as well so you are acting in an impartial way with an even hand

dig hard into the sources you are given or you will find yourself bombarded with bs

I strongly urge you to not get into a technical discussion over flawed research

not sure what you know about the scientific process but it does not include biased research or discredited sources nor does it readily consider industry to be a viable source of research either

you might have noticed Im about the only one throwing in with the 97% of climate (put that in just for you Eddy) scientists who believe that humans are responsible for the climate change
and the rest of these guys are pretty much layman buying into the industry line

so be careful
personally I find em entertaining
but this is no place to find impartiality if your just getting into this


frankly if your after a unsullied opinion
this is not the place to find it
Im only here to stir up the nest and then stand back and watch the buz