What Do We Think About Climate Change

It seems that the "Eco-Enquirer" website was the source of that article I posted earlier (link repaired). That's not to say the information in the article is false. I found some better references to the content here:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2006-12-18-jet-pollution-usat_x.htm

http://blog.heritage.org/2008/06/25/water-vapor-nukes-and-the-epa/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124001537515830975.html

It's much more nuanced, here.

Jimbo

 

But they do object to the idea that humans are causing climate change on the basis of the existence this negative feedback! You've got it wrong, Knut!

Spencer says we've caused more climate change by our land use changes. That's what he was referring to, NOT 'greenhouse' gases.

Jimbo

 

Did Chicken Little tell someone that the sky was falling?

Al gore set this off with his little power point presentation. They found like sixty something lies in that film if I remember right. Al Gore has large investments in Green Technology. Al Gore is also huge supporter of NOAA. I'm sure that other high up politicians are also invested in going green. There is an agenda there, if you don't see that, you are blind. I don't believe anything that the Dept of commerce says and especially NOAA.

It is all just scare tactics. "Buy this stuff people, or we're all gonna die!!!!" People are buying some sort of green bucks now to offset their "carbon footprint". It is a scam! People feel guilty for driving big SUV's and trucks, because someone told them that were killing the earth. So they pay (someone, I don't know who) to feel better.

Any statistics that you show me are not credible, especially if you got them from the government. In the 80's there was a hole in the ozone. Before that, there was Global cooling.

There is an old time oil tycoon (T Boone Pickens) who is on TV promoting wind power and telling all that we need to go green, or we will face the consequences. (unknown consequences BTW, and we all know that people fear the unknown) Do you really think that he is concerned about global warming? He made gazillions with oil. Now he promotes wind, I wonder why. I'm sure that he in not invested in wind power.

Global warming???........I had almost a foot of snow in my yard last year. I live in SE Louisiana 30.4 Latitude. Christmas of 2004, there was snow almost 60 miles into the Gulf of Mexico, lower than 29 latitude. (thats true)

Until I can get some real facts, I will go with what the other HALF of the scientific community says about global warming. It is the earths natural cycle, and if anything we are heading towards an ice age, not a meltdown.

 

Knut:
Don't perform "Bostonities", please. We have had enough of that crap obscuring the thread already. Let's just post our opinions and supporting data/works to be debated here, not pulling all of us to enter the spiral of disqualifications again, please.

Thanks.

 

I've been addressed by Antón Uriarte, an spanish geologist well known to be against the AGW theory, to dig deeper on this possibility:

May the present interglacial continue for another 20-25 kyrs more, in the wake of MIS 11 (Marine Isotopic Stage), as its insolation is highly correlated with predicted near future situation?

"Interglacial periods that occurred during Pleistocene times have been recently put under investigation, in order to better understand our present and future climates. In fact, paleoclimatic interpretations often depends on observations drawn from the study of modern/historical processes. In order to better estimate the ”natural range” of climatically important mechanisms, it seems crucial to attempt detailed comparisons of the present interglacial (i.e., the Holocene) with previous warm periods of the Quaternary, such as Marine isotopic stage 11 (hereafter “MIS 11” for the sake of brevity). Similar orbital configurations and comparable atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations (considering only the period before the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, i.e. 1800 AD ca.) have led to the suggestion that MIS 11 is a suitable, possibly the best, geological analogue for the natural development of Holocene and future climate. Another candidate was MIS 5, but several characteristics do not fit the present conditions. MIS 11 spans from 420 to 360 ka , and represents the longest and warmest interglacial interval of the last 500 kyr. In fact, it shows the highest-amplitude deglacial warming in the last 5 Myr and possibly lasted twice the other interglacial stages. MIS 11 is characterized by overall warm sea-surface temperatures in high latitudes, strong thermohaline circulation, unusual blooms of calcareous plankton in high latitudes, higher sea level than the present, coral reef expansion resulting in enlarged accumulation of neritic carbonates, and overall poor pelagic carbonate preservation and strong dissolution in certain areas."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Isotopic_Stage_11

Most interesting.
Cheers.

 

Some (contradictory) more info on MIS 11:
http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/5/1337/2009/cpd-5-1337-2009.pdf

From there:

"Comparison of the vegetation trends in MIS 1 and MIS 11 favours a precessional alignment, which would suggest that the Holocene is nearing the end of its natural course."

Cheers.

 

This works denies a MIS 11 like behaviour.....
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU06/06120/EGU06-J-06120.pdf
(unluckily only the abstract is there)

....and states:
Thus, contrary to some recent suggestions all our evidence strongly implies that the specific orbital configuration within the next millennia will have little or no direct effect on the further Holocene climate development.

 

For those with a sense of humor..................

http://dailybayonet.com/?p=1554

 

more industry spin
more paper thin attempts to deny the poll results
more of the same bullying tactics of the deniers
who are obviously struggling as hard as they can to keep up the denial
but your right about one thing
the level of your conversational and debating skills is far bellow any level worthy of scientific consideration
I guess that's why there is no need for an official debate
the deniers team simply has no case to make
just industry spin
love and happiness
and thanks again for the laughs
B

 

Notice Boston never refutes any of the skeptics who are scientists. Just calls them industry hacks and never presents any evidence about where they are they are wrong. Just repeats all the old discredited and distorted data from the AGW/Zero Growth/Social Engineers.

 

This warrants reposting, if for nothing else just to make Boston grit his teeth. I would encourage everyone to look at the list of all the endorsers of this declaration.
http://www.climatescienceinternational.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=54

 

This article, while from 2004, does a lot to explain the mindset and the bad science and deceptive tactics of the AGW religious cult.

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=471&Itemid=1

 

Now back a few pages....

Boy this thread moves on quickly - unfortunately usually to mud slinging rather than debate....

In this post I am deliberately trying to use the most neutral language I can think of because what I would really like is open responses with as good set of data that people may be able to direct me to either supporting or otherwise model validity and therefore potential predictability. Preferably without mudslinging....

Back on page 203 I asked what I hope was a sensible question. about how good the models were.

I got a couple of responses including:
from Boston:
A chart showing about 100 years of temperature record up to year 2000 which seems to indicate that the models match that century pretty well, albeit that data points only seem to be plotted about every 10 years.

from Alex:

And despite your apparently scornful reference to Herodotus and so on I think I still do have a point. Don't we have all those tree rings and ice cores etc to give us temperature records over thousands of years? I have seen the graphs shown so often in this thread and elsewhere. And I ask because I am interested in how the models model not just the last century of data but also earlier times including the larger temperature anomolies around the little age and / or medieval warm period etc.

Because to me if these models working back over history can match reasonably some of these more significant temperature anomolies then that would be a pretty good indication of their robustness in being able to model climate. If they can't then from this seat it looks like a possibility that the model engine could have been oversimplified to deal with the current warming trend and the postulated reasons for it relating to CO2.

As we have seen on many graphs CO2 levels and temperature rise can be shown, as they have on many graphs here and elsewhere, to appear to be going hand in hand. So in terms of simply modelling a postulated direct relationship I myself could do that with a spreadsheet.

(Note: don't for a moment pretend anyone thinks the relationship is so simple as has been debated over and again in these pages or that I could really use a spreadsheet to model climate. I am just using that as an illustration that if models are too simplified and based on a theory of what is happening now and has happened over a relatively short period (climatically) of history then those simplified model could give apparent good fits to recent data (being that data which helped develop the theory that the model is based on). However if those models are not robust enough to match temperature perturbations back into climate history what gives us confidence that their predictions into the future are any more reasonable.)

And so I return to my questions from post #3035

After all the chart posted by Boston shows a one point of apparently significant departure between the models and the observed at around 1940 (being 1 of the only 10 points plotted over that century period). That may or may not be imprtant in the scheme of things. How does the model perform in the years 1931 to 1949 where the data points aren't plotted? How does the model go before the 20th century?

From Jimbo:

Well Jimbo I did try hard to read all those 200 pages of posts but I found the debate so hard to follow that at the end I really couldn't see any specific answers to points I raised in my post - which is why I posted it. Now there is alot of pages there and I could have missed it sure. But, and I hope you guys will take this as a observers comment, alot of times I have observed that someone will pose a question and the opposing person will seem to answer a different question. Reading these pages I was constantly (and from both sides) having my interest piqued as in "Yeah - whats the story with that?" and looking expectantly to the next post from the opposite viewpoint only to seemingly have the discussion veer off at a partially related tangent to the point raised. Then again - Maybe it is just me and my poor understanding of this issue. Sorry if that is the case.

And this is the crux of my questions about the models. If, as you say Jimbo, the underlying theory of the models is flawed then this would likely show up through validation of the models over a long period of history. If the CO2 as a climate driver theory is in fact bunk then as models are run over preceeding thousands of years they should show that they don't in fact model climate well except in the current century using the data set and apparent relationships used to develop the theory.

Are then any more graphings over long periods showing how these models perform?

For completeness. I think I have addressed this in the discussion above, that in fact I think it is the right question to ask. If the assumptions and feedbacks are wrong then they climate models will not be robust and not validate to historical climate observations well. However if they DO validate over history well then I think we can have much more confidence in their predictions and the assumptions on which they are based.

So Boston/ Jimbo / others, I dont think I will learn any more by a repeat of discussions about the merits of otherwise of the assumptions etc mentioned in that last sentence beyond the toing and froing of this thread to date. But if you have some links to graphings (apart from the ones already posted which show climatically relatively short timeframes) I would love to see them. If not I will keep searching when I get a chance.

Thanks all,
Andrew

 

How timely:

What I would love to see is take many of these points in turn and have them examined with references (the article has none).

But I fear this would just look like the last 200 pages. So on my specific question about models this page says.

Lets see the graphed plot that shows this so we can see.

Or maybe seeing anything from models is a vain hope :-(

Cheers,
Andrew

 

Mud slinging, is that like Dwarf tossing? Do you participate willingly Capt'n? or is it just a night at the pub gone horribly wrong

(A scientific attempt at comic relief!)