What Do We Think About Climate Change

Boston,

It's amazing, and sad, to see the sheer dogmatism of your posts. The reason these guys and others disagree with AGW alarmists is precisely because they have not made a good scientific case for their extraordinary claims. Rather they prop up their case with blatantly slanted reporting to conjure a 'consensus', preferring obviously flawed data to reliable data when that data refutes their position, threatening and ostracizing 'dissenters' rather than welcoming lively discussion.

The AGW alarmists have most recently excoriated a scientists who simply wants to audit the state of the surface measurement system, as we know it has fallen into disrepair/nonconformity. Now that sounds like a perfectly innocent undertaking, doesn't it? After all, we ALL want good data, don't we? Then why the opposition? Yet AGW alarmists insist the data from these stations AS THEY ARE is accurate. They even got caught falsifying a study on this very topic. Doesn't this concern you just a little teeny weeny bit?

When satellite data was finally deciphered ( by Christy) and showed no alarming warming trend, the AGW alarmists applied 'corrections' to the data to show an alarming trend. Trouble is, they won't release the algorithms used in the 'correction' preferring to keep it secret. So much for peer review.

So we have fraudulent studies, secret corrections, and clinging to flawed data, trumped up consensus, yet chicken little is still crowing about a falling sky

Boston, I think it's time you took a GPS fix of the location of YOUR OWN head; that brown stuff in your eyes ain't milk chocolate

Jimbo

 

AS I SAID
these guys arent going to be listening to any logical scientifically based arguments my friend

the above being a statement I made in a my last
the natural interpretation of such a statement in regards to the topic at hand would be given that there is good and bad science on both sides of any coin

a good scientist remains open minded
finds and corrects errors throughout the methods used
and accepts the logical conclusion based on preponderance of evidence
regardless of preconceived ideas

yet the the RR responds with

my guess is there is some kind of misunderstanding as to the meaning of the term dogmatism
maybe a definition would help
1. a statement of a point of view as if it were an established fact.
2. the use of a system of ideas based upon insufficiently examined premises
from Farlax online dictionary
or
1. dogmatic assertion of opinion, usually without reference to evidence
from Your Dictionary online dictionary

in each case of definition it can be found in my previous posts that the term dogmatism fails to apply
for instance

1. a statement of a point of view as if it were an established fact.

2. the use of a system of ideas based upon insufficiently examined premises
Im not convinced any reasonable person who has been keeping up on my posts would be able to say that I have presented insufficient evidence.
as an example
a previous post is presented at the bottom of this latest

1. dogmatic assertion of opinion, usually without reference to evidence
I think its obvious who presents references round here and who doesn't
as an example I would point out that the last from Jimbo had not one single referenced article to support claims made

such unscientific methods tend to be the nature of the RR diatribe
applying terms incorrectly
insisting on prioritizing data that exists outside the data stream
clinging to single error arguments
and making claims based on single studies instead of actually using a scientific method
like combining data and throwing out the highs and lows,
the RR camp tends to "dogmatically" insists that a single or several errors in the data well outside of the data stream negates a hole hypothesis. Invariably ignoring the preponderance of evidence while failing to accept that anomalous data exists in all theory's.
Hell relativity needs the cosmological constant to make the field equations work
yet its not often you hear any one deny relativity.

what the RR is up to is political
not scientific
and so presenting scientific methods as viable conversational tools fails with these kind of people
we talk science they talk opinion, picking and choosing what they want to believe regardless of the preponderance of evidence
when pressed with the overwhelming scientific evidence from thousands of sources
the RR heads go back into the sand
fingers in ears again
and the same old poorly constructed arguments are dragged out for the umpteenth time
its not worth it Mr bntii
your not going to be able to have an intelligent review of the data
but you will find yourself going round and round constantly reexplaining things
( please read the sample post included bellow )
some people are just not capable of comprehending the essence of the problem or facing the consequences of there actions
even though the ice is melting out from underneath them
they are going to have to be drowning before they even consider it
hell
it was people like these RR dogmatists that dumped dioxin in a school yard at love canal
and walked away counting there money and thinking everything would be just fine

B


sample post with multiple references

inaccurate

you are desperately grasping at straws again

data already presented directly contradicts your latest assertion
and yet you make no proper defense of this in your claim
again you haven’t presented a single supporting article in your favor
those papers I have already cited clearly state co2 and methane can do exactly what you are claiming they cannot

that is pure bunk
please reread the data provided and learn some thing about calthrates before you make such a patently misleading statement
I have established my case on preponderance of evidence through pier Reviewed and published research presented
you have not read the data provided or you simply dont understand it
in either case
you are embarrassing yourself in the face of overwhelming evidence

methane hydrates or co2 can and do build up in colder environments
and are subject, to catastrophic eruption events

kinda like we are doing now
when we pump gigatons of co2 into the atmosphere

please for the love of simple sanity
research your statements before you make em
it will go a looooooonnnnnnnggggggg way towords shortening my responses

wow

I can site miles of evidence from respected scientists concerning this issue


Nature 453, 642-645 (29 May 2008) | doi:10.1038/nature06961; Received 24 September 2007; Accepted 18 March 2008
Snowball Earth termination by destabilization of equatorial permafrost methane clathrate
Martin Kennedy1, David Mrofka1 & Chris von der Borch2
1. Department of Earth Science, University of California, Riverside, California 92521, USA
2. School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100 Adelaide, South Australia, 5001 Australia
Correspondence to: Martin Kennedy1 Correspondence and requests for

Abstract
The start of the Ediacaran period is defined by one of the most severe climate change events recorded in Earth history—the recovery from the Marinoan 'snowball' ice age, 635 Myr ago (ref. 1). Marinoan glacial-marine deposits occur at equatorial palaeolatitudes2, and are sharply overlain by a thin interval of carbonate that preserves marine carbon and sulphur isotopic excursions of about -5 and +15 parts per thousand, respectively3, 4, 5; these deposits are thought to record widespread oceanic carbonate precipitation during postglacial sea level rise1, 3, 4. This abrupt transition records a climate system in profound disequilibrium3, 6 and contrasts sharply with the cyclical stratigraphic signal imparted by the balanced feedbacks modulating Phanerozoic deglaciation. Hypotheses accounting for the abruptness of deglaciation include ice albedo feedback3, deep-ocean out-gassing during post-glacial oceanic overturn7 or methane hydrate destabilization8, 9, 10. Here we report the broadest range of oxygen isotope values yet measured in marine sediments (-25 to +12) in methane seeps in Marinoan deglacial sediments underlying the cap carbonate. This range of values is likely to be the result of mixing between ice-sheet-derived meteoric waters and clathrate-derived fluids during the flushing and destabilization of a clathrate field by glacial meltwater. The equatorial palaeolatitude implies a highly volatile shelf permafrost pool that is an order of magnitude larger than that of the present day. A pool of this size could have provided a massive biogeochemical feedback capable of triggering deglaciation and accounting for the global postglacial marine carbon and sulphur isotopic excursions, abrupt unidirectional warming, cap carbonate deposition, and a marine oxygen crisis. Our findings suggest that methane released from low-latitude permafrost clathrates therefore acted as a trigger and/or strong positive feedback for deglaciation and warming. Methane hydrate destabilization is increasingly suspected as an important positive feedback to climate change11, 12, 13 that coincides with critical boundaries in the geological record14, 15 and may represent one particularly important mechanism active during conditions of strong climate forcing.

Quote:
The empirical facts have long ago ceased to be important to you
the empirical method of study does not generally accept anything as fact
it divides things into what is most likely to be true or is less likely to be true
by aggregating naturally occurring data

the idea that green house gas's like methane do not precipitate out of solution at depth in colder climes or cannot be produced in colder climes and participate in altering atmospheric chemistry is absolute nonsense
definitely
less likely to be true

Quote:
This is the part that has been disproven; CO2 does not participate in some sort of feedback loop; temperature drives CO2. Natural sources of CO2 swamp anthropogenic sources.
that statement is patently false
I would cite the following three articles

ScienceDaily (May 22, 2006) — Studies have shown that global climate change can set-off positive feedback loops in nature which amplify warming and cooling trends. Now, researchers with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of California at Berkeley have been able to quantify the feedback implied by past increases in natural carbon dioxide and methane gas levels. Their results point to global temperatures at the end of this century that may be significantly higher than current climate models are predicting.

Wetlands Loss Fuelling CO2 Feedback Loop
Source: 2008,
Date: July 21, 2008
Stephen Leahy

this article is not public access however it is available upon request


Universe today
April 29th 2008
Ian O’Neill

These mechanisms are known as "feedback loops". Feedback loops are common in nature, should one quantity change, production of other quantities may speed up. In the case of the carbon emission from volcanic activity, levels of the stuff appear to have been controlled by a natural "negative feedback" loop (akin to a carbon thermostat, when carbon dioxide levels were too high, another process was triggered to remove the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere). However, the sustained atmospheric input of industrial burning of carbon dioxide by human activity has dwarfed historic volcanic carbon output, overwhelming any natural negative feedback mechanism.

the method of argument is decidedly unique to say the least
I particularly like how detractors ignore the published works and go on to present the same flawed issue over and over with out ever actually presenting a scientific debate of the citation

another interesting concept is an unwillingness to make a citation of your own
the readers have yet to see even one
yet i have offered countless
seems obvious the preponderance of evidence is clearly on my side of the table
and equally as obvious who is concerned with factually reporting empirical evidence

the last and my personal fave
is how my detractors have moved from question to question the premiss’s of which admit there agreement with a previous point that had been denied
for instance
the statement was made that there was no correlation between co2 and temp
so I used the data to show there was
the question was raised several more times
along with the assertion that there was no historic evidence for green house gasses driving temp
then with out admitting there was a correlation or that there was boundless evidence in the historic record
the statement was made that the historic correlation was backwards
again several times
so I used the data to show how the cycle of gas events and temp work
being careful to point out that co2 was not the only gas involved in the system
and that co2 was a marker for the correlation of temp and co2
then with out admitting anything again
that info was patently ignored and it was insisted that temp drives co2
that green house gas/temp feed back systems do not occur and that the theory has been proven wrong
wow
when the data presented also contained a detailed description of how volatile clatherates eruptions have left a fossil record coinciding with warming events and extinctions
and once again the detractors have blatantly ignored the observed data and failled to cite a single article not create a preponderance of evidence in the scientific literature

my detractors apparently didnt read or didnt comprehend the data presented

 

Well, I consider myself a reasonable man, and I respectifully think you have presented very long posts with a rare composition, but no evidences. Just discutible studies and opinions from other people, as discutible as any other study or opinion, I'm afraid.

Cheers.

 

with out my editor I am but a gnat on the bum of grammar

but I have presented countless reviewed articles
so Im not sure how it can be reasonably said Im not supporting my claims with ample evidence from multiple sources within the scientific community

if you look at the post I cited as an example to this very issue
you will see numerous references to published reviewed articles
including a lecture by a man who is the head of all ocean studies at SCRIPPS oceanographic institute http://www.sio.ucsd.edu/
Dr Jeremy Jackson

a scientific debate consists of reviewing refereed data
I present this type of data in nearly every post

 

Boston,

I've got a great idea: instead of going off on a wild monologue on how wonderfully convincing your previous posts actually were, and how only an *idiot* could find them unpersuasive, why not address the points I most recently raised, to wit, a fraudulent study propping up the accuracy of the surface measurements, secret corrections to the satellite data to make them show alarming recent warming when none was noted before said corrections, and finally the reason for the opposition to an audit of the state of the surface temperature data gathering network. On this last point, I don't care a hoot if you say YOU don't object to such an audit. Who cares what YOU say? But your heroes in the AGW alarm camp are REALLY PISSED OFF that anyone dare audit this network. Just try to come up with some reason why this is so that still permits an objective reader to retain the belief in the AGW alarm camp's objectivity and dedication to scientific truth.

Jimbo

 

the sign says "Dont feed the Ogre's"

my advice to you Mr bntii would be to get out fast while you still can

a treasure I recently received

or you will be dealing with the occupants under the bridge

another jewel

one of my faves round here is being expected to address poorly made obviously paranoid accusations against unnamed elements of some mysterious camp
wild accusations consistently made with out citation and with out reference to any refereed work or published articles
nothing even resembling a scientific debate

( hmmm kinda meets the definition of dogmatic )
( 1. dogmatic assertion of opinion, usually without reference to evidence )
( definition from "Your Dictionary" online ) (<--- sample of a reference )

something else I often hear shouted from under the proverbial bridge is

this one always kinda amuses me
aparently the RR doesnt believe in an abbreviation key, probably so the BS can RIP without PPL knowing what the J could possibly be talking about
I useually answer this one with something about my next or in this case last camping trip

I can absolutely assure you my hero in this camp was my travel partner who although she has a bladder the size of a pee ( sorry couldnt resist ) is definitely not pissed off ( dam, did it again )

we stayed a few weeks in little America and the Lamar valley and hit the yellowstone institute were they have several study groups working on the effects of global climate change in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem

didnt notice any of the hundreds of scientists there forming study groups concerning human activity "not" having effected atmospheric chemistry though,
guess its not considered real science in a place that boasts one of the greatest concentrations of scientists outside of a campus setting

love B

 

The 101st bias scientist....

Makes more sense to me...

 

nature rules,,,,when theres MORE nature then humans,,,,im pretty sure thats changed,,how % of "nature" is there now compared to people?
the majority ALWAYS rules.

 

With no sun spots for two months, (longer than anytime in hundreds of years of recordings) the earth is going to have some cool spots. I didn't think it was possible for alGore and the GW trolls to appear more ridiculous...but this winter will probably do just that:

http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=14&art_id=vn20080921084615870C810928

 

Thats it Jim... nature dwarfs our green house gas outputs, the variation in natures output is greater than our output so how can we be significant?

I agree that we should and I want to see us clean up our act, but just for the sake of a clean environment. I don't want to see economies destroyed in some blind idealogical reaction to a non-existent threat. People will be hurt if we do this the wrong way... it will lead to many unintended consequences as the timing of many of these "carbon tax's" etc is disastrous given what is about to unfold in the energy markets and is unfolding in the financial markets.

We are on a cycle into another ice age, it will happen with or with-out us... we arrogantly assume we are the determining factor in this when in fact, as hard as it is for us egoistical monkeys to accept, we are largely insignificant. We do need to focus on sustainability in many area's but we need to do it the right way for the right reason's, the real reason's... not some BS weather bogeyman that we have not got a hope in hell of influencing. we need to prepare for what is going to unfold.... not kid ourselves that we can change it. This is running laughingly parallel to what is going on in DC at the moment... this pretence that the situation can somehow be fixed shows a complete lack of understanding about what is actually going on ---> and this mob are running the place :roll-eyes: Better to face the real issue's now and start work on solutions & leave the punitive white elephant policies alone for they will surely destroy economic activity despite what the academics say.

 

ready for this?? they figured out how to stop global warming,,, WHITE ROOFS , and lighter colored pavement,,,hehe,, it will reflect more heat out to our atmosphere,,,,,,,,,,doesnt co2 keep the heat in? or is reflective heat different,,,hehe
,,,,and,, mornin Beanzyz

 

Boston-

Yeah I am out for a bit as I have other ditches to dig just now..

But.....

"Thats it Jim... nature dwarfs our green house gas outputs, the variation in natures output is greater than our output so how can we be significant?"

Beanz is halfway there..

Accepting the basic thesis that there is a 'greenhouse' mechanism at work is the first step towards understanding the issue.

Understanding that land use and emissions create a NET increase in atmospheric C02 and changes the carbon cycle is rest of the story.
It matters not how large the carbon cycle is- if greenhouse gases influence climate, any change in the carbon cycle can therefor alter the climate. It is not hubris or ego to acknowledge the dynamic nature of the climate system. Understanding rate and extent of change is I believe a fair exercise for the scientists involved and the peanut gallery.

Not so tough to understand eh?

 

all this said,,,,,,,,,,nature USED to outnumber us,,,,it doesnt anymore ,, we're over populated, half of nature is under our roads and houses ,, and the part of nature that "took care of things" have been cut down or buried.
you are somewhat right,,,nature DID dwarf us ,,,,DID.

 

I just got a message from "nature" & she said, in big red letters - yelled actually - - "PAYBACK TIME"..... and I feel a little pissed and despondent, what with current hardware problems with my new computers - whenever I take delivery - it fails to work properly - in months I am on release version #4 and is is a matter of "I didn't do it" - I am even getting blamed for the recent local weather

Roll on "climate change"

 

Who the hell made you the arbiter of right and wrong, 1/2 right... bloody condescending....

Apparently their are a lot of scientists that do have trouble with it. Me I get caught up on simple things like the evidence that carbon lags and not leads temperature. As for the "carbon cycle", the point is that natural variance in any given year easily overwhelms human activity. Thus the trend in nature will determine the outcome. Your argument is as logical as saying one investor can control the direction of a market. That is only so if the market is in absolute perfect balance and is not trending... we know that is not the case with the climate system, we know it cycles and there is always a directional trend in the data. To argue that any change upsets this balance is to misunderstand the forces at work. Yes, if we accept that carbon is indeed the issue, any additional carbon will accelerate any underlying trend but when we know that what we do is such a small percentage of the overall output it remains completely obvious that our efforts will change nothing.

No... we need to do this for reasons much closer to home, simple unglamourous things like air quality, quality of life the wonder of nature and its eco systems.

Mark these words "green warriors".... if you destroy economies in this process you will create a competitive backlash that will more than undo everything you think you have achieved. Hungry people don't care about ten years down the track... blow this and you will damage the green movement for generations. A great deal more needs to be understood about markets and the competitive dynamics that drive them which ultimately is human nature. Align these forces and you will see great success, act punitively against them and they will bite you.