Anybody want to argue global warming?

[ricketyclik]

What are you talking about ???? We are nearing the end of an interglacial period (approx 11.000 out of 12.000 years) - we are not overdue.

OK, I won't press the point with this one, as I see there alternate theories to the one I'm familiar with. Either way, what of it?

Nope. He was quite precise in his "predictions" - I don't have the link at hand, so belive me/wait to I find it.

I don't give a flying f*ck what he said. He's a politician, not a scientist.

No. It's actually quite opposite. You need exponential rise in CO2 to get linear rise in temperature.

Check any temperature forecast graph, and tell me the shape.

[BlackCat]

OK, I won't press the point with this one, as I see there alternate theories to the one I'm familiar with. Either way, what of it?

I'm a bit curious about this theory - have you and doc on it ? TBH, it sounds like some crackpot theory that noone really cares about.

Check any temperature forecast graph, and tell me the shape.

One thing that I can say about all those graphs is that they all are the result of man fiddling with computer models. They have no validity concerning proof of anything.

It's an undisputed scientific fact that for CO2 to raise the temperature one degree you have to double the amount of CO2.

[BlackCat]

Well, I was maybe a bit rude previously, but I haven't found anyting that says something reliable about that we should be overdue an iceage

[MikeH]

No, they are stable and don't wriggle more than a tenth or so - haven't you listened to MikeH ? Nature is STABLE and only humans can change temperatures

Temperatures might get hot enough to BURN YOUR AWFUL STRAWMAN. x

[MikeH]

I'm skeptical of this claim.

That's why I posted the links.

[MikeH]

and I'm not surprised people are sceptical about it, you'd hardly know that was the case from the media coverage of AGW.

[Dale]

Interesting topic.

The globe has warmed, there is almost universal consensus on that. Where the arguments come in are on two points:
1. Is the temp rise natural or human influenced?
2. Will global warming be beneficial to the planet?

The hockey-stick graph was debunked years ago when some scientists analysed the graph and found a huge issue, forcing NASA to admit that they had used the maximum range calculation of temp/CO2 increase each year instead of the mean range calculation. This resulted in the parabolic graph Al Gore based his entire claims on.

We've just come out of a 30 year positive Pacific Decadal Oscillation. The Pacific is the world's main internal temperature influencer. When the PDO is positive, the world gets warmer. When the PDO goes negative, the world gets cooler. 2009 marked the start of the change from a positive to negative PDO. The southern hemisphere has been experiencing cooler average temps since then, and soon the change will influence the north. This is a perfectly normal and natural climatic cycle. Note that between 1945 and 1970 PDO was negative and temps actually dropped. From 1920 to 1945 the PDO was positive and temps rose.

Sun spots are also are large influencer on world temps. We've had years of high sun spot counts (above average). Sun spot count should drop sometime below average throwing less radiation energy (ie: heat) on the planet.

So this leads to the question, has natural factors, human factors or a combination of both resulted in temp rises over the last 30 years?

[MikeH]

You're just spouting a lot of common anti global warming crap which you don't have to look very hard to find out isn't accurate.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html

eg.

Hockey Stick:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong.html

Sun Spots:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650-climate-myths-global-warming-is-down-to-the-sun-not-humans.html

PDO

http://www.grist.org/article/bbc-misses-hottest-decade-on-record

http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation-and-global-warming.html

Another longer list here:

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics

[Aeson]

I think the focus on limiting CO2 emissions as a fix is folly. The desertification, deforestation, and pavementification of the planet has reduced it's CO2 buffering capacity. As has the use of fossil fuels that otherwise could have kept CO2 sequestered for very long periods of time. It's not just the output that matters, but also the source, and the ability to deal with the output.

On a more serious note: Dumping raw sewage into waterways and the sea increases the CO2 buffering capacity of the planet. Is it just a coincidence that with the rise of sewage treatment plants that GW sets in? Hmmmmmm....

[Dale]

You're just spouting a lot of common anti global warming crap which you don't have to look very hard to find out isn't accurate.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html

eg.

Hockey Stick:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong.html

Sun Spots:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650-climate-myths-global-warming-is-down-to-the-sun-not-humans.html

PDO

http://www.grist.org/article/bbc-misses-hottest-decade-on-record

http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation-and-global-warming.html

Another longer list here:

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics

I like how in one of your PDO articles, the graph shows a very clear decline in temp anomoly between 1945 and 1970, right when PDO was in a negative cycle.

Oh, and the other article you linked where the IPCC admits to halving natural solar forcing to boost the claim that global warming is all man made.

In a climate system as massively complex as ours, there is no scientist on this planet alive today, or anytime in the past, that could not discount a natural influence on long term warming or cooling. Is there anyone willing to stick their neck out and claim that GW is solely caused by humans? I sure as heck won't.

I suppose my point is, even though temps are rising, the science is in no way done, dusted and proven. There are still massive holes in climate understanding, data collection and analysis. Yes we're warming, but no one REALLY knows all the factors causing it.

[MikeH]

Who said there wasn't natural variability as well?

http://www.grist.org/article/there-is-no-consensus

No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century.

This is where there is a consensus.

Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:

• the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;


• the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;


• the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;


• if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and


• a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.

http://www.grist.org/article/climate-is-always-changing

Abstract:

Objection: Climate has always changed. Why are we worried now, and why does it have to be humans' fault?

Answer: Yes, climate has varied in the past, for many different reasons, some better understood than others. Present-day climate change is well understood, and different. Noting that something happened before without humans does not demonstrate that humans are not causing it today.

Like I said just more common, oft repeated criticisms of AGW deniers. These mistaken positions are so commonly repeated that there are multiple sites dedicated to explaining why they are wrong! Amazing.

This is also quite telling on the consensus for those asking about that.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...te-change.html

[BlackCat]

Hockey Stick:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong.html

That is old. This is from 2010

[MikeH]

That piece is even more controversial than the hockey stick.

http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/statisticians-slam-random-global-warming-hockey-stick-graph.html

But the important thing is that it doesn't really matter if the hockey stick paper was perfect or not. It's only one of thousands of bits of evidence.

And I think their concerns were covered by the 2007 New Scientist:

Most researchers would agree that while the original hockey stick can - and has - been improved in a number of ways, it was not far off the mark. Most later temperature reconstructions fall within the error bars of the original hockey stick. Some show far more variability leading up to the 20th century than the hockey stick, but none suggest that it has been warmer at any time in the past 1000 years than in the last part of the 20th century.

It is true that there are big uncertainties about the accuracy of all past temperature reconstructions, and that these uncertainties have sometimes been ignored or glossed over by those who have presented the hockey stick as evidence for global warming.

http://www.grist.org/article/the-hockey-stick-is-broken

From grist 2006:

But the most critical point to remember, if you are concerned about this for its impact on the validity of AGW theory, is that the fight is over a single study, published eight years ago, focused on paleoclimate. It verges on historical minutia. If you feel the study may be tainted, simply discard it.

Science will always move on. To continually hammer on one old study out of thousands, that most agree isn't great, and ignore the volume of evidence is a classic denier technique.

It's the same thing as seizing on a paper saying "we don't know how this organism evolved this trait" and claiming it means Evolution isn't real, because it can't explain anything, even if there are hundreds of papers explaining how similar traits evolved.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

That piece is even more controversial than the hockey stick.

http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/statisticians-slam-random-global-warming-hockey-stick-graph.html

Not particularly. The entire gist of the scathing slam against Mann et. al. from Wegman (circa 2006 that evaluated his earlier works) and again in this more recent paper (that looks at more recent works) is that the researchers were inexperienced neophytes applying statistical techniques in an inappropriate fashion. They were shown then and continue to be shown today to have little fundamental understanding of the appropriate stastical treatment of the variables they attempt to correlate.

It is no wonder that shockingly Mann is providing a robust reponse but given his ineptitude to date on matters of stastical expertise, I would be surprised if there is any real substance.

Realize these two critiques don't even delve into the realm of dendrochronology and by and large give a pass to the supposed expertise of the preparers rather it deals with the treatment of the raw data itself a matter where the paleoclientologists have no real standing.

[Gesewa]

For global warming these pastw two winters sure were cold.