Man Based Global Warming....

Not to polish my halo,,, but I mentioned it a few posts above,

Icarus

 

I don't think anyone is seriously making the assumption that these are the only data stations in the world or that these stations are the only way temperature is measured, or that the data aren't 'corrrected' with computer manipulations.

The point is, that until people like Watts bring attention to obvious problems, no one does anything about them. A few months after Watts published these photos this station was taken off line as a viable temperature collection site.

 

That's good. Some people do and they use this particular piece of information as irrefutable proof that global warming is not real. I'm glad that isn't the case with you. Scientists need to be kept in check by ensuring their data collection methods are the best they can be. No arguments there.

icarus, I must have missed it. Usually my talk about ocean acidification falls on deaf ears because it is not mainstream so people usually don't know much about it. Like this post did. http://priuschat.com/forums/environ...anitys-extra-co2-could-brew-new-kind-sea.html. LOL

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by richard schumacher
Because it considers the last six years of cooling and ignores the previous 120 years of warming. One might as well observe that the temperature dropped 10 degrees on the night of June 1 and conclude that we'll all be breathing liquid helium by the Fourth of July.

Sorry, the above is incomprehensible.



Okay, IckyRuss, you caught me. It is comprehensible if one ignores the hyperbole and considers the source. However, it completely missed the point (including an explanation refuting richard's wild, hyperbolic response before he made it - in other words, richard didn't read the post before he responded) which was:
"...It is evident that the AGW hypothesis, as it now stands, is either false or fundamentally inadequate. One may argue that projections for global warming are measured in decades rather than months or years, so not enough time has elapsed to falsify this hypothesis. This would be true if it were not for the enormous deficit of heat we have observed. In other words, no matter how much time has elapsed, if a projection misses its target by such a large magnitude (6x to 8x), we can safely assume that it is either false or seriously flawed..."


The 5.5 year accumulated heat deficit for GISS model projections (red line) ranges from 6.48 x 1022 Joules (using Willis) to 7.92 x 1022 Joules (Loehle, extrapolated to the end of 2008). Pielke is more conservative in his calculations, given the substantial margin of error in Willis’ data (±0.35). Accordingly, he assumes zero heat accumulation for the full 6 year period (2003-2008), yielding a deficit of 5.88 x 1022Joules (Pielke, “Update…”). Loehle’s work, which was not yet known to Pielke in February of 2009, has a much smaller margin of error (±0.2).

from:
Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News

"... Dire warnings about “runaway warming” and climate “tipping points” cannot be taken seriously. A complete rejection of the hypothesis, in its current form, would certainly be warranted if the ocean continues to cool (or fails to warm) for the next few years.
Whether the anthropogenic global warning hypothesis is invalid or merely incomplete, the time has come for serious debate and reanalysis. Since Dr. Pielke first published his challenge in 2007, no critical attempts have been made to explain these failed projections. His blogs have been greeted by the chirping of crickets. In the mean time costly political agendas focused on carbon mitigation continue to move forward, oblivious to recent empirical evidence. Open and honest debate has been marginalized by appeals to consensus. But as history has often shown, consensus is the last refuge of poor science..."

 

Question, when all of the various computer modeling is being done, what is the base line? A constant climate? A slight rise in temperature or a slight decrease in temperature?

 

In the time I've spent on this and a couple of other threads on PC, I have encountered only one or two persons willing to even look at a point of view that diverges from their closely held conviction that CO2 is the main culprit in recently experienced temperature trends. It has become a point of faith, a religious zealotry that excludes a rational look at the most recent observable data.

I have stated on more than one occasion that I find Dr Roger Pielke's views the most measured and calm statements of the current state of climate science. No one has bothered to find out what his views are. How do I know this? Because if anyone had gone to his site and spent a few moments, they might have found statements such as, "Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate..."

and...



"The climate issue, with respect to how humans are influencing the climate system, can be segmented into three distinct hypotheses. These are:

• The human influence is minimal and natural variations dominate climate variations on all time scale;
• While natural variations are important, the human influence is significant and involves a diverse range of first-order climate forcings (including, but not limited to the human input of CO2);
• The human influence is dominated by the emissions into the atmosphere of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide.

The third hypothesis, of course, is the IPCC perspective.
The challenge to the scientific community, using the scientific method, is to present observational evidence that refutes one or more of these hypotheses..."

Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News Three Climate Change Hypotheses - Only One Of Which Can Be True


This has NOT BEEN DONE and anyone who says it has, is not following the scientific method. So, to reiterate a guest poster's comment at ClimateScience, "Whether the anthropogenic global warning hypothesis is invalid or merely incomplete, the time has come for serious debate and reanalysis."

All we hear from the media and purported official scientific bodies is the IPCC perspective.

In the meantime, politicians may very well win the right to impose restrictions and taxes based on the IPCC's imperfect conclusions, but their actions are not driven by settled science, no matter what a few PC posters slavishly believe.

Cheers.

I forgot to mention that Dr. Pielke leans toward the second hypothesis. In case no one goes there to find out.

 

Ahh but you are forgetting about the other effects of CO2 emissions and those that are produced through the same processes. This is far from just about global warming. The myriad impacts of excess CO2 and associated emissions have large impacts on oceanic and freshwater chemistry, soil chemistry, botanical species composition and range, agriculture, etc..

Dr. Pielke's contributions are readily available on RealClimate.org as well.

My stance is such that if someone disproves the global warming hypothosis it's not skin off my back. Science is ever changing BUT the host of other issues associated with the burning of fossil fuels is so problematic that restrictions are needed no matter the outcome of the current AGW hypothesis. Those restrictions though should be based on the best science we have for all of the negative effects of CO2 and fossil fuel emissions, not just AGW. IMO

 

And even if all that CO2 weren't a problem, there are still many excellent reasons for reducing energy consumption and use of fossil fuels.

edit: Yeah, what F8L said.

 

Hey, I've got better things to do. I'll leave you with these words:

The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all is the person who argues with him.

 

Study: Clean energy jobs power ahead in Texas - Houston Business Journal:

The science and economics of green energy is hard to argue against unless you're ignorant of the facts.

 

This is dedicated to the climate experts here. You know who you are.

British UFO sightings at 'bizarre' levels - Telegraph

"Some experts believe it could be linked to global warming and craft from outer space are appearing because they are concerned about what man is doing to this planet."

 

I can't stop laughing. ............... I also read today that global warming may be reducing the wind in the world.

 

Here is something else to laugh about: Oil is at $72+/bbl compared to malorn's $20/bbl prediction for the end of Feb. So naturally, GM is killing off their hybrids.

 

Thank you Evan!

Icarus

 

Finally, some points of agreement :_> Thanks for sharing. Let's check in every couple years.

 

from Caribou herds dwindling worldwide: Alberta study

 

U.S. Study Projects How 'Unequivocal Warming' Will Change Americans' Lives - NYTimes.com

and / or

Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States - Home

 

Run to Mommy when you can't fend for yourself?

 

Veteran Loch Ness Monster Hunter Gives Up - The Daily Record


"...Despite having hundreds of sonar contacts over the years, the trail has since gone cold {oh, a pun my word} and Rines believes that Nessie may be dead, a victim of global warming..."

 

Global Warming to create traffic jams.

NPR President: Climate Change to Make LA Traffic Even Worse

Uh, may a despised, knuckle-dragging classical liberal suggest a cap on illegal aliens as a more cost effective solution? Let's see, enforce existing laws and there is no problem.