Man Based Global Warming....

I'm not a doctor,, but I play one on TV,,,,, oh never mind!

Icarus

 

These days I might try to figure out if he or she needed money.

Seriously, I understand the frustration. But we live in a democracy where the majority rules even if they have no idea what's best for them. That's why we have to try to convince the deniers. It can be done. I was one of them until about 7 years ago.

 

Once Again

The 'experts' DO NOT all agree. Regardless how many times you repeat this canard, there are plenty of peer-reviewed papers that involve various aspects of climatology that tend to cast doubt on the theory propounded by the IPCC and Real(fake)Climate. If you don't look for them, you'll never find them.

From ClimateScience.com:

May 2, 2008

Three Climate Change Hypotheses - Only One Of Which Can Be True

Filed under: Climate Change Forcings & Feedbacks — Roger Pielke Sr. @ 7:00 am

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’s perspective is that the second hypotheses is correct, which has support from the
National Research Council, 2005: Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, Climate Research Committee, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 208 pp.
A new Nature paper by Keenlyside et al. entitled “Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector†provides evidence that is inconsistent with the third hypothesis. This paper writes in the abstract
“The climate of the North Atlantic region exhibits fluctuations on decadal timescales that have large societal consequences. Prominent examples include hurricane activity in the Atlantic, and surface-temperature and rainfall variations over North America, Europe and northern Africa……Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.â€

There are several important messages from this paper:

• While this Nature paper claims that this lack of global warming is temporary due to “natural climate variations“, unless the first hypothesis is true, there are NO climate variations that are not affected by humans (i.e., the term “natural climate variations†is therefore a misnomer).
• This new paper supports the perspective that climate variations and change (even the global average radiative imbalance) are dominated by regional alterations in circulations [as summarized in the 2005 National Research Council Report, and emphasized on Climate Science and associated papers (e.g. see) including the very important guest weblog on Climate Science by Roy Spencer (see) on this subject].
• Since the multi-decadal global climate model predictions used for the 2007 IPCC report are failing to skillfully predict these “fluctuations on decadal time scalesâ€, there is no credible reason to accept the claim in the Nature paper that the “projected anthropogenic warming†will be accurately predicted after the next decade.

 

Scientist's publications do. The disagreements occur on blogs and interviews.

The level of agreement between scientists has actually been studied as a scientific question. The latest published peer-reviewed paper was written by Doran et al:

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

"96.2% of climatologists who are active in climate research believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 97.4% believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 80% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:
"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."



A nice review of scientific literature addressing consensus can be found in Wikipedia, with references of course:

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Sorry couldn't resist...

 

See, there are still 3 or 4 percent who disagree. They must have a story to tell, about how the 'facts' are twisted to support the so-called 'consensus'. In all fairness (and in order to mislead the public) those stories must be told.

 

Blah, blah, blah....

One must consider who does the 'reviewing' and with what rigor. It can be shown that many reviews are done without even having access to the methodology or data, especially in the new science of climate change.

"...If the paper is very complex or has numerous references, it may not be possible to do as good a review as desired in a reasonable time unless the reviewer is intimately familiar with the work. These reviews are often done within a small group of experts, who may even have collaborated on each others papers. The members of the overly narrow review group may have evolved toward a common understanding on the subject, and if the understanding is not correct, almost all of the limited number of experts in that field may make common mistakes that outside reviewers may not make. However, a reviewer outside that group may not be expert enough to be fully on top of the material. This is a problem without a clear solution, especially in fields with a limited number of experts. There are also occasions when errors in assumptions used in developing equations, or in interpretation of instrumentation result in erroneous conclusions that are repeated in many papers until the error is caught and corrected. For this reason all papers must be considered suspect until history vindicates or falsifies them. A paradigm shift on a subject may result from these types of errors being corrected at later times...

...Recent efforts by even well respected authors to publish papers that falsify claims of AGW have had great difficulty passing peer review, apparently because they went against the current paradigm, not because they were shown to be in error. The misuse of claims of support for AGW by “peer reviewed publicationsâ€, and rejection of analysis because it is not peer reviewed is often used to try to discredit the opposition. This is not how science is done. The facts should speak for themselves..." ~ Leonard Weinstein


Leonard Weinstein received a B.Sc. in Physics in 1962 from Florida State University. He started work at NASA Langley Research Center in June 1962. While at Langley, Leonard obtained his Master and Doctor of Science degrees in Engineering from the George Washington University. He continued to work at NASA Langley until June 2007, ending as a Senior Research Scientist. Dr. Weinstein has had a career that is recognized for innovation. He has over 90 publications, including 11 patents. He has received numerous awards, commendations, and recognition’s for innovative experimental research, including an Exceptional Engineering Achievement Medal, an IR-100 award, the 1999 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Engineer of the year, the James Crowder Award, and over 40 other awards and recognitions for innovative experimental research. Dr. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.

 

Sure. Since the facts don't fit your view, attack the facts themselves...

 

Who cares about facts or statistics, or all those edumacated peeps with opinions? I know what I believe, and ain't nobody gonna change my mind...

 

Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °c (1.33 ± 0.32 °F)during the last century.

 

Delighted you have admitted your biases...

 

The warmists and hoaxers have a distorted view of the peer-review process.
In some cases mere money will buy acceptance into a respected journal:

http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2009/06/hoax_paper_accepted_for_public.htm

In addition, some authors of peer-reviewed papers cited by the IPCC fantasists have protested that their papers have been misused, only to be ignored. They have had to fight to have their names removed.

Regardless what you think, or refuse to read, the IPCC's narrow view of climate change is not the last word. They themselves admit only 90 certainty in their 'findings' (computer programs tweaked to produce the wanted results). Yet, the automatons, the good little parrots, are 100% true believers. Sad, really.

 

Now, having related the problems with peer-review (which I guess you haven't bothered to read), here is a peer-reviewed, published paper which suggests that no meaningful global temperature can even be determined.

http://lubos.motl.googlepages.com/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf

 

The last serious debate on the subject was LOST by the fear-mongers:

No wonder global warming prophets hate debate | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

No wonder they refuse to engage in public debate. Better to let the automatons do the dirty work.

 

Why Wikipedia cannot be trusted to be balanced on global warming/climate change:

Wikipropaganda by Lawrence Solomon on National Review Online=

“Peisers crap shouldn’t be in here,” Connolley wrote several weeks ago, in berating a Wikipedian colleague during an “edit war,” as they’re called. Trumping Wikipedia’s stated rules, Connelly used his authority to ensure Wikipedia readers saw only what he wanted them to see. Any reference, anywhere among Wikipedia’s 2.5 million English-language pages, that casts doubt on the consequences of climate change will be bent to Connolley’s bidding.

Nor are Wikipedia’s ideological biases limited to global warming. As an environmentalist I find myself with allies and adversaries on both sides of the aisle, Left and Right. But there is no doubt where Wikipedia stands: firmly on the Left. Try out Wikipedia’s entries on say, Roe v. Wade or Intelligent Design, and you will see that Wikipedia is the people’s encyclopedia only if those people are not conservatives.

— Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and author of The Deniers.

 

Fud, fud, fud.....

 

Ufourya,

I ask you once again,, in all earnestness,, If liberals are so incompetent that you don't trust them to run/manage/design anything, then how is it possible that "liberals" have been able to perpetuate this "hoax" as you call, it so effectively that over 90% of respected, peer review journals have been hoodwinked?

Icarus

 

Rule #1, there are no experts on climatology. There are people who study climatology, and have theories and hypothesis, but none of them are experts.
Rule #2, there are no experts on weather, if there were, they could predict the weather accurately 100% of the time.
Rule #3, there are too many variables on what makes climate what it is. None of which anyone fully understands yet.

What would happen to the climate if the earths tilt changed by .0000001 percent? .0001%?
What would happen if the distance from the sun changed by the same percentage?
What would happen to the climate if the earths magnetic field were to suddenly shift?
What would happen if the poles were to reverse again?
What happens when a solar flare occurs? How much affect does it have?
Sunspots? How much of an effect does it have?

Here is the part that makes me think that CO2 levels is a bunch of BS. If the concentrations keep going up, why hasn't the temperature risen at the same rate? 1 degree F? That's it? That's over what, a 100 year period? So at that rate, in 500 years the planet will be 5 degrees warmer?

Here's the way I see it. There are other factors involved beyond any human control that is behind the rise in temps. The earth is a living, breathing planet, it is on a constant move in multiple dimensions. It spins on an axis, not a fixed axis either. It is rotating around a star, that itself is in a constant state of flux, the orbit itself can change depending on the gravity of the sun. There is a moon that orbits around the planet, controlling tides, and affecting the earths gravity. There is a magnetic field surrounding the planet that is a constant state of flux. There are solar winds that are unpredictable. Solar Flares are unpredictable, they can guess when one may occur, but they cant predict exactly when, or what impact it will have until it occurs. There are active volcanoes, specifically one in Hawaii that is constantly sending gasses into the atmosphere, some are very toxic, especially where the lave meets the sea. Every one is a contributing factor in earths climate.

Every single one of the above affects the climate of this planet, and no one is an expert on any single one, let alone all of them. There are a few who may know quite a good deal about them, but are no where near an expert.

With that said, how can anyone with a straight face honestly say we are responsible for climate change? Seriously? How? You can all talk until blue in the face about how this "expert" or that "expert" states that this affects that, but in reality, no one really absolutely knows for a fact about the climate of this planet. To get the overall honest picture, you need more than 400 years of data, of which only about 20% is accurate. You need thousands of years of accurate data, to get an accurate picture.

To date, there is only speculation and theory as to what caused the last ice age, what caused the demise of the dinosaurs, what caused the Sahara to go from a lush rain forest to a dry desert. There is no hard evidence what caused the glaciers that covered Chicago to melt, mainly because whatever evidence was trapped in the ice disappeared when they melted.

First it was the global cooling scare, OhNOoeS we are all going to freeze to death, then it was Global Warming, OhNoEs we are going to melt!! Now that the planet is showing signs of cooling down, its climate change? Gimme a flippin break, when they finally do figure it out, then tell us, stop crying friggin wolf.

 

Acdii,

You ask how anyone with a straight face an think that humans are contributed to global warming,,, here is my answer,,, or to be hones Alric's answer,

"96.2% of climatologists who are active in climate research believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 97.4% believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 80% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:
"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."



Acdii, you forget a couple of questions to ask:

"What would happen to the climate if the earths tilt changed by .0000001 percent? .0001%?
What would happen if the distance from the sun changed by the same percentage?
What would happen to the climate if the earths magnetic field were to suddenly shift?
What would happen if the poles were to reverse again?
What happens when a solar flare occurs? How much affect does it have?
Sunspots? How much of an effect does it have?"

How about what happens if humans put excess CO2 into the atmosphere to disrupt the balance?!

And finally,, what happens if you are wrong?

Icarus

 

And I still ask, what caused temps to rise during the ice age to melt 2 miles of ice over Chicago? Man? See where I am coming from? I have honest skepticism when "experts" point the finger at human existence for the rise in global temperatures. This has been my point, and will always be my point. I have never denied that temps have risen, have I? I do have skepticism over CO2 and global rising temps, and that is based solely on all the hoopla that goes with it. There are way too many other factors involved with this planet that control the climate, not just the amount of CO2 in the air. There are all these reports of the Arctic ice melting, yet you rarely hear about the Antarctic ice growing. If the earth is warming, then why is the ice at the south pole not melting as well? Is it possible that the earth's axis has tilted ever so slightly to put more of the suns energy north of the equator? See, there is more than one theory behind the answer to why the planet is warming, but none of them except for the rise in CO2 can be played out as a human cause to the general public.

I am all for being environmentally friendly, never stated otherwise, if I wasn't then I would be driving my smoke belching F350 100 miles to work each day instead of a hybrid, but to use a panic button tactic such as we MUST stop CO2 or we will all die, sorry that is just to much BS to be real. I agree we should all do our part to clean up the environment, never stated otherwise. Eventually we will get all the junkers off the road and replaced with cleaner cars, it will take time. If you look at cars today, compared to 30 years ago, what comes out of the tailpipes now compared to then, it's a huge difference. Not everyone can afford a new car, some cant even afford to keep a junker running right, and those are the biggest polluters out there right now. Should there be legislation to get them off the road, OK, I can see that, but what do the people do who have these cars, but cant afford to replace them, and have no other means of transport? What do the people do who own a house, can barely make headway on a daily basis to keep the house, and because of cap and trade, now have energy bills they can no longer afford to pay? What if they decide they need to sell the house, but cant because they don't have Energy star appliances and cant afford to buy any? There is a point in which all this starts to become ridiculous, an extreme, and that is what I am against.

I would like nothing more than to get off the grid and have my own form of sustainable energy to use to heat and cool my home, but at current prices and availability its a pipe dream. I would love geothermal, and solar energy for heating and cooling, with wind and battery for electric, but the costs are so extraordinary, that payback would be longer than the mortgage payments.

Somewhere there has to be a happy medium where we can clean up the environment, without these battles over so called Human made global warming. After all what good will it do us all if one day Mt Redoubt decides to blow and take half of Alaska with it?

That is my point, and i am sticking to it. :rockon: