Global warming?

[Undertoad]

A return to thread topic

The usual prologue: I believe in global warming, I understand the theory of greenhouse gas and why it's plausible man has had a factor in this increase.

However, as a born skeptic, I have to apply that too, and the debate fascinates me. Let's test these ideas with the right kinds of questions, and as the questions are answered correctly, so the truth becomes evident. Or doesn't!

The most interesting skeptical question has become more and more prominent as time has gone by: Why hasn't there been any additional global warming since 1998? Why haven't climate scientists' models proven out?

One very emotionally unsatisfying idea now comes along: because of Chinese pollution.

(Reuters) - Smoke belching from Asia's rapidly growing economies is largely responsible for a halt in global warming in the decade after 1998 because of sulphur's cooling effect, even though greenhouse gas emissions soared, a U.S. study said on Monday.

The paper raised the prospect of more rapid, pent-up climate change when emerging economies eventually crack down on pollution.

World temperatures did not rise from 1998 to 2008, while manmade emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuel grew by nearly a third, various data show.

The researchers from Boston and Harvard Universities and Finland's University of Turku said pollution, and specifically sulphur emissions, from coal-fueled growth in Asia was responsible for the cooling effect.

Sulphur allows water drops or aerosols to form, creating hazy clouds which reflect sunlight back into space.

"Anthropogenic activities that warm and cool the planet largely cancel after 1998, which allows natural variables to play a more significant role," the paper said.

This all just adds such a new layer of complexity over it all that the debate starts to be overwhelming.

It does raise many more questions, and now the whole notion of scientific consensus starts to weaken, because there is probably no consensus on the current observations. Climate science did not predict this. The models did not include all the necessary information.

At this point, one takeaway for me is that it's really amazingly hard to predict the future. It's one of our deepest desires, to know the future, to know the likely outcomes and to determine the greatest dangers. But it's also amazingly difficult to do.

Economics was a finer science when economists weren't goaded into predicting the future. Everything is so connected that any one science cannot see the broader picture. A new finding changes everything; just like a new invention changes everything, or a new idea changes everything. And all these things are so interconnected that even saying what happen next year, we could be quite wrong.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The most interesting skeptical question has become more and more prominent as time has gone by: Why hasn't there been any additional global warming since 1998? Why haven't climate scientists' models proven out?

One very emotionally unsatisfying idea now comes along: because of Chinese pollution.

Also, 1998 was a local spike. There has been warming since 1997 and since 1999.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

This all just adds such a new layer of complexity over it all that the debate starts to be overwhelming.

These variable were long ago added to conclusions that say without that (and other) pollution, then global warming would be much worse.

We know a worldwide reduction of sulfur in fuel has resulted in cleaner air. As a result, global warming has continued to increase as models predict. Most of these effects you are referring are already quantified as minor. Have even been tested in models as a long term solution to greenhouse gases with little success. All have been including in equation (simulations) that confirm global warming.

Variations in many models and research exist. But the overwhelming conclusion is same. Climate change due to mankind is increasing worldwide temperatures and increasing greenhouse gases. Even resulting in increased acidity in the oceans - also well defined in research.

This month's Scientific American discussed the previous world record for fastest global climate change - the PTEM period. At no other time, has global warming been so fast - 5 degrees C in .... 20,000 years. We are doing same climate change in only hundreds of years. That proves global warming does not exist?

Why do subjective denials have credibility? Citations with facts, research, and numbers demonstrate that every decade is warmer.

I don't know where you are getting your beliefs from. But numbers say global temperatures even in the past decade have increased significantly.

Numbers from six sources differ significantly ... a subjective conclusion. Vary so little as to be virtually same ... a conclusion that also includes numbers. Same chart with two completely different declarations. Which conclusion do you entertain? The subjective one? Or one based in science?

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by tw

But numbers say global temperatures even in the past decade have increased significantly.

Climate scientists disagree with you.

Here is the PDF of the paper from the researchers at the National Academy of Sciences:

http://cellar.org/2011/pnas-201102467.pdf

Here is the chart they created to indicate what various models suggested 1998-2008, and the actual temperature records are in black:



It's all peer-reviewed.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Climate scientists disagree with you.

Peer reviewed like so many other papers peer reviewed by White House lawyers?

The Economist charts numbers are from the six major climate research organizations. All disagree ... so little as to confirm each other. Only wacko extremist political organizations disagree.

Each source is cited by The Economist. Your chart was previously found to be suspect. Your chart does not even cite its one source. So a discredited chart is reposted?

Global warming is challenged when, for example, a TV weatherman's political agenda promotes myths. Virtually no science disputes it. 117 peer reviewed papers from a poster who did not even read and could not understand any. That is proof that global warming does not exist? Yes, a political agenda can order the most naive to recite what they must believe. Hitler did the same with Jews. Also proven only because the most naive believed a political agenda.

Earth's climate is getting warmer at a dangerous rate. No responsible sources deny that - as The Economist so responsibly reports. A previous world record for climate change took 20,000 years. And took another 200,000 years to undo. Today mankind is accomplishing same in only hundreds of years. But White House lawyers and empty claims of 117 papers dispute reality. Therefore global warming must not exist.

Where is their science? Not found where a political agenda can even get many to believe lies such as Saddam's WMDs. Those too only existed for political reasons - reality be damned.

Wacko extremists touted denials by citing Dr Muller. They heard a conclusion - nothing more. Did not bother to learn details. Were shocked when Dr Muller said what he was always saying. Extremists only heard a bottom line. Only heard what their political agenda wanted them to hear - science and honesty be damned.

Why did they tout Dr Muller?

Expecting science to subvert climate change advocates, a Republican Congress sought immediate testimony from Dr Muller. Only to learn what their political agenda is again contradicted by science.

Where is responsible science that disputes Dr Muller? Never posted.

117 papers that somehow say global warming does not exist - and that poster did not even read one. Coign is a classic example of why so many are so easily brainwashed by a political agenda. He knew what the political agenda ordered him to believe - nothing more. That, BTW, meets the definition of brainwashing.

Charted are numbers from responsible science. All show temperature increases every decade as science also predicts. Only a political agenda disputes it. When Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck know science must be wrong. And when Coign could not even bother to read his 117 papers. Just more reasons to know global warming is created by mankind.

Why do facts and numbers from the Economist disagree with your previously discredited chart?

[Coign]

Originally Posted by tw

117 papers that somehow say global warming does not exist - and that poster did not even read one. Coign is a classic example of why so many are so easily brainwashed by a political agenda. He knew what the political agenda ordered him to believe - nothing more. That, BTW, meets the definition of brainwashing.

I came back to just see how this thread was going to find out you are STILL attacking me and lying about me.

That was NINE HUNDRED papers that said global warming is NOT caused by humans. And I READ 15 of them and had earlier posted examples from 4 of them. (They are very dry reading.)

But others on sites I trust have read them and posted over-reaching synopsis letting me know, they are proof if I would take the time to read more.

WHERE is your proof? I showed you proof and you dismiss it out of hand by saying it doesn't count because I did not read more than 15 of them. HOW MANY papers have you read and post them. I will post the paper that disproves it.

TW, you are a babbling loon that is guilty of exactly what you accuse me of.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Climate scientists disagree with you.

Here is the PDF of the paper from the researchers at the National Academy of Sciences:

http://cellar.org/2011/pnas-201102467.pdf

Here is the chart they created to indicate what various models suggested 1998-2008, and the actual temperature records are in black:



It's all peer-reviewed.

Wow! The few little steps we took saved our cynical asses. All hail Al Gore, Savior of the Temperate Zones and Slayer of Green House Gases.

[tw]

But again, numbers from major and responsible science. That was confirmed by Dr Muller - funded by some right wing political agendas including the Koch brothers. And reported by a news source that is not promoting a political agenda:

[Blib27]

Originally Posted by tw

I don't know where you are getting your beliefs from. But numbers say global temperatures even in the past decade have increased significantly.

Numbers from six sources differ significantly ... a subjective conclusion. Vary so little as to be virtually same ... a conclusion that also includes numbers. Same chart with two completely different declarations. Which conclusion do you entertain? The subjective one? Or one based in science?

It's wonderful what you can do with massaged figures and pretty pictures, isn't it?

Here's a quote from Professor Phil Jones. As you know, Phil Jones is director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA). The chap at the centre of this "science".

Here's what he said in reply to a question posed to him by the BBC last year.

Originally Posted by Jones' Interview

Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Now, he directly contradicts what you say.

How strange is that? Care to comment?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Blib27

Now, he directly contradicts what you say.
How strange is that? Care to comment?

Did you read what he said? Or just do as Limbaugh, Hannity, et al do?

Data from ten years is significant. But not statistically significant; does not meet necessary confidence levels. Meanwhile, data that demonstrates global warming is from hundreds of years. And from millions of years. Is well beyond statistically significant. In fact Dr Muller's report before a very Republican Congress said data is of the highest quality.

What do we know? Global warming created by mankind (at something slightly faster than 0.12 degrees C per decade) is at least 50 times faster than any previous world record for destructive global climate change. That once and rare previous disaster also took 200,000 years to correct.

Statistically significant data is further confirmed so many other sources including deep core geological studies. By changes in atmospheric content. Even confirmed by world wide ocean data. It even explains the degradation of reefs including the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. Where is all the data that disputes it. Never posted.

Ten years of data is not statistically significant. Read what he said.

Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods,

And data from those "longer periods" exists from numerous independent sources. Worse, data to contradict is virtually null. All data comes to similar conclusions.

Your soundbyte intentionally distorted what he really said. It is called 'brainwashing by soundbyte'.

Since that source so intentionally harmed an honest discussion, then we should have the name of that scumbag. So that the enemies of moderates can be cited repeatedly as disciples of Limbaugh and Hitler. Who do we go after for intentionally perverting a logical discussion? Who intentionally misquoted Phil Jones? And what is their political agenda and party affiliation? Your soundbyte was obviously provided by someone with the integrity of a rapist or pedophile. An honest quote would have included what Phil Jones really said.

[Blib27]

Originally Posted by tw

Your soundbyte intentionally distorted what he really said. It is called 'brainwashing by soundbyte'.

Since that source so intentionally harmed an honest discussion, then we should have the name of that scumbag. So that the enemies of moderates can be cited repeatedly as disciples of Limbaugh and Hitler. Who do we go after for intentionally perverting a logical discussion? Who intentionally misquoted Phil Jones? And what is their political agenda and party affiliation? Your soundbyte was obviously provided by someone with the integrity of a rapist or pedophile. An honest quote would have included what Phil Jones really said.

Blimey TW. The more I read those words the more I wonder what on earth is going on? The quote was a direct and FULL one from a Q&A session conducted by the British Broadcasting Corporation in February of last year.

Are you really willing to say that the BBC are scumbags, paedophiles or rapists?

Here's a link to the article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm

I have provided evidence in full to demonstrate that your hysterical attack has no foundation in truth whatsoever.

Now, I want you to apologise to me personally for suggesting that I misquoted Prof Jones.

If you do not, I shall report you.

He disagrees with your contention. You are wrong. Either you debate with me sensibly or you continue to rant.

What is it to be TW?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Blib27

The quote was a direct and FULL one from a Q&A session conducted by the British Broadcasting Corporation in February of last year.

What you quoted intentionally distorts and misrepresents what that BBC interview reported.

Phil Jones said:

Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods,

Curiously, Phil Jones says UT's claims from his only source are statistically insignificant. Jones then provides data that is statistically significant.

Why did you ignore the relevant sentences? Why did you even ignore this:

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Jones even provided numbers. Why did you ignore his major point to claim something contrary to what he said? BBC did not misrepresent what he said. Only you did that.

Another fact that he stated, that was so relevant, and that you ignored.

I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

Did you not understand the BBC interview? Or not read all details and numbers? Why did you ignore his many important points and numbers while completely misrepresenting one paragraph? You perverted what the BBC reported by misquoting one paragraph and by ignoring relevant numbers.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Blib27

I have provided evidence in full to demonstrate that your hysterical attack has no foundation in truth whatsoever.

no matter ...

Now, I want you to apologise to me personally for suggesting that I misquoted Prof Jones.

He disagrees with your contention. You are wrong. Either you debate with me sensibly or you continue to rant.

What is it to be TW?

I'm feeling ya dude - Déjà vu

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Blib27

I have provided evidence in full to demonstrate that your hysterical attack has no foundation in truth whatsoever.

Now, I want you to apologise to me personally for suggesting that I misquoted Prof Jones.

If you do not, I shall report you.

Evidence in full?

Quote mining may not cause global warming, but I dont believe it is a reportable offense.