Climategate U Turn : No Global Warming since 1985

[valvano]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

"Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming."

:D

Great comment on the article:

"Swine flu, Y2K, mobile phones, SARS, bird flu, BSE, vaccinations, dental fillings......now it's the climate. Some people are just not happy unless they're being scared.
In 1910 when Halley's Comet apeared, rascals everywhere made fortunes selling 'anti-comet pills'. And they say lightning never strikes twice.
Wonder what the next scare will be?"

[DroppinScience]

Y2K was indeed a real threat at the time. Perhaps not as apocalyptic as some doomsayers were saying, but a lot of the 1990s was spent hiring people to convert read-outs of years from two digits to the full 4 digits. If those measures were not taken, we would have had problems come January 1, 2000. It's only because of preventive action are we now saying: "Haha, what a hoax that was!"

And only you, valvano, would take an anonymous comment from the bottom of an article and proclaim is to be gospel.

[valvano]

Y2K was indeed a real threat at the time. Perhaps not as apocalyptic as some doomsayers were saying, but a lot of the 1990s was spent hiring people to convert read-outs of years from two digits to the full 4 digits. If those measures were not taken, we would have had problems come January 1, 2000. It's only because of preventive action are we now saying: "Haha, what a hoax that was!"

And only you, valvano, would take an anonymous comment from the bottom of an article and proclaim is to be gospel.

you need to correct your statement that only those dependent upon windows would have had problems....:D

[HAL 9000]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html



That article highlights the stupidity of the denialist movement. No one is denying that temperatures have been higher in the past or that warming periods have occurred. That is completely irrelevent as anyone with a basic understanding of science of stats could tell you.

Basically you just need to know that climate is dependent on more than one variable. The article then just collapses in a puff of logical fallacy.

But for those looking for the distinction I highlighted in the other thread. This article is denialism not skepticism

[valvano]

That article highlights the stupidity of the denialist movement. No one is denying that temperatures have been higher in the past or that warming periods have occurred. That is completely irrelevent as anyone with a basic understanding of science of stats could tell you.

Basically you just need to know that climate is dependent on more than one variable. The article then just collapses in a puff of logical fallacy.

But for those looking for the distinction I highlighted in the other thread. This article is denialism not skepticism


its hard isnt it to see something that you so desperately want to believe in. that you put some much faith and energy and emotion into, a cause you so much want to champion, an issue that give you the warm fuzzies because you can go out and tell your fellow humans how they should be living, ....exposed for the complete fraud that it is..

[Adam]

Who gains if it is fraud?

Who gains if they deny it?

Who has more influence (or money to influence) on the idiot masses to push their agenda?

[HAL 9000]

its hard isnt it to see something that you so desperately want to believe in. that you put some much faith and energy and emotion into, a cause you so much want to champion, an issue that give you the warm fuzzies because you can go out and tell your fellow humans how they should be living, ....exposed for the complete fraud that it is..

You mean like when I pointed out to you the fact that the article you posted yesterday had a headline that was in direct contradiction to the views of the scientist interviewed in the article itself, and thus can be clearly shown, without any doubt, to be a propaganda piece?

I suppose it is hard, because one day after I pointed it out to you, rather than retract the article or apologise, you went and posted a very similar link to an article which argues that a mans messy desk invalidates all scientific data on a subject and that the fact that the climate is a multi-variable system somehow lessens the contribution of a single variable..

By the way 15 years ago was 1995 not 1985.

[Bob]

its hard isnt it to see something that you so desperately want to believe in. that you put some much faith and energy and emotion into, a cause you so much want to champion, an issue that give you the warm fuzzies because you can go out and tell your fellow humans how they should be living, ....exposed for the complete fraud that it is..

i'm not sure i get that vibe from HAL9000

[kaiser soze]

its hard isnt it to see something that you so desperately want to believe in. that you put some much faith and energy and emotion into, a cause you so much want to champion, an issue that give you the warm fuzzies because you can go out and tell your fellow humans how they should be living, ....exposed for the complete fraud that it is..

Sounds like your religion

[milleson]

HAL 9000 - mad props for putting up with dipshits and continuing to engage them in conversation.

valvano - you encourage me to get off message boards and get back to work.

[RobMoney$]

But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’.


This is key to the whole thing.
His whole excuse that he didn't want to share the data because he lost it, or it was buried in stacks of paper in his office or thrown out is complete BS.
While he may have tranferred this data, especially that which helped advance their agenda, to a database and thrown out much of the papertrail, he was sharing that database amongst people that were advancing the agenda.

He wasn't not turning over the data because he "lost it".
He was not turning over the data because he realized that what data he had was a pile of steamy crap that they had cooked up and he was afraid of sharing it with naysayers who would have easily poked holes through this data.

Someday maybe someone will explain the concept of ice ages and interglacials to the masses, especially to the pro-AGW people, and instruct quite simply that man's ability to impact the climate of this planet is miniscule when compared to the awesome power of the naturally occurring order of the solar system.

Until that time, we'll keep getting charlatans who will use science in it's worst form to cloud and confuse the issue while providing for their own personal wealth, power, and job security.

[Adam]

the poorly located stations are more likely to use more up-to-date measuring equipment called Maximum-Minimum Temperature System (MMTS), which has a slight "cool" bias that is already well documented.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/climate-sceptic-us-weather-data

[RobMoney$]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece


World may not be warming, say scientists
Jonathan Leake


The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution.

In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was “unequivocal”.

It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife. However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all.

“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.
Related Links

The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.

Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.

“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report.

The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods.

“We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said.

Such warnings are supported by a study of US weather stations co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate change sceptic.

His study, which has not been peer reviewed, is illustrated with photographs of weather stations in locations where their readings are distorted by heat-generating equipment.

Some are next to air- conditioning units or are on waste treatment plants. One of the most infamous shows a weather station next to a waste incinerator.

Watts has also found examples overseas, such as the weather station at Rome airport, which catches the hot exhaust fumes emitted by taxiing jets.

In Britain, a weather station at Manchester airport was built when the surrounding land was mainly fields but is now surrounded by heat-generating buildings.

Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University, looked at the same data as the IPCC. He found that the warming trend it reported over the past 30 years or so was just as likely to be due to random fluctuations as to the impacts of greenhouse gases. Mills’s findings are to be published in Climatic Change, an environmental journal.

“The earth has gone through warming spells like these at least twice before in the last 1,000 years,” he said.

Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the chapter of the IPCC report that deals with the observed temperature changes, said he accepted there were problems with the global thermometer record but these had been accounted for in the final report.

“It’s not just temperature rises that tell us the world is warming,” he said. “We also have physical changes like the fact that sea levels have risen around five inches since 1972, the Arctic icecap has declined by 40% and snow cover in the northern hemisphere has declined.”

The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts has recently issued a new set of global temperature readings covering the past 30 years, with thermometer readings augmented by satellite data.

Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “This new set of data confirms the trend towards rising global temperatures and suggest that, if anything, the world is warming even more quickly than we had thought.”


Some are next to air-conditioning units or are on waste treatment plants. One of the most infamous shows a weather station next to a waste incinerator.
Watts has also found examples overseas, such as the weather station at Rome airport, which catches the hot exhaust fumes emitted by taxiing jets.



Yeah, can't imagine how those could be inaccurate.

[yeahwho]

Someday maybe someone will explain the concept of ice ages and interglacials to the masses, especially to the pro-AGW people, and instruct quite simply that man's ability to impact the climate of this planet is miniscule when compared to the awesome power of the naturally occurring order of the solar system.

Until that time, we'll keep getting charlatans who will use science in it's worst form to cloud and confuse the issue while providing for their own personal wealth, power, and job security.

Who will be that someone? Because literally over 70% of the people on this very planet believe we have more than a minuscule hand in CO2 PPM (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxie-en.svg) in our atmosphere. 70% of us believe humans have a significant role in our planets warming.

This is the fucked up thing with our current state of debate, it isn't the way this problem is being presented from either side, smart people know what is happening, I get... my family gets it, my employer is now paying out the ass in 2010 dollars because they get it. Our company actually did understand our role in the environment and increasing CO2 into our atmosphere, but in denial and diversion they became obsessed with security over terrorism and did not address this issue. The ignorance of my companies denial is costing literally hundreds of millions of dollars for waiting to grasp the inevitable, plus it encourages governments to regulate. When we could of been the example of our planets stewardship, we instead are the lackeys. I still think I have one of the greatest jobs out there, but I am amazed at how a group of administrative leaders could be so easily distracted from reality.

I think people are easily distracted from facts (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/etc/graphs.html). The facts are there, of course many folks just think the facts are cooked up or not completely true. It wasn't until recently the EPA (http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/7ebdf4d0b217978b852573590040443a/08d11a451131bca585257685005bf252!OpenDocument) was able to even work within the facts. Back in during the previous administration guys like Phillip Cooney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#Glob al_warming) were on the taxpayers payroll.

So above are facts, people who manipulate facts and then again facts.

If I as one person can understand facts I can use them work on my own reality. This has become the way for us at work now. Unfortunately soon it will be regulated into others lives whether they choose to understand facts or not.

[travesty]

Your "facts" are aren't "facts" to anyone but you until the sources and methodology for data collection are cited. Sorry...everything is suspect now. Your PBS link has no supporting documentation.

The EPA? Really? They aren't biased at all. (n) Once again, everything is suspect

These findings do not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other entities. However, this action is a prerequisite to finalizing the EPA’s proposed greenhouse gas emission standards for light-duty vehicles, which were jointly proposed by EPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Safety Administration on September 15, 2009.
Interesting, no?

I also like this little snipet in the opening paragraph;
After a thorough examination of the scientific evidence and careful consideration of public comments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people.

Try again holmes.

[DroppinScience]

This one is dedicated to valvano...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123671588&sc=fb&cc=fp

[RobMoney$]

Who will be that someone? Because literally over 70% of the people on this very planet believe we have more than a minuscule hand in CO2 PPM (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxie-en.svg) in our atmosphere. 70% of us believe humans have a significant role in our planets warming.


In 1491, well over 70% of people believed the world was flat.
Just because a majority happen to believe something, doesn't make it so.
Don't be such a sheep.

Don't you understand that now that the data is finally being presented publicly, and for critics to debate, the data is being rather easily discredited.
Hell, even the scientists themselves who are presenting the data are preemptively offering apologies and excuses.

The reason so many people believe in AGW is because these scientists never allowed a debate to begin, they just presented the "facts" they were being paid to present.

[RobMoney$]

This one is dedicated to valvano...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123671588&sc=fb&cc=fp


Yes, this is why they changed the term from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change".
How utterly convienient of them.

LOlz.

[yeahwho]

Your "facts" are aren't "facts" to anyone but you until the sources and methodology for data collection are cited. Sorry...everything is suspect now. Your PBS link has no supporting documentation.

The EPA? Really? They aren't biased at all. (n) Once again, everything is suspect

Try again holmes.

I wrote that haphazard and was on my way out the door but I was trying to impose two complete different examples of how one agency can disperse information on one topic... it just isn't clearly presented on my behalf so I do apologize.

So above are facts, people who manipulate facts and then again facts

And if you want to oppose what the PBS page numbers are I'm fine with that. Why would I give two shits if you waste the day away trying to disprove those numbers, if you do a preliminary click here and there on that PBS page you will find enough science to do whatever you want to do with it.

The facts are what should be kept in mind, when you can come up with a CO2PPM fact other than that on the PBS page I'm all ready to read about.

Believe me I would like those numbers to be way below what they are.

[yeahwho]

Don't you understand that now that the data is finally being presented publicly, and for critics to debate, the data is being rather easily discredited.
Hell, even the scientists themselves who are presenting the data are preemptively offering apologies and excuses.
.

By who? Show me the decrease in CO2 (http://co2now.org/)?

Bring that shit on.

[valvano]

This one is dedicated to valvano...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123671588&sc=fb&cc=fp

how can global warming cause both more snow and less snow?

since you used NPR as your source, I'll use somebody I equally disklike, Rush Limbaugh, check out the sound bytes here:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021210/content/01125107.guest.html

so per global warming believers in congress, all democrats and ready to throw our tax money at this fake problem, global warming causes both a lack of snow as well as additional snow? how can that be??

face it, the global warming / global change scam has been exposed:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/warming_meltdown_iD1hypJAstOrvovafbIbGK

[Burnout18]

how can global warming cause both more snow and less snow?

since you used NPR as your source, I'll use somebody I equally disklike, Rush Limbaugh, check out the sound bytes here:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021210/content/01125107.guest.html

so per global warming believers in congress, all democrats and ready to throw our tax money at this fake problem, global warming causes both a lack of snow as well as additional snow? how can that be??

face it, the global warming / global change scam has been exposed:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/warming_meltdown_iD1hypJAstOrvovafbIbGK

I dont consider spending money, or taxing companies that pollute more, a waste of resources. We do damage our environment. As human beings we damage this earth, so why change our ways to be a little bit more environmentally friendly.

I hope global warming is fake, i could care less and i was never sold on anything, but hey if we are going to change how much we pollute then fuck it, thats great.

Secondly, rush limbaugh? really? thawhat the fuck?

[Echewta]

I hope its fake so we can go back to cars with poor gas milage and emiting more pollutants (or just stuff since its not hurting anything).

[HAL 9000]

He was not turning over the data because he realized that what data he had was a pile of steamy crap that they had cooked up and he was afraid of sharing it with naysayers who would have easily poked holes through this data.




I think that you are probably right in that he is resisting FoI requests, indeed the UK information minister found this to be the case. But it is worth noting that this is probably because his department was under attack from groups trying to drown them in paper work. The CRU apparently received up to 20 FoI requests per day, which was beyond the capacity of the unit to manage (with 13 employees). I suspect, I would be tempted to behave in a similar way if I received such requests that prevented me from doing my job). Still he has rightly been criticised for this.

Meanwhile (I would imagine) that the data used in Jones’s research is in the public domain anyway (as it is all secondary data) as are his methodologies which have been examined at length and in public through the peer review process.

Regardless of the above, the accuracy of the temperature record does not stand or fall on Dr Jones’s work and indeed it seems to me (and I welcome correction on this point), that temperature record is not that important anyway.

The reason I say this is that we do have a very good record of the CO2 content of the atmosphere. And we know that we have increased it, and we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Even if temperatures were static or falling – it would not be strong evidence that CO2 emissions were not driving up temperatures unless other variables can be controlled for.

You also highlighted the article that Valvano posted yesterday (so you may want to see my comments on that in the ‘On Climate Change’ thread) and you highlighted a number of sections – many of which concerned the positioning of surface based weather stations. The Urban Heat Island effect is well known to the scientific community, which, has studied its impact and corrected its models accordingly.

You may be interested to know that a recent study followed up on the work of Anthony Watts and found no warming bias attributable to the positioning of the stations (taking into account the impact of model corrections to deal with the problem). (study is here - http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf (http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf))

You also highlighted (as you have done before) that the world has experienced other warming periods in the past. I do not dispute this, and I agree that we can tell from ice core records that these spells were not caused by CO2. However, all that demonstrates is that there is more than one variable capable of impacting climate, and this is not really news to climate science. Is there another point you would draw from this observation? If so, I would be grateful if you would clarify

In 1491, well over 70% of people believed the world was flat.


As an interesting aside, the fact of a spherical earth was discovered around 5 centuries BC (Eratosthenes even measured its circumference in the second century BC). That the Earth was round was widely known in Europe in the middle ages as it is today. The myth that people thought the Earth was flat prior to Columbus comes from the ‘fictional biography’ The Life and Times of Christopher Columbus written in the 1800s by Washington Irving.

[travesty]

The facts are what should be kept in mind, when you can come up with a CO2PPM fact other than that on the PBS page I'm all ready to read about.

Believe me I would like those numbers to be way below what they are.

CO2 levels are very easy to measure, I am sure there is not a lot of discrepancy in them, regarless of who takes them. But without evidence of cauality that C02 levels cause adverse climate change, then measuring CO2 levels is worthless. It's the causative link that has been historically suspect and is even more so right now, not the actual CO2 levels themselves. How do we know that doubling our C02 levels would be bad but quadrupling them may be really, really good? That's the point, we don't know and the scientists our government has used to promote this isssue have failed us with their greed and spinelessness. End of story. Fear mongerer.

[RobMoney$]

By who? Show me the decrease in CO2 (http://co2now.org/)?

Bring that shit on.


The faith some put in the talisman of "science".
Science btw, which they do not understand beyond the most basic level.


from the original article:

As Jones explains, “The IPCC models may have overestimated the climate sensitivity for greenhouse gases, underestimated natural variability, or both.”

[yeahwho]

blah, blah, blah.

NOAA (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/) & NASA (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/) are both fucking with your guys minds.

I'm sorry but facts are facts.

[RobMoney$]

Meanwhile (I would imagine) that the data used in Jones’s research is in the public domain anyway (as it is all secondary data) as are his methodologies which have been examined at length and in public through the peer review process.

Data sets from the United States and other places throughout the world have shown that the global temperature over the past century has increased.
It's true that a few emails from a couple of climatologists has not changed that.

And it's true that Dr. Jones is not the sole keeper of all things weather data related.
All of this info has been public knowledge, but not in a statistically meaningful way, or way that can be demonstrated as "unprecedented".
There wasn't a global temperature record in medieval times, you have like 100-150 years.
They have to recreate this from proxy things like tree rings.
Their attempts to show that this warming is unprecedented has involved cooked data that they'll willingly share amongst themselves, but not with those that might seek to look at the data with a critical eye.
They've been creative in their methodology and have used models and data that they knew would force the graph to look exactly like it did.
And they've been in full control of the peer review process at both the IPCC and at many of these "science journals" and have shut out dissenters in these places as well.

Phil Jones writing this off as "I had a stack of paper in my office and threw some stuff out, and that embarassed me" is kind of laughable.


Regardless of the above, the accuracy of the temperature record does not stand or fall on Dr Jones’s work and indeed it seems to me (and I welcome correction on this point), that temperature record is not that important anyway.

I agree.

The reason I say this is that we do have a very good record of the CO2 content of the atmosphere. And we know that we have increased it, and we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.


Yes, we do have a somewhat reliable record of the content of the atmosphere dating back millions of years, and I'll even agree with you that man has contributed to increasing the level of CO2, which is a greenhouse gas.

But we have yet to prove that the marginal increase in the CO2 content is what is responsible for the rise in temperatures.



Even if temperatures were static or falling – it would not be strong evidence that CO2 emissions were not driving up temperatures unless other variables can be controlled for.


Exactly.
So if we are to allow for these unknown variables to be at play that are completely independant of the effect of CO2, then you have to allow that those variables can be at play whether the temperatures are increasing, decreasing, or remaining the same.

I debate this "unprecedented" level of CO2 that Dr. Jones claims.
Ever hear of the 183 million year long Mesozic Era, as Jones made reference to in the article?
Oxygen levels were believed to be at around 15%, compared to todays levels of around 19.5%-21.5%.
CO2 levels were also believed to be much higher than todays levels.
Which actually caused a lot of life (such as plant) to grow very rapidly.
But again, we can't be sure why the earth's atmoshpere was composed of the levels it was.
Was the Earth warmer because of the higher CO2 content, or did the CO2 level of the atmosphere increase because of the rise in temperature?



You also highlighted (as you have done before) that the world has experienced other warming periods in the past. I do not dispute this, and I agree that we can tell from ice core records that these spells were not caused by CO2. However, all that demonstrates is that there is more than one variable capable of impacting climate, and this is not really news to climate science. Is there another point you would draw from this observation? If so, I would be grateful if you would clarify

Are you familiar with the Milankovitch Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles)?
There's a lot of it that completely flies right over my head, but I am familiar with some of it's theories thanks to many of the chemical engineers I happen to work with.

The Milankovitch theory suggests that atmospheric CO2 increase is a lagging factor of temperature increase, as opposed to a driving factor.
In other words, CO2 does not drive the earth's climate.
Instead, the earth's climate is driven by several other factors such as axial tilt and precession.

But just because CO2 does not drive the climate, doesn't mean that it doesn't contribute to the warmth of the climate.
The earth warms from those other factors, releasing CO2 from the oceans, which in turn heats up the atmosphere.

It's a theory which makes a lot more sense to me than man-made CO2 which caused the earth's atmospheric CO2 to increase exactly 2 ppm (that's Parts Per Million for the laymen) and is therefore significantly increasing temperatures.

[travesty]

blah, blah, blah.

NOAA (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/) & NASA (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/) are both fucking with your guys minds.

I'm sorry but facts are facts.

OK- I concede that the earth is getting warmer
OK- I conceded that CO2 levels are rising.

Now prove to me that one causes the other or quit talking out of your ass.

[yeahwho]

OK- I concede that the earth is getting warmer
OK- I conceded that CO2 levels are rising.

Now prove to me that one causes the other or quit talking out of your ass.

lol another ad hominem attack when confronted with reality.

At least you can stop debating the facts.

[RobMoney$]

lol another ad hominem attack when confronted with reality.

At least you can stop debating the facts.


Ultimately, you haven't the faintest fucking clue what to decry. What to spout, or where to find correlation.

You're simply a parrot of the AGW crowd.
You're not speaking from a position of objectivity.
You're not fit to hold anyone's position against them. None of us here are.
You're a 3rd shift wharehouseman or something, right?
You're not a fucking climatologist qualified to determine what data is legit and which isn't, and what that data tells us.
There's probably 100 people on the face of this earth qualified to pass judgement on this matter.

We're all simply stuck with appealing to their authority.

[yeahwho]

Ultimately, you haven't the faintest fucking clue what to decry. What to spout, or where to find correlation.

You're simply a parrot of the AGW crowd.
You're not speaking from a position of objectivity.
You're not fit to hold anyone's position against them. None of us here are.
You're a 3rd shift wharehouseman or something, right?
You're not a fucking climatologist qualified to determine what data is legit and which isn't, and what that data tells us.
There's probably 100 people on the face of this earth qualified to pass judgement on this matter.

We're all simply stuck with appealing to their authority.

I'm only concerned with these numbers, that is my objectivity. Fact 1 (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/) + 2 (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/).

I am just providing you with facts RobMoney$. If attacking me is your solution to those numbers, fine.

You can go back to your extremely intelligent conversation with HAL 9000 and travesty.

Just remember the facts and go from there. Before I provided the numbers that you previously debated I was bugging you.

Now you cannot debate those numbers, you have accepted the truth.

What you decide to do with the numbers is completely up to you, I could care less whether you listen to Carrot Top.

As long as were both on the same page with the math, then we both have an excellent starting point.

[RobMoney$]

If you bothered to follow the "extremely intelligent conversation" I was having (which I thought I was keeping as basic as possible), you'd know that I already explained why elevated CO2 levels aren't the driving force for temperature increase.

You're providing nothing more than background noise.
Perhaps the discussion has gone over your head at this point?
If so, it's best that you bow out gracefully now as not to risk further embaressement.

[yeahwho]

If you bothered to follow the "extremely intelligent conversation" I was having (which I thought I was keeping as basic as possible), you'd know that I already explained why elevated CO2 levels aren't the driving force for temperature increase.

You're providing nothing more than background noise.
Perhaps the discussion has gone over your head at this point?
If so, it's best that you bow out gracefully now as not to risk further embaressement.

I understand completely what you are talking about, this is old hat. I have read about this in depth for the past decade. I am not going to try and change anyone's POV.

I have debated this issue on here before and it's basically a no go as far as I am concerned. I do not care how you believe those numbers came about. All I am really interested in is nobody kids themselves about CO2 ppm and the latest Climate surface temperatures.

Milankovitch Theory or Pee Wee Herman Theory, who am I to deny such genius. I am completely in awe of your brilliance. Please let me stay and interject between my third shift forklifting breaks down here at the warehouse.

[travesty]

Not an ad hominem attack but rather a simple request (well maybe not so simple) to prove the link between the two sets of data you are basing your argument on. In absence of that link, you simply have no basis to say that climate change is caused by an increase in man made carbon dioxide.
The causative link has so far been largely theorized by predictions and modeling, not hard data that proves a link. As more and more problems surface regarding the data these models were based on, the theory of a link becomes more and more dubious. That's all.

I know how bad you WANT to believe all of this is true and that Al Gore will be vindicated. I'm sure you are one of those people who has modeled a great deal of their lives on this theory and don't want to go through the embarrassement of admitting you may be wrong and that you are sorry for chastizing others for not leading a "green life". Someday I hope you get your "I told you so" momment but right now the "facts" to prove that elevated C02 levels are responsible for climate change just ain't there Jack. It's still just conjecture at best.

[yeahwho]

Honestly I'm not going to bother with trying to convince anybody here about mans contribution to Global Warming.

It is a complete waste of my time and I feel knowledge is power. I'm not arguing over the multitudes of ways the planet decided to heat up at the most rapid rate in history, just in the past few hundred years.

What is really important is now after years of studying the change in our climate people can agree on a set of numbers.

The rapid rise in CO2 ppm (hhttp://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ttp://) and the GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) Surface Temperature Analysis (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/).

I have my own conclusions. I am having a much better time watching and reading your guys responses. It's amazing how sure you feel that man has no or minimal impact on Earths environment, that is keeping me entertained to no end. Or the other deal where maybe double the CO2PPM in the atmosphere could be good for us. That is an interesting theory.

[HAL 9000]

There are quite a lot of issues being raised now so I will just make a few points.

I have seen a lot in the sceptical community (and in this forum) challenging the concept of ‘unprecedented warming”. I found this puzzling because I couldn’t work out what the significance of this phrase was or the relevance of the concept for the climate change debate. It seems obvious that the earth has warmed and cooled in the past for a variety of reasons, so what?

After extensive googling, I can only find references to climate sceptics using the phrase, often in reference to the IPCC reports. I have searched through the IPCC reports and can only assume the phrase comes from here

“The combined radiative forcing due to increases in carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide is +2.30 +2.07 to +2.53W m, and its rate of increase during the industrial era is very likelyto have been unprecedented in more than 10,000 years” http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf)
If this is the quote then the climate sceptics have clearly misunderstood the text of the report. The IPCC is saying that an increase in the net energy into the climate caused by Greenhouse Gases is unprecedented. It is saying that while other warming periods exist, they were not caused by greenhouse gases. (and of course if this is not the source of the unprecedented claim then my googling has let me down, I remain open minded as to which is the correct explanation, I invite others to seek the origin of this issue).
To Robmoney and Travasty, a serious question - what would you regard as satisfactory evidence to believe that AGW was a reality?

The way I see it, it looks like this:

There is a theoretical model of climate which indicates that certain gases increase the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect. The extent to which these gases impact temperature impacts temperature varies depending on the gas but the largest contributors are water vapour and CO2 (http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf (http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf)
Human activities on the planet have increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere by around 35% and it is increasing now about 1% of pre industrial levels per year. Logically one would hypothesise this to have a warming effect on surface temperatures (all other factors being equal).

For me (and many others like yeahwho) this is enough to act, this is the point at which I would say that the burden of proof is on those saying there is no effect - but I can certainly understand why it is not enough for others so lets go on.

The only test of the hypothesis we can do is to examine the historical temperature record and try to understand the variables that contribute to it. This has been done and the conclusion is to a high degree of certainty is that there has been a warming effect and that this is driven b y the CO2. The more I look into this I keep hearing (here and in other places) the scientists have ignore this or ignored that (Milankovitch and Urban heat Islands have been mentioned for example), so I look those things up and find a ton of studies investigating the impact of those effects and that they are incorporated into the climate model.

Of course you can never prove a causal link – science does not deal in proofs but you can get a high degree of confidence. It seems to me that the statistical data shows a degree of confidence linking CO2 to temperature that is very high (probably around 90-95%). Is that not enough to take action? If not what is?

Finally, there are the accusations of organised fraud. I find this type of conspiracy theory to be a bit silly (ditto 9/11 truthers and the anti-vax stuff) but realise one needs to counter them seriously. The whole Climategate thing seems to be a bit of a storm in a tea-cup, but it is hard to convince people who see something sinister in all of that where I see a bunch of people pissed off at too many FoI requests.

One thing that can be demonstrated clearly is the deliberate attempts to promote denial and mis-lead in the press. Two articles have been posted in this thread.
One had the headline “World may not be warming, say scientists” when the scientists being interviewed were mostly arguing that the world was warming but slower than the IPCC report.

The other was the opening post and I encourage all to read the article and then the actual transcipt of Jones' answers (and play ‘name that logical fallacy’). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm)
and yet look at this
http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&q=phil+jones+admits+no+global+warming&meta=&aq=f&oq=phil+jones+admits+no+global+warming&fp=9b6b33f45300bd42

[RobMoney$]

I too, have spent a far too much time googling info to support my statements in this thread.

But to answer your question Hal, of what would convince me that AGW is real? My answer is nothing.
There's no way an appropiate amount of data could possibly be gathered on climate in my lifetime to convince me.
Not in a hundred lifetimes.

My question to you would be how can you possibly base a decision about AGW considering the data being used is such a small sample size (150 years?) of temperature recording, considering the earth is hundreds of millions of years old?

[Echewta]

Well, thats that then.

[HAL 9000]

But to answer your question Hal, of what would convince me that AGW is real? My answer is nothing.
There's no way an appropiate amount of data could possibly be gathered on climate in my lifetime to convince me.
Not in a hundred lifetimes.

So even if it was real – you would never believe it because there would be no empirical evidence that could convince you of its truth? Surely you don’t mean that?

I am not sure what you are getting at with your question, the Earths is billions of years old and in that time it will have been hot and cold and this will have happened for a variety of reasons. I know that logically without an accurate data set telling me so. What matters is that the data we do have supports the obvious hypothesis that more greenhouse gas increases the greenhouse effect.

More data can tell us more about the exact relationship (i.e. reduce the error margins on the estimates of the extent of the impact) but I am prepared to act (even if the error margins were wide) because the consequences of ignoring a genuine effect (a Type I error) are so many orders of magnitude worse than making a type II error. As the statistical probability of it being a genuine effect appears very high and the risks and rewards are heavily stacked in favour of action, I vote to act.

Anyway, I am shutting down for the night, it’s been fun!

[Echewta]

And doing something like making factories and cars less polluting isn't going to hurt.

[RobMoney$]

There are quite a lot of issues being raised now so I will just make a few points.

I have seen a lot in the sceptical community (and in this forum) challenging the concept of ‘unprecedented warming”. I found this puzzling because I couldn’t work out what the significance of this phrase was or the relevance of the concept for the climate change debate. It seems obvious that the earth has warmed and cooled in the past for a variety of reasons, so what?


Cambrian period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian) - 542 - 488.3 million years ago
Mean atmospheric O2 content over period duration = 12.5 Vol %(63 % of modern level)
Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration = 4500 ppm (16 times pre-industrial level)
Mean surface temperature over period duration = 21 °C (7 °C above modern level)

Ordovician period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordovician) - 488.3-443.7 million years ago
Mean atmospheric O2 content over period duration = 13.5 Vol % (68 % of modern level)
Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration = 4200 ppm (15 times pre-industrial level)
Mean surface temperature over period duration = 16 °C (2 °C above modern level)

Silurian period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silurian)-443.7-416 million years ago
Mean atmospheric O2 content over period duration = 14 Vol % (70 % of modern level)
Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration = 4500 ppm (16 times pre-industrial level)
Mean surface temperature over period duration = 17 °C (3 °C above modern level)

Devonian period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devonian) - 416-359.2 million years ago
Mean atmospheric O2 content over period duration = 15 Vol % (75 % of modern level)
Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration = 2200 ppm (8 times pre-industrial level)
Mean surface temperature over period duration = 20 °C (6 °C above modern level)

Carboniferous period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous) - 359.2-299 million years ago
Mean atmospheric O2 content over period duration = 32.5 Vol %(163 % of modern level)
Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration = 800 ppm (3 times pre-industrial level)
Mean surface temperature over period duration = 14 °C (0 °C above modern level)

Permian period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian) - 299-251 million years ago
Mean atmospheric O2 content over period duration = 23 Vol % (115 % of modern level)
Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration = 900 ppm (3 times pre-industrial level)
Mean surface temperature over period duration = 16 °C (2 °C above modern level)

Triassic period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triassic) - 251-199.6 million years ago
Mean atmospheric O2 content over period duration = 16 Vol % (80 % of modern level)
Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration = 1750 ppm (6 times pre-industrial level)
Mean surface temperature over period duration = 17 °C (3 °C above modern level)

Jurassic period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurassic) - 199.6-145.5 million years ago
Mean atmospheric O2 content over period duration = 26 Vol %(130 % of modern level)
Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration = 1950 ppm (7 times pre-industrial level)
Mean surface temperature over period duration = 16.5 °C (3 °C above modern level)

Cretaceous period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous) - 145.5-65.5 million years ago
Mean atmospheric O2 content over period duration = 30% (150 % of modern level)
Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration = 1700 ppm (6 times pre-industrial level)
Mean surface temperature over period duration = 18 °C (4 °C above modern level)

Paleogene period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleogene) - 65.5-23.03 million years ago
Mean atmospheric O2 content over period duration = 26 Vol %(130 % of modern level)
Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration = 500 ppm (2 times pre-industrial level)
Mean surface temperature over period duration = 18 °C (4 °C above modern level)

Neogene period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neogene) - 23.03-0 million years ago
Mean atmospheric O2 content over period duration = 21.5 Vol %(108 % of modern level)
Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration = 280 ppm (1 times pre-industrial level)
Mean surface temperature over period duration = 14 °C (0 °C above modern level)



I really don't think anything more needs to be said.

[travesty]

Except that there weren't any humans alive for any of those periods save the last little bit of the Neogene. My point is that the Earth is going to be here regardless of how much C02 we pump into the atmosphere, but maybe we won't.

To yeahwho I give up, your refusal to even attempt to provide proof that A causes B is akin to expecting 72 virgins as a martyr or beleiving that Jesus Christ will save your soul. It's nothing more than belief. Don't get me wrong, a belief is fine and I can respect your beliefs but as soon as someone tells me their beliefs are "facts" I have to call bullshit and demand to see the hard evidence.

To HAL read above. I, in fact, do believe that man has had a vast impact on our environment. That just makes sense to me. I see landfills and polluted waters everyday. My skepticism on "climate change" is limited mostly to carbon emissions and it's actual effect. As any 10th grade debate club participant knows, you can't prove a negative, you can only prove a positive and I have yet to see conclusive proof yet. What would it take? I don't know but I find it hard to beleive that man can create small black holes but can't get scientists to agree that man made c02 is going to kill us all. Call me a "denier" all you want but for the same reason I can't buy in to organized religion I also can not buy in to this issue just yet and that reason is a complete inability to turn off critical reasoning in my brain.

Trust me I do my part to help but also, just as with a religion, I would never be so pompous and arrogant as to tell someone else how to live their lives. That's my biggest issue with all of this. There is no more proof of man's effect on the climate than there is that jebus was the son of God yet people keep trying to cram this shit down my throat like it is undeniable fact. It's like the fucking Jehovas Witnesses. Believe what you want and who you want. Peace!

[RobMoney$]

Except that there weren't any humans alive for any of those periods save the last little bit of the Neogene.

That is a fact that only strengthens the argument that the increase in temperature has nothing to do with man-produced CO2.
Knowing that CO2 levels are at historic lows given the span of geologic time that life has existed on Earth, how can anyone possibly continue to put any faith in the AGW position?
Sularian period...16 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere and only a 3 °C rise in temperature?

Suddenly it's not expected to do so now because exactly 2 ppm of the CO2 in the past year put into the atmosphere is allegedly created by man?
It's incredibly irrational at best. How utterly egotistical of man to assume for one second that we somehow have any control whatsoever over this planet.
We are not even a grain of sand in it's hourglass.

When you look at the levels of CO2 that existed for hundreds of millions of years, and is common scientific knowledge, it sort of renders Al Gore's "Hockey stick" graph nothing more than a pathetic joke.

[yeahwho]

To yeahwho I give up, your refusal to even attempt to provide proof that A causes B is akin to expecting 72 virgins as a martyr or beleiving that Jesus Christ will save your soul. It's nothing more than belief. Don't get me wrong, a belief is fine and I can respect your beliefs but as soon as someone tells me their beliefs are "facts" I have to call bullshit and demand to see the hard evidence.



Those are some pretty harsh words, from what conclusions I'm reading here it is futile to even begin a conversation about the topic of rapid rise in CO2 + Climate Surface Temperatures. It's as if we never had an industrial revolution or increase in population (http://knowledge.allianz.com/nopi_downloads/images/demographic-change_global-population_150dpi_3.jpg) the past 300 years.

That is why I choose others draw there own conclusions. You guys don't need me to decide. I'm just not going to let someone tell me that the current meticulously documented evidence provided on CO2 levels (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/) and Climate surface temperatures (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/)is bullshit.

The thread title was what got my attention, Re: Climategate U Turn : No Global Warming since 1985, that is just blatantly false. It isn't anything personal.

[Adam]

There was dinosaurs in jungles near what we now call the Arctic - just because one set of animals can live in those conditions doesn't mean humans can - well some maybe.

Maybe I've got this all wrong but the hard coded genetic of any animal is to survive the longest and have the majority. We can only deal in recent human history - I did not realise that the fate of the human race wasn't a concern for some of you - thus a change in the climate where we can't survive as well isn't a concern. For me it is, I think humans are a great species that can achieve some great things if we take a little more care, become a little more clever and brave with our energy. Currently it seems to me the earth can't sustain us for long.

Just thinking on a local level, a reliance for any country that has to import energy can't be a good thing just in the security sense. If there was a major mishap and oil, gas, coal stopped reaching some of the developed world for just a few days, our whole way of life will change. Its a hell of a knock on effect and it seems so precariously balanced. So just for the sake of maintaining our own way of life it makes sense to make energy local and for most of us that means renewable. So lets do that. But I suppose as long as we stay friends with the fossil-fuel rich countries like China, Saudi Arabia et al we should be ok. Nothing lasts forever though and there seems more and more mistrust growing each day between us all.

I read on another forum the other day, someone said; "when was the last time a person on either side of the argument said, oh you're right, I didn't see it that way, my whole view on the climate has been changed, thanks for highlighting the facts to me" [sic]

[HAL 9000]

.....climate data

I really don't think anything more needs to be said.

Yes, I am afraid there is. You will remember we discussed earlier that the climate is a multi-variable system, so AGW proponents would say it is impacted by things other than CO2. CO2 is, for example not even the most powerful greenhouse gas.

So in order for the data you have posted to have any relevance whatsoever, you would also need to know levels of water vapour, methane, etc. As well as things like the reflective coefficient of the earths surface, axial tilt, power output of the sun, plant coverage of the earths surface, the structure of the land masses and their impact on ocean currents, the level of solar wind due to position of solar system in relation to galaxy spiral arms, quantity of volcanic activity and many many other things.

Indeed a quick search around the Wikipedia pages you linked to shows that these factors are being studied and that the information is built into the same models currently forecasting future temperatures.

But as a quick quide, the scientific community consists of thousands of scientists working in an honest and dedicated fashion, if you have spotted some piece of data and believe it renders the entire research careers of these individuals ‘a pathetic joke’ then chances are it is you who are in error (as in this case). Whilst it is wrong to appeal to authority it is reasonable to wonder ‘if I can spot this apparent flaw in the data, perhaps they can to, lets see if anyone has looked into it’ as you will probably find that 99.99% of the time they have.


To HAL read above. I, in fact, do believe that man has had a vast impact on our environment. That just makes sense to me. I see landfills and polluted waters everyday. My skepticism on "climate change" is limited mostly to carbon emissions and it's actual effect. As any 10th grade debate club participant knows, you can't prove a negative, you can only prove a positive and I have yet to see conclusive proof yet. What would it take? I don't know but I find it hard to beleive that man can create small black holes but can't get scientists to agree that man made c02 is going to kill us all. Call me a "denier" all you want but for the same reason I can't buy in to organized religion I also can not buy in to this issue just yet and that reason is a complete inability to turn off critical reasoning in my brain.

Trust me I do my part to help but also, just as with a religion, I would never be so pompous and arrogant as to tell someone else how to live their lives. That's my biggest issue with all of this. There is no more proof of man's effect on the climate than there is that jebus was the son of God yet people keep trying to cram this shit down my throat like it is undeniable fact. It's like the fucking Jehovas Witnesses. Believe what you want and who you want. Peace!


One of the things that puzzles me about all this, is the way some people (including yourself) act as if the idea of CO2 linking to temperature is some preposterous weird concept that makes no logical sense.

Are you seriously going to compare the belief that an increase in a greenhouse gas increases the greenhouse effect with the belief that thinking the right thoughts can get you magical second life?

What part of your critical reasoning process is bringing you to that conclusion?

It seems so simple, we have a straight-forward intuitive hypothesis – that greenhouses gases are positively correlated with greenhouse effects. We have a mountain of data that supports that hypothesis and these have led to models showing the consequences of this could be significant.

As I mentioned above, every time I read one of these sceptics comments about different reasons why the data is flawed, I research it and find a ton of data looking at the particular issue and explaining how it is already captured in the modelling.

And scientists are agreed on this issue, pretty much every climate research centre supports this conclusion. Much of the dissent is not saying 'its not happening' it correcting particular details but while still supporting the high level conclusions.

Here is what is happening though – genuine scientific debate is being twisted in the media to make it look as though the whole issue is controversial. In an article above, scientists were interviewed about there views as to why the global warming effect (while real) might have been overstated because their research gives a lower (but still positive) correlation – the headline says “There is no global warming” and the article also tries to make out that is the case. This is just one example but see pretty much every linnk posted by Valvano for more of the same or click the google search I linked above.

Creationists also use this tactic, they see Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay-Gould argue about the mechanics of punctuated equilibrium the Cambrian explosion and they announce ‘Evolution didn’t happen, the scientists cant agree therefore goddidit”.

[RobMoney$]

Interesting that you find it unbelievable when I tell you there's no possible way enough data could be collected in a hundred lifetimes to convince me that AGW is real,
yet when I produce proven scientific data that shows that not only have CO2 levels been much higher in previous eras of the earth, but in fact CO2 is among it's lowest levels yet, you continue to dismiss my theory.


Clearly, we have some things in common afterall. :cool:

[travesty]

One of the things that puzzles me about all this, is the way some people (including yourself) act as if the idea of CO2 linking to temperature is some preposterous weird concept that makes no logical sense.
It makes perfect sense if you are committed to the belief. I think it is potentially logical but spare me if I'm not convinced yet. Jihadists find it perfectly logical to strap on a couple pounds of C$ and detonate themselves in a crowded market. Logic is very subjective.

Are you seriously going to compare the belief that an increase in a greenhouse gas increases the greenhouse effect with the belief that thinking the right thoughts can get you magical second life?
That's exactly what I am doing.

What part of your critical reasoning process is bringing you to that conclusion?
The similarities in ideology, actions and acceptance of faith in lieu of evidence is uncanny.

It seems so simple, we have a straight-forward intuitive hypothesis [COLOR="red"]backed by millions of dollars in incentives to prove it correct – that greenhouses gases are positively correlated with greenhouse effects. We have a mountain of suspect data that supports that hypothesis and these have led to models incorporating vast assumptions and variables showing the consequences of this could be significant.
Gee when you say it like that.......


As I mentioned above, every time I read one of these sceptics comments about different reasons why the data is flawed, I research it and find a ton of data looking at the particular issue and explaining how it is already captured in the modelling.
You will always find what you are looking for....especially on the internet.

And scientists are agreed on this issue, pretty much every climate research centre supports this conclusion. Much of the dissent is not saying 'its not happening' it correcting particular details but while still supporting the high level conclusions.
It was less than a decade ago that scientists were unanimous in the "fact" that there were 9 planets in our solar system. Now there are 10....or 8. No scientist iworth their salt is going to tell you that C02 caused climate change is a "fact". They'll tell you it's a theory, regardless of of the "mountains" of data. It's a theory, and that's how I'm treating it. I am as skeptical as any proper scientist should be in examining data, regardless of the perceived outcome.

[HAL 9000]

Interesting that you find it unbelievable when I tell you there's no possible way enough data could be collected in a hundred lifetimes to convince me that AGW is real,


It is more that, while I have met closed minded people before, I have never encountered anyone who admits it so openly. To state that you will continue to disbelieve AGW even if it is true is to me shocking. To be honest, I expected more because your posts are often well thought out, hence my disbelief.

yet when I produce proven scientific data that shows that not only have CO2 levels been much higher in previous eras of the earth, but in fact CO2 is among it's lowest levels yet, you continue to dismiss my theory.


As I said above, the data is indeed well founded (again proof is not a scientific concept – but I presume you are using the term in a colloquial fashion). Indeed the data you quoted is produced by the same institutions, scientists and climate models that produce the current forecasts of global warming.

I have explained to you clearly why your ‘theory’ is flawed. If you need me to clarify, I am happy to do so – I genuinely only seek to help people understand science.

It troubles me that you would seem to want to stick to your conclusions even after I have explained why they are wrong. But trust me, if you think that the fact that CO2 levels were higher in past is in anyway a challenge to the current climate forecasts, please let me know, because it shows that you are misunderstanding something and it is important that you clarify if you want to take an interest in this topic.

If you do still think your ‘theory’ has merit, then I would encourage you to pursue it. I have set out the research you would need to do to develop your ideas (I would imagine that the data you need is online), and I would note that if you were right, international acclaim and possible Nobel prizes would likely follow your revelation. I would just observe that the fact you got that data from Wikipedia strongly suggests that the research has already been done and the conclusions are already in the consensus.

[HAL 9000]

Travesty, as a skeptic, I often find myself in discussions with people seeking to undermine the scientific consensus. Usually, once it is clear which way the data points the proponent of the pseudoscience tries the following (among other things);

1) says my position is equivalent to religion
2) says that my position is arrived at by interpreting the same information with a particular pre-determined bias
3) says that the reason all the data is on my side is because of a huge conspiracy
4) says that because scientific consensus has changed in the past, all scientific knowledge is suspect
5) says that scientific theory is ‘only a theory’ and not a fact.

You have managed to tick quite a large number of these boxes in a single post – kudos. You have got slightly mixed up because you have said in one post that there is no evidence and also that there is evidence but it is part of the conspiracy (I suggest you stick to one standard pseudoscience defence at a time for consistencies sake, usually people prefer to wait until I have shot one down before erecting the next one, especially if the two are contradictory)

You will always find what you are looking for....especially on the internet.


Travesty you will note that my searches have been focused on the scientific literature. If you can find a similar volume of peer reviewed data supporting your views, I would be genuinely interested in that (and you would have made a useful contribution to this discussion).


It was less than a decade ago that scientists were unanimous in the "fact" that there were 9 planets in our solar system. Now there are 10....or 8. No scientist iworth their salt is going to tell you that C02 caused climate change is a "fact". They'll tell you it's a theory, regardless of of the "mountains" of data. It's a theory, and that's how I'm treating it. I am as skeptical as any proper scientist should be in examining data, regardless of the perceived outcome.


If you want to discuss science topics, I suggest you get a basic understanding of the key words. In particular, appreciating the difference between a fact and a theory and the nature of proof is an area where you would benefit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_fact#Fact_in_science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_fact#Fact_in_science)

this is most often discussed in the context of Evolution where creationists will say “its only a theory”. As you have used this line in the context of climate change this is probably an area where you should do some reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact)

As an interesting aside, the change in the number of planets is not a reflection of a scientific or observational error. It is the case that, as more solar orbiting bodies were discovered, it was decided that an official framework for classifying them was needed. Pluto was deemed not to meet the new criteria for planet (now a dwarf planet).


Quote:
Are you seriously going to compare the belief that an increase in a greenhouse gas increases the greenhouse effect with the belief that thinking the right thoughts can get you magical second life?
That's exactly what I am doing.

Wow – at least you are honest!

[travesty]

Stange, you don't come off as a skeptic. If I had to guess you are either involved with climate change research directly or indirectly in some capacity. Of course I could be wrong. First let me be quite clear that I have never said there is NO evidence of a link between C02 levels and surface temp increases, in fact I have never even said that I don't believe it. All I have ever maintained is that I am skeptical, as I believe everyone should be anytime an issue becomes politicized. I have also never said there is a conspiracy to prove AGW correct. My point, again, is that I always question motives and funding sources. Trying to uncover who benefits most from proposed policies is usually very telling.

What are my views? What "views" on this topic have I put forth? How can I support a view that has never been proposed?

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation; in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.
Now that we have Fact and theory defined I would like to see the study that objectively and verifiably shows the recent temp. increases are directly caused by man made co2. Not indirectly caused, not partially caused, not could cause, not will cause but DOES cause.

Here's an enlightening video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RTMdaGw75c) from one of the world's foremost climate researchers, and AGW believer, Dr. William Sprigg addressing ClimateGate.
Some of his better points

"The state of natural systems never repeats so lost data can not be corrected"
Must avoid using "proxy data".
Climate models are virtually unrepeatbale and thus virtually unverifiable.
Data fabrication and manipulation has occured and must be stopped.
Alternative ideas are unwelcome and held to a higher standard.
"What we do have a is a road to certainty and it's under construction. It won't be certain for a long time"
Full and open sharing of data is mandatory.

[yeahwho]

How hard is it to find a site that correlates man and global warming?

How easy is it to put down a theory that promotes man and global warming?

Somehow the majority of scientists and citizens have figured this out. Including every major Country (China (http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Global-Warming/2009/1112/china-confronts-global-warming-dilemma)) and all of the Fortune 500. The information that is readily available and easily denied by some here has...

All of a sudden become hard to find?

This is why I will not permit myself to have a dialog with people who say they understand the idea but they need to see some hard evidence. Nothing has changed, the planet is still getting warmer, the CO2 ppm is still rising the past 300 years (the previous 10,000 it was stable @ 285ppm) and all the same suspects are saying the exact same thing they have been saying for the past two decades.

[travesty]

Stange, you don't come off as a skeptic. If I had to guess you are either involved with climate change research directly or indirectly in some capacity. Of course I could be wrong. First let me be quite clear that I have never said there is NO evidence of a link between C02 levels and surface temp increases, in fact I have never even said that I don't believe it. All I have ever maintained is that I am skeptical, as I believe everyone should be anytime an issue becomes politicized. I have also never said there is a conspiracy to prove AGW correct. My point, again, is that I always question motives and funding sources. Trying to uncover who benefits most from proposed policies is usually very telling.

What are my views? What "views" on this topic have I put forth? How can I support a view that has never been proposed?

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation; in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.
Now that we have Fact and theory defined I would like to see the study that objectively and verifiably shows the recent temp. increases are directly caused by man made co2. Not indirectly caused, not partially caused, not could cause, not will cause but DOES cause.



Here's an enlightening video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RTMdaGw75c) from one of the world's foremost climate researchers, and AGW believer, Dr. William Sprigg addressing ClimateGate.
Some of his better points

"The state of natural systems never repeats so lost data can not be corrected"
Must avoid using "proxy data".
Climate models are virtually unrepeatbale and thus virtually unverifiable.
Data fabrication and manipulation has occured and must be stopped.
Alternative ideas are unwelcome and held to a higher standard.
"What we do have a is a road to certainty and it's under construction. It won't be certain for a long time"
Full and open sharing of data is mandatory.

If one of the top AGW proponents says that it isn't a certainty, that there has been faulty and suspect data and see governmental bias....who am I to disagree? I'm assuming that if it's not a certainty then it's also not a fact?

I'll say it again, it's a theory and even if it has "consensus" it's not a "fact" and that's the way I'm treating it.

[RobMoney$]

Nothing has changed, the planet is still getting warmer, the CO2 ppm is still rising the past 300 years (the previous 10,000 it was stable @ 285ppm) and all the same suspects are saying the exact same thing they have been saying for the past two decades.


I'm glad to see you revising your comments about the CO2 content of the atmosphere to the previous 300 years.
I hope you don't mind if I take some pride in that.

But here is exactly why the entire AGW theory is flawed before it even begins.

Basing your entire theory on the fact that because the earth's temperature, or the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was a certain level for the previous 10,000 years now (and I'm not even sure if that statement of yours is true, Yeahwho) somehow means that the earth should continue to remain at those same levels forever from here on out, and that we have some sort of control over those levels, considering the amount of data we have (and what we can all agree is factual data and what isn't) establishing a mean and a maximum of much higher levels of CO2 and temp., and considering 285ppm is a historical low point is just ridiculous.

The only thing that has been established beyond reproach is the fact that the atmosphere and the earth itself are not static and is ever changing.
The idea that taking a 150 year temperature sample from a specimen that has a history of half a billion years, which basically equates to a 3ppm sample, or .0000003% and thinking that's somehow enough to make an accurate prediction of something that is in constant flux can only be described as one of man's greatest displays of arrogance and ego.



This is why I will not permit myself to have a dialog with people who say they understand the idea but they need to see some hard evidence.


Also Yeahwho, can you spare us the dramatics about how you're "not going to bother trying to convince us", or how you "refuse to have a dialog" (and yeah, it's dialogue, not dialog).
You're either a willing participant in the discussion, or you're not.
Nobody's forcing you to continue posting about this.
Either way, stop being so condescending.

[yeahwho]

You can tell me the CO2 levels of 100's of millions of years back, but you cannot verify the past measly 10,000 years?

[yeahwho]

Not to cause you any embaressement (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1722623&postcount=33), but Which spelling is correct: Dialogue or dialog?

Perhaps we're both correct to some certain degree, on everything. But both spellings of the word dialogue/dialog are 100% acceptable in American literature.

Check it out (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=dialog+spelling&revid=1787963040&ei=CJB_S7DiAoqsswOg8NzwAw&sa=X&oi=revisions_inline&resnum=0&ct=broad-revision&cd=7&ved=0CDIQ1QIoBg&fp=79a46ede2c2a175d).

[RobMoney$]

You can tell me the CO2 levels of 100's of millions of years back, but you cannot verify the past measly 10,000 years?


We're talking about your claim that 285 ppm has been a "stable" level for the past 10,000 years, yet you gave no link or citation of where you got that info from.

The burden of providing that info is on you, not on me.

[yeahwho]

It's too hard. I can't do it. I did it once and now I'm finding it too complicated. I had that information before and now it's escaping me.

I'll just sit back and learn stuff from you.

[RobMoney$]

So you admit you're just making shit up then?
Nice.

And thank you for not continuing the "condescending" routine.

[Adam]

you're all fucking crazy.

[yeahwho]

So you admit you're just making shit up then?
Nice.

And thank you for not continuing the "condescending" routine.

You busted me on that 10,000 years ago was the last time we had 380ppm of CO2 in earths atmosphere. It's changed over the years from that to 800,000 years ago... then it jumped to 2.1 million years ago ... then holy fucking ozone anus it went up to 15 million years was the last time scientists could find data that matched our current CO2 levels. Yet actual real scientists believe it was more like 20 million years ago the CO2 levels were at this level. What does it all mean? They believe it was warmer then by 5-11F and the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today.

Interestingly enough this wasn't a slow gradual rise from 280ppm to 380ppm+ CO2 this time around, it all happened in about the last 300 years!

[yeahwho]

Cambrian period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian) - 542 - 488.3 million years ago
Mean atmospheric O2 content over period duration = 12.5 Vol %(63 % of modern level)
Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration = 4500 ppm (16 times pre-industrial level)
Mean surface temperature over period duration = 21 °C (7 °C above modern level)

Ordovician period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordovician) - 488.3-443.7 million years ago
Mean atmospheric O2 content over period duration = 13.5 Vol % (68 % of modern level)
Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration = 4200 ppm (15 times pre-industrial level)
Mean surface temperature over period duration = 16 °C (2 °C above modern level)

Silurian period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silurian)-443.7-416 million years ago
Mean atmospheric O2 content over period duration = 14 Vol % (70 % of modern level)
Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration = 4500 ppm (16 times pre-industrial level)
Mean surface temperature over period duration = 17 °C (3 °C above modern level)

Devonian period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devonian) - 416-359.2 million years ago
Mean atmospheric O2 content over period duration = 15 Vol % (75 % of modern level)
Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration = 2200 ppm (8 times pre-industrial level)
Mean surface temperature over period duration = 20 °C (6 °C above modern level)

Carboniferous period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous) - 359.2-299 million years ago
Mean atmospheric O2 content over period duration = 32.5 Vol %(163 % of modern level)
Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration = 800 ppm (3 times pre-industrial level)
Mean surface temperature over period duration = 14 °C (0 °C above modern level)

Permian period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian) - 299-251 million years ago
Mean atmospheric O2 content over period duration = 23 Vol % (115 % of modern level)
Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration = 900 ppm (3 times pre-industrial level)
Mean surface temperature over period duration = 16 °C (2 °C above modern level)

Triassic period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triassic) - 251-199.6 million years ago
Mean atmospheric O2 content over period duration = 16 Vol % (80 % of modern level)
Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration = 1750 ppm (6 times pre-industrial level)
Mean surface temperature over period duration = 17 °C (3 °C above modern level)

Jurassic period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurassic) - 199.6-145.5 million years ago
Mean atmospheric O2 content over period duration = 26 Vol %(130 % of modern level)
Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration = 1950 ppm (7 times pre-industrial level)
Mean surface temperature over period duration = 16.5 °C (3 °C above modern level)

Cretaceous period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous) - 145.5-65.5 million years ago
Mean atmospheric O2 content over period duration = 30% (150 % of modern level)
Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration = 1700 ppm (6 times pre-industrial level)
Mean surface temperature over period duration = 18 °C (4 °C above modern level)

Paleogene period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleogene) - 65.5-23.03 million years ago
Mean atmospheric O2 content over period duration = 26 Vol %(130 % of modern level)
Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration = 500 ppm (2 times pre-industrial level)
Mean surface temperature over period duration = 18 °C (4 °C above modern level)

Neogene period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neogene) - 23.03-0 million years ago
Mean atmospheric O2 content over period duration = 21.5 Vol %(108 % of modern level)
Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration = 280 ppm (1 times pre-industrial level)
Mean surface temperature over period duration = 14 °C (0 °C above modern level)



I really don't think anything more needs to be said.

In context your numbers reflect the exact same numbers every major scientist uses to calculate the probability that man may have a hand in the current warming of the planet.

Taking a look at those years without the the CO2 concentrations included (http://www.scientificpsychic.com/etc/timeline/timeline.html)in the upper atmosphere we can develop a sense of what has taken place on the planet earth.

The above data combined with the extremely accurate recent data of the past 10,000 to 800,000 years taken in whole with volcanic behavior and sunspot activity have given the majority of scientists reason to believe that the upsurge in greenhouse emissions of the past 300 years a reason to say more.

A lot of people are listening, some people are actually trying to make a difference because that is truly an act of caring.

[RobMoney$]

In context your numbers reflect the exact same numbers every major scientist uses to calculate the probability that man may have a hand in the current warming of the planet.

Taking a look at those years without the the CO2 concentrations included (http://www.scientificpsychic.com/etc/timeline/timeline.html)in the upper atmosphere we can develop a sense of what has taken place on the planet earth.

The above data combined with the extremely accurate recent data of the past 10,000 to 800,000 years taken in whole with volcanic behavior and sunspot activity have given the majority of scientists reason to believe that the upsurge in greenhouse emissions of the past 300 years a reason to say more.

A lot of people are listening, some people are actually trying to make a difference because that is truly an act of caring.

May have a hand in, developing a sense of, and reasons to believe...

IT'S SETTLED THEN!

[yeahwho]

May have a hand in, developing a sense of, and reasons to believe...

IT'S SETTLED THEN!

Or of course we can have the IPCC look at what you've aped from their research and copy and pasted earlier in this thread.

Then surmise conclusion of RobMoney$,

I really don't think anything more needs to be said.

So we are really doing an injustice to your intelligence by trying to understand mans effect on the planet earth?

Seriously is that what conclusions you've drawn from all of the information provided?

You call me condescending over and over and over on this thread, but the fucked up thing is this, you say I'm in over my head. Which is it, am I in over my head or am I condescending/

Ad Hominen attacks are your specialty. Virtually everyone who disagrees with your point of view will eventually be attacked by you. Is this how you behave in real life or is that just reserved for us here at the Beastie Boys site? You know the 6 or 7 people who post here in this forum on a regular basis.

[RobMoney$]

Or of course we can have the IPCC look at what you've aped from their research and copy and pasted earlier in this thread.

Then surmise conclusion of RobMoney$,

I really don't think anything more needs to be said.

So we are really doing an injustice to your intelligence by trying to understand mans effect on the planet earth?

Seriously is that what conclusions you've drawn from all of the information provided?

You call me condescending over and over and over on this thread, but the fucked up thing is this, you say I'm in over my head. Which is it, am I in over my head or am I condescending/

Ad Hominen attacks are your specialty. Virtually everyone who disagrees with your point of view will eventually be attacked by you. Is this how you behave in real life or is that just reserved for us here at the Beastie Boys site? You know the 6 or 7 people who post here in this forum on a regular basis.


1. I never said you were in over your head. I merely asked you if that were the case.
You asked me to provide you with evidence of CO2 levels dropping, virtually beating your chest and daring me to "bring that shit on".

I supplied you with evidence via the above quoted links I posted.
I merely stated "nothing else needed to be said" rather that commenting with a condescending comment, which I easily could have.

Now you're mocking my intelligence for posting those numbers?


2. I haven't made a single personal attack on you or anyone else in this thread.
I did make the statement that you aren't fit to hold anyone's position against them as you are not a climatologist.
I also said none of us here are.
Perhaps something was lost in my text, or in your reading comprehension of that text?


Like most reasonably intelligent people, you've obviously come to rely on the strength of your own judgment over the years.
And doubtless you've had good reason to come to doubt the judgment of others.
But it's blinded you to your preconceptions.
The world isn't full of idiots, no matter how much you surround yourself with them day to day, some people are just flat out brilliant, in fact.
Of those, some have become scientists.
Of those, some have devoted their lives to the question of environmental sustainability.
And IN matters of environmental sustainability, you either share their opinion wholesale, or your opinion is a joke.
The tiniest step away from the media and partisan posturing ought to make this much obvious to anybody with a hint of objectivity in their blood.

That being said, I feel I have said everything I've wanted to say on this issue and will step away at this point in an effort not to further embaress myself.

[HAL 9000]

Stange, you don't come off as a skeptic. If I had to guess you are either involved with climate change research directly or indirectly in some capacity. Of course I could be wrong. First let me be quite clear that I have never said there is NO evidence of a link between C02 levels and surface temp increases, in fact I have never even said that I don't believe it. All I have ever maintained is that I am skeptical, as I believe everyone should be anytime an issue becomes politicized. I have also never said there is a conspiracy to prove AGW correct. My point, again, is that I always question motives and funding sources. Trying to uncover who benefits most from proposed policies is usually very telling.



I owe you an apology, I didn’t think that was where you were coming from, we probably have quite similar views. I also agree with more or less everything the guy in your link said (it was quite similar to what I said in the On Climate Change thread and other places). I agree that politicians need to keep their noses out of the science and politicians on both sides of this are making a right hash of the science.

When I say I am a skeptic, I mean I am part of the scientific sceptical community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism).

I am not connected to climate science in any way. I don’t even find it a particularly interesting topic, I suppose my interest here is science generally and correcting common misconceptions. Typically I get involved in discussions where most people do not understand the science – areas like quack medicine (homeopathy, chiropractic, anti-vax etc) and evolution with a bit of myth busting thrown in. Recently, a lot of attention has been thrown on the science of climate change which the political blogosphere has completely failed to understand – hence I am finding myself writing about it.

Anyway, you seem to be operating under the (very common) misconception that there is some sort of hierarchy for scientific ideas that goes something like this – hypothesis – theory – fact – law. It may be slightly different, but you seem to say that climate change has not yet moved from theory to fact. This means you are misunderstanding these terms (as many people do).

The truth is that that facts and theories are totally different sorts of things. A causal relationship between climate change and CO2 will never be a scientific fact because that is not what scientific facts are. Theories are the tested explanatory frameworks which explain the relationships between facts. In this case the facts are the millions of temperature, CO2, solar activity, etc etc observations that have been made. Those are the scientific facts. The theory is the explanatory framework that describes the relationships between those facts in the context of the underlying physical processes (e.g. the greenhouse effect).

As a simplified climate example, a fact might be that higher average temperatures are recorded near the equator than the poles. The theory is that the temperatures are related to the amount of solar radiation reaching those areas which is a function of the angle of the ground to the suns rays.

There is a small hierarchy, a hypothesis is an untested theory, and it generally graduates to a theory once it has been shown, under some sort of test, to better explain the facts than the existing theory.

An accepted theory is the highest level such a framework can reach and is where the greenhouse theory sits at present and one of the predictions of that theory is that global temperatures will be increased (all else being equal) if CO2 levels rise. Most scientific theories are known to be incomplete and more research is being done on them but they are successful in that they have predictive power about the world we live in. Such theories include Natural Selection, Atomic Theory, Quantum Theory, the Germ Theory of Disease and the Theory of Gravity (a revision of which will soon be tested in the Large Hadron Collider).

The point of all this is to illustrate, that if you are looking for someone to announce AGW is a fact or ‘has been proved’, science is not the field to do it (calling AGW a fact is the sort of thing a politician would say). All science can do in this case is give you a probability that climate change is correlated with human activity. That probability seems to be in the region of 90-95% which I would have thought would indicate a need for action. You are correct that there is uncertainty, and there always will be – there just isn’t that much uncertainty and I personally object to acting on a 90% probability as being analogous to a religious or faith act.

Out of interest, who do you think benefits from CO2 reduction policies?

[kaiser soze]

robmoney insult people?!?!

Come on! He's as sweet as peas, or was it horse piss?

Anyways, it doesn't matter what kind of climate change happened before man, it is the subtle changes that affect our livelihoods - droughts, flooding, extreme weather conditions, acid rain, desertification, shrinking land glaciers and aquifers (ie fresh water sources), deforestation, mountain top mining etc. etc.

people think it takes a massive shift to fuck our lives up - not really, the "little things" are adding up