working now:

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

7/29/2011 7:56:50 AM

I finally got to skim through it, I forgot how boring and technical climate science can be, bleh.

a couple things:

The forbes article kinda blows the findings of the paper out of proportion IMO. I just don't see how this "blows a gaping hole in AGW." Nowhere in the paper does Spencer claim that AGW is not happening, only that the rate of heating may be slower than what has been previously modeled. The rate of change has always been an area of uncertainty.

also

http://news.yahoo.com/climate-change-debunked-not-fast-234403696.html

hopefully we can get a more thorough discussion from both sides of the article than what that link above gives us.

7/29/2011 1:26:30 PM

sounds like earth can take care of itself to me.

7/29/2011 2:28:05 PM

It looks like the modeling system that predicts global climate change did not take adequate care in address other details which could largely affect the climate change.


Some stuff that might help;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing



This appears to be the main issue:

Quote :

"It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations."

I believe there claim is that the overall radiative forcing is being inflated by radiative feedback, and the increase was accounted for by CO2 production. Thus if radiative forcing was smaller due to radiative feedback CO2 may not have such a large roll in radiative forcing, which in turn affects climate change.

7/29/2011 2:47:49 PM

Quote :

"It looks like the modeling system that predicts global climate change did not take adequate care in address other details which could largely affect the climate change. "

that's what reasonable people have been screaming the whole time. "You didn't take clouds into effect? You didn't take solar cycles into effect? Really?"

from the yahoo article:

Quote :

"New research suggesting that cloud cover, not carbon dioxide, causes global warming is getting buzz in climate skeptic circles. But mainstream climate scientists dismissed the research as unrealistic and politically motivated."

I don't think they want to be throwing stones from their crystal palace.

Quote :

""He's taken an incorrect model, he's tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct," Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, said of Spencer's new study."

You'd think he was talking about Michael Mann, there.

But, yeah, if Spencer really only looked at 10 years of information, I'd say his study is not reliable.

7/30/2011 8:15:09 PM

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/

8/1/2011 11:20:16 AM

Quote :

"Did we “prove” that the IPCC climate models are wrong in their predictions of substantial future warming? No, but the dirty little secret is that there is still no way to test those models for their warming predictions. And as long as the modelers insist on using short term climate variability to “validate” the long term warming in their models, I will continue to use that same short term variability to show how the modelers might well be fooling themselves into believing in positive feedback. And without net positive feedback, manmade global warming becomes for all practical purposes a non-issue. (e.g., negative cloud feedback could more than cancel out any positive feedback in the climate system). If I’m a “denier” of the theory of dangerous anthropogenic climate change, so be it. But as a scientist I’d rather deny that theory than deny the 1st Law of Thermodynamics."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/01/rise-of-the-1st-law-deniers/#more-44456

8/1/2011 12:47:25 PM

Quote :

"The horrible July heat wave, lasting weeks in some cities, the entire month in others, affected nearly 200 million people in the United States at some point. Preliminary data show that 2,712 high-temperature records were either tied or broken in July, compared with 1,444 last year, according to the NCDC. At least one weather station in all 50 states set or tied a daily high temperature record at some point during July. Two weather stations tied for the hottest temperature recorded during July. The Blythe station in Riverside County, Calif., and the Gila Bend station in Maricopa County, Ariz., both hit 120 degrees Fahrenheit (48.9 degrees Celsius) in July. Even Alaska recorded unusually sweaty temperatures. The temperature at the Northway weather station in Southeast Fairbanks County hit a record 97 F (36.1 C) on July 11. "

http://news.yahoo.com/50-states-see-record-highs-july-173203227.html

8/2/2011 1:14:38 AM

You should put that in it's own thread since it has nothing to do with global warming.

8/2/2011 10:19:52 AM

Just wait until 6 months from now when pryderi will be scolding us all on how weather has nothing to do with climate.

8/2/2011 11:13:25 AM

More people die every year from cold-related issues but you'd never know that since the MSM prefers fear mongering us with global warming doom and gloom.

8/2/2011 11:48:52 AM

Just saw a comment on a news thread about massive solar flares in 2013 and thought it was pretty funny:

Quote :

"This is obviously Universial Warming started by George Bush and kicked into high gear by the Tea Party. The only thing that can save us is if Al Gore gets on his plane and flies around the world backwards turning back time and averting total meltdown "

8/9/2011 12:00:26 PM

Deniers are so quick to point out the imperfect knowledge of AGW proponents, warning that failure to acknowledge their imperfect knowledge could lead to economic consequences when policies are enacted based on that.

Do they (deniers) ever stop to think that their own knowledge is imperfect, and if incorrect their insistence on inaction could lead to global catastrophes that might plunge civilization into famine and collapse?

Just saying that a very basic pro/con list quickly reveals, if you acknowledge that all of us have imperfect knowledge, that one side clearly has the best cost-risk ratio.

[Edited on August 11, 2011 at 11:17 AM. Reason : .]

8/11/2011 11:15:54 AM

the cost-risk ratio only supports the AGW crowd when they use their bullshit scare tactics of 100' sea rise and impending hurricanes. When those turn out to be bullshit, the cost-risk ratio swings rapidly back towards doing nothing. I, for one, don't want to see us spend trillions of dollars and destroy the economy just so people on a message board will stop bitching about the heat.

8/11/2011 12:11:35 PM

Uh, no, you don't need those kinds of catastrophes at all to see huge risks. Two or three degrees rise would shift arable land hundreds of miles and in some cases eliminate it. How do you think you'll like living in the US if the breadbasket suffers a dust bowl that lasts a decade?Likewise, it only takes a few degrees temperature change to shift currents and thus fishing sources, add that to PH changes and you can see entire species of fish go extinct. It doesn't take extremes at all, climates are very sensitive systems and we've built our civilization around a rather specific configuration of one. The entire balance of food production could shift dramatically with just a degree or two shift, it's already shifting slowly over the past century as the temperature has inched upward.

That's just food supplies. What happens when desertification in Africa and China and to an extent the western US accelerates to the point that communities and cities become increasingly expensive to supply with food and water? There are many, many communities worldwide that rely on glacial runoff for water, what happens when those glaciers that took thousands of years to freeze melt away in a matter of years (already happening) ? Shifting air currents have bearings on pollination and migration, leading to declining populations or invasive species, putting even more species (Many of which we depend on for food or raw materials) at risk. A sea level rise of a few inches, not even a foot, would put many coastal cities into much higher risk categories for flooding, prevention of which requires massive infrastructure investment.

It only takes a few degrees to change everything. And God help us if negative feedback loops start set in as well. It's extremely brazen to even toy with the idea of taking no actions that might prevent a long-term global increase of just a couple degrees. Even if you assume the most meager negative effects, it is wildly more expensive to deal with the consequences of climate change than it is to try and prevent it by shifting to more futuristic energy sources.


edit: In either event, you're missing the point. You're purposely latching onto the most wild predictions, calling them bullshit, and then concluding we should do nothing. That leaves the unanswered question of "What about everything between 'no effects' and 'utter doomsday scenarios'?". Do you see the fundamental flaw in your logic there? Do you even acknowledge your imperfect knowledge on this?

[Edited on August 11, 2011 at 1:26 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2011 1:13:49 PM

youre being very greedy-

i hear russia is very excited to start growing more of their own food.

8/11/2011 1:29:48 PM

I'm just saying that it doesn't take extreme things like 100' sea level rises or huge temperature swings to cause massive upheaval of our current world order and disruption of the vast majority of peoples' lives. Seemingly trivial changes in climate have very non-trivial consequences.

[Edited on August 11, 2011 at 1:37 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2011 1:37:06 PM

Quote :

"Deniers are so quick to point out the imperfect knowledge of AGW proponents"

actually, no. we are pointing out the outright fucking FRAUD being perpetrated. it's not just a lack of knowledge. it's distorting and making up facts.

Quote :

"Just saying that a very basic pro/con list quickly reveals, if you acknowledge that all of us have imperfect knowledge, that one side clearly has the best cost-risk ratio. "

Not really. Causing us to go back to the dark ages over unproven assertions and outright fraud hardly seems like a "best cost-risk ratio."

Quote :

"?Likewise, it only takes a few degrees temperature change to shift currents and thus fishing sources"

Despite any evidence that ocean currents are being affected, anyway. DOH.

Quote :

"There are many, many communities worldwide that rely on glacial runoff for water, what happens when those glaciers that took thousands of years to freeze melt away in a matter of years (already happening) ?"

Well, at the point where it's actually happening, and it's not, then we can then start talking about it. There are ZERO glaciers that might melt in "a matter of years." Bullshit talking points like this don't belong in ANY rational discussion.

Quote :

"A sea level rise of a few inches, not even a foot, would put many coastal cities into much higher risk categories for flooding, prevention of which requires massive infrastructure investment. "

And it's coming no matter what we do. 1.8mm/year for the past 1000 years.

Quote :

"It's extremely brazen to even toy with the idea of taking no actions that might prevent a long-term global increase of just a couple degrees."

But only if the scenario is actually happening. Crippling our ability to respond to a crisis hardly seems like an intelligent way to respond.

8/11/2011 2:36:11 PM

aaronburro, so what if you're wrong and it was the deniers who were spreading lies?

8/11/2011 2:54:37 PM

throughout the history of the world civilizations have always prospered greatly during warm periods...and faltered greatly during cool periods.

8/11/2011 2:54:59 PM

^^ what if YOU are wrong and it is the AGWers spreading lies? I've got facts on my side. they've got fraudulent studies and faked graphs on theirs

I declare that ants are planning to destroy every single person on earth. They easily outnumber us, and the number of anthills outside my back door is growing with every passing day. mrfrog, i assume you dispute this. what if you are wrong about it? We should eradicate every single ant, just to be sure.

I declare that there is an alien fleet on the dark side of the moon, poised to strike. We better nuke the moon, just to be sure. You disagree? What if you are wrong and we could have stopped it just by nuking the moon?

do you now see the folly of such a stupid statement? Simply saying "what if you are wrong" is a HORRIBLE basis for policy and action. You act based on fact, especially in the realm of science. That this is the bullshit that AGWers fall onto is telling

[Edited on August 11, 2011 at 3:24 PM. Reason : ]

8/11/2011 3:19:45 PM

Occam's Razor people...

The burden of proof is on warmists to prove something problematic is going on. It's not on "non-believers" to prove otherwise.

8/11/2011 3:33:25 PM

But they already made the argument, a strong argument.

All of your current statements are not based on an absence of evidence given by the proponents of AGW, but based on a litany of crack science that supposedly debunks it. It is not that we lack evidence, it is that you refute the evidence.

Occam's Razor applies in the case of all other things being equal, and if there was no external stress on the ecology of the Earth, then yes, the possibility of temperature remaining same is the most likely outcome, although it is not guaranteed. That is a correct application of Occam's Razor.

Now, if we know that we've emitted a greenhouse gas with a know quantifiable amount of greenhouse effect, then the simplest possibility becomes the one in which the temperature raises by that quantified amount. Do you disagree?

8/11/2011 4:25:36 PM

I'm kinda for eradicating all ants. And nuking the moon would be kind of cool..

8/11/2011 5:06:46 PM

Quote :

"I've got facts on my side. they've got fraudulent studies and faked graphs on theirs"

Hahahahaahahahaahah.

We know that the level of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere has steadily increased since the beginning of the industrial age. This is something we can measure. It's an undisputed fact.

We know that the amount of heat energy reaching the surface of our planet from space has also steadily increased. We can also measure this. It's an undisputed fact.

We know that the total heat content of the earth, land and sea, has also steadily increased. We can measure this too. It's an undisputed fact.

We also now this is happening during a period of lowered solar activity. This is something we can measure. It's an undisputed fact.

None of this is new either. Scientist's have been studying these measurements for decades. They knew, based on proven chemical equations and laws of physics, that all the CO2 that man is pumping into the atmosphere would produce the effects they then confirmed by watching the measurements over the years. They then made predictions based on that proven science on how those outcomes would affect things like our sea levels, arctic ice levels, and eventually our climate. Those predictions already came or are coming true.

And then you have people like aaronburro who equate that giant mountain of indisputable facts and evidence with,

Quote :

"I declare that there is an alien fleet on the dark side of the moon, poised to strike. We better nuke the moon, just to be sure. You disagree? What if you are wrong and we could have stopped it just by nuking the moon?"

Due to this, 97% of the world's climate scientists agree that climate change is happening and it's caused by man. Almost every country in the world is taking steps to reduce their environmental footprint. It's been acknowledged as a serious problem that needs to be addressed at basically any kind of global summit of world leaders. Arguing with people who are not on board is a total waste of time at this point. The only "evidence" they have is the same kind that led us to war in Iraq: fake, and arguing with them is like arguing with people who still think that was a good idea.

[Edited on August 11, 2011 at 5:09 PM. Reason : :]

8/11/2011 5:08:57 PM

Quote :

"Those predictions already came or are coming true."

not really

Quote :

"Almost every country in the world is taking steps to reduce their environmental footprint"

the problem is, countries who aren't taking steps to reduce their carbon footprints (ie, China and India) are going to outweigh the countries who do take steps. So if the US went gung ho about changing energy resources, the global net is still going to be increased CO2 emissions

so why should the US, already economically fucked, fuck ourselves even more about something that not only might not be a problem, but that China and India aren't going to do anything about themselves?

8/11/2011 5:10:24 PM

^Both China and India have schemes they are developing for carbon trading or emission limits. I have no idea how effective they will be but its still a step ahead of anything we've developed in the US

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/10/carbon-tax-emissions-trading-international

8/11/2011 6:06:44 PM

Quote :

"But they already made the argument, a strong argument."

no they didn't. Their entire fucking argument is based on the fallacy that correlation implies causation, when CO2 increases occurred AFTER temperature increases. DOH!

Quote :

"All of your current statements are not based on an absence of evidence given by the proponents of AGW, but based on a litany of crack science that supposedly debunks it."

hardly. What is "crack science" about documenting the horrible quality of our weather stations? What is "crack science" about proving Mann's hockey stick to be a fraud? Do you need to see what happens when you put the rest of his data into the chart and see how it doesn't match the "observed record"? Do you need to see that? Do you need to see the historical evidence of warm and cool periods that his fraudckey stick completely wiped out? AND THIS IS WHAT YOU HOLD UP AS STRONG AND VALID SCIENCE. Who's got the crack science on their side, again? And how many on the AGW side have denounced this? ZERO. In fact, they DEFEND IT.

Quote :

"It is not that we lack evidence, it is that you refute the evidence."

We refute the evidence because it is invalid. Again, the burden of proof is on the person claiming the sky is falling while bringing up fraudulent studies.

Quote :

"Now, if we know that we've emitted a greenhouse gas with a know quantifiable amount of greenhouse effect"

We can't even fucking quantify the god damned effect. See, spouting lies like this is why you don't understand the situation. Mann and his lying cronies say it's linear, yet we have known for a LONG time that the effect is logarithmic.

Quote :

"then the simplest possibility becomes the one in which the temperature raises by that quantified amount"

OK, now tell me what the temperature SHOULD HAVE BEEN so that you can show that the temperature was actually raised by that amount due to CO2. That's the basic problem. By declaring the entire climate system to be dominated by a trace gas in the atmosphere, you have a huge mountain of proof to overcome to show it to be the case.

Quote :

"We know that the level of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere has steadily increased since the beginning of the industrial age. This is something we can measure. It's an undisputed fact. We know that the amount of heat energy reaching the surface of our planet from space has also steadily increased. We can also measure this. It's an undisputed fact. We know that the total heat content of the earth, land and sea, has also steadily increased. We can measure this too. It's an undisputed fact."

The first one is the only thing that is indisputable. On what are you basing the rest of this? Rigged data sets? Right.

Quote :

"They knew, based on proven chemical equations and laws of physics, that all the CO2 that man is pumping into the atmosphere would produce the effects they then confirmed by watching the measurements over the years."

Actually, no, they didn't. If you knew ANYTHING about this you'd know that it was hotly debated when the theory was first proposed in the early 20th century (IIRC on the date). It was only towards the end of the last century that the theory was accepted as gospel by scientists with a political agenda.

Quote :

"They then made predictions based on that proven science on how those outcomes would affect things like our sea levels, arctic ice levels, and eventually our climate. Those predictions already came or are coming true. "

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. someone actually believes this. THis is fucking hilarious. So, lemme get this straight. You say their predictions are coming true. Is that why they can't explain why temperatures right now don't match what they predicted? Is that why they can't explain why sea-levels aren't accelerating, but are staying at their historic levels of rise? Is that why they have to keep "tweaking the models" to match up with what the models are FAILING to predict?

Quote :

"Due to this, 97% of the world's climate scientists agree that climate change is happening and it's caused by man."

And when you make a statement like this you prove that you are NOT a scientist. let me see if I can get this through your thick empty fucking skull. In science: CONSENSUS. MEANS. JACK. FUCKING. SHIT. Did you get that? Do you need me to repeat it? I'll bold it for you. In science: CONSENSUS. MEANS. JACK. FUCKING. SHIT. If, in science, you have to cling to a consensus, it means one thing: you don't have the evidence to back up your claims. Not only that, but the "97%" number is totally bogus to begin with. Here's a better statistic: 100% of climate scientists would like to continue getting funding for climate research. it has been shown time and time again that scientists who question the status-quo on AGW have their funding cut, their fellowships destroyed, and their careers ruined. So OF COURSE they are gonna toe the line. That's not science, though. That's fucking politics. And you are stupid enough to buy into it.

8/11/2011 7:19:33 PM

For the record, I do agree that a consensus among scientists is not an argument. History shows that a scientific consensus is hard to break and many valid breakthroughs in understanding had to fight uphill battles against a consensus.

Quote :

"We refute the evidence because it is invalid."

But you might want to work on that wording. Refute the evidence? I hope not. Someone misrepresents evidence, or you disagree with implications someone draws from the evidence. Otherwise evidence is evidence.

At some point the claims are refutable. You can't deny that the claims are refutable. If AGW is wrong, then we will know in 50 years. Do you agree?

All good claims in science are refutable.

8/11/2011 7:55:19 PM

jesus christ, conniption alert

[Edited on August 11, 2011 at 8:49 PM. Reason : also tldr;]

8/11/2011 8:42:32 PM

Quote :

"But you might want to work on that wording. Refute the evidence? I hope not. Someone misrepresents evidence, or you disagree with implications someone draws from the evidence. Otherwise evidence is evidence."

That's true. I'd say that some evidence is misrepresented and other evidence is just plain fabricated. A perfect example is the "corrections" that NASA applies to the temperature record that always seem to make the temperatures early in the 1900s lower and the temps higher in the later part of the century. it's nakedly obvious what's going on there.

Quote :

"If AGW is wrong, then we will know in 50 years. Do you agree?"

I think we know it's wrong right now, but that's my opinion. I think it'll probably take 15 years when we see this maximum turn back towards a minimum that the skeptics will be vindicated.

8/11/2011 10:20:45 PM

That was just a recent comic so I posted it.

Quote :

"We can't even fucking quantify the god damned effect. See, spouting lies like this is why you don't understand the situation. Mann and his lying cronies say it's linear, yet we have known for a LONG time that the effect is logarithmic."

CO2 has a certain part of the spectrum that it absorbs/reflects. Self shielding of that particular part of the spectrum makes it a decreasing exponential. That is, the change in the quantity of light absorbed, which is proportional to the change in the W/m^2, increases in the form of (1-e^(-lambda x) ) where x is the product of the concentration of CO2 times the distance light travels through it.

8/12/2011 11:03:41 AM

Aaaron I want to preface this by saying you are dumb as a fucking brick and I don't know why I humor this but here goes

Quote :

"actually, no. we are pointing out the outright fucking FRAUD being perpetrated. it's not just a lack of knowledge. it's distorting and making up facts."

This requires an even greater conspiracy theory than the one that killed Kennedy. You're saying that hundreds of thousands of people involved in climate science, worldwide, are all secretly teaming up to commit fraud. Most paranoid schizophrenics wont make a claim of that magnitude.

Quote :

"Not really. Causing us to go back to the dark ages over unproven assertions and outright fraud hardly seems like a "best cost-risk ratio.""

Okay, here you're taking the absolute worst case scenario possible for dealing with global warming. So, to be fair, let's take the absolute worst case scenario of not dealing with it: The transformation of our atmosphere to one like Venus and the extinction of all life on Earth. I'm only being fair, taking hyperbole on one side to the extent you did on the other. Which one is the best cost-risk ratio again?

Quote :

"Despite any evidence that ocean currents are being affected, anyway. DOH."

Wrong. Here's a few articles from just one site showing that, yet again, you are simply ignorant of the evidence. You can't change ocean temperatures in uneven distributions (has been happening) and add massive amounts of freshwater (due to melting) and not see current changes.

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=883

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=5098

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=8839

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=9206

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=54347

Quote :

"Well, at the point where it's actually happening, and it's not, then we can then start talking about it. There are ZERO glaciers that might melt in "a matter of years." Bullshit talking points like this don't belong in ANY rational discussion."

Again you're ignorant of evidence

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2010-04-07-glacier-national-park_N.htm

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Glacier_Mass_Balance_Map.png

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-18.htm

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/worldwide-glacier-retreat/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

Quote :

"And it's coming no matter what we do. 1.8mm/year for the past 1000 years."

Source please. The actual change has fluctuated quite a bit and has been nowhere near constant at "1.8mm a year". And even if it has been changing, that says nothing of the changing rate. It's not fucking hard to understand that when temperatures go up (as they have been) and ice sheets melt (as they have been) that sea levels will rise (as they have been) and their rise will be related to the rate of the former two.

Quote :

"But only if the scenario is actually happening. Crippling our ability to respond to a crisis hardly seems like an intelligent way to respond."

Flat out denial.

Quote :

"^^ what if YOU are wrong and it is the AGWers spreading lies? I've got facts on my side. they've got fraudulent studies and faked graphs on theirs"

You haven't cited a single fact at all, your entire case rests on accusing all AGW proponents, worldwide, of being part of a conspiracy to lie and commit fraud. You have presented no evidence, only claims, and even leaving aside your ridiculous conspiracy theory that the average 9/11 Truther would laugh at, have given nothing but flippant claims to support your position.

Quote :

"do you now see the folly of such a stupid statement? Simply saying "what if you are wrong" is a HORRIBLE basis for policy and action. You act based on fact, especially in the realm of science. That this is the bullshit that AGWers fall onto is telling"

None of those are analogous, because those are just people making claims without evidence, which is what you're doing. Except you aren't just saying "What if AGWers are wrong" you're actively accusing them of massive, widespread, worldwide conspiracy to fraud. You're possibly the stupidest motherfucker on this entire board, and that is saying a lot.


Also, TGK-TEK or whatever:

Quote :

"The burden of proof is on warmists to prove something problematic is going on. It's not on "non-believers" to prove otherwise."

They've put out ample evidence of rising temperatures, receding glaciers, changing heat distribution, increasing ocean acidity, rising sea levels, all occuring independent of sun cycles and in a completely unprecedented pace compared to geological history. Just because you're too fucking lazy to read their research or too fucking dumb to interpret it doesn't mean they aren't properly handling the burden of proof.

TreeTwista:

Quote :

"so why should the US, already economically fucked, fuck ourselves even more about something that not only might not be a problem, but that China and India aren't going to do anything about themselves?"

Hahaha. "Might not be a problem". "Might". Seriously? If it is a problem it could mean billions of deaths worldwide and upheaval of the entirety of civilization. You're worried that we might depress the economy a bit trying to prevent that? You know what might fuck us economically? Losing the breadbasket to decades-long dust bowl. Christ almighty, get your priorities in order.

Quote :

"no they didn't. Their entire fucking argument is based on the fallacy that correlation implies causation, when CO2 increases occurred AFTER temperature increases. DOH!"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.

The only conclusion that can be reached from the observed lag between CO2 and temperatures in the past 400,000 years is that CO2 did not initiate the shifts towards interglacials. To understand current climate change, scientists have looked at many factors, such as volcanic activity and solar variability, and concluded that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the most likely factor driving current climate change. This conclusion is not based on the analysis of past climate change, though this provides key insights into the way climate responds to different forcings and adds weight to the several lines of evidence that strongly support the role of greenhouse gases in recent warming.

8/12/2011 11:42:46 AM

Quote :

" hardly. What is "crack science" about documenting the horrible quality of our weather stations?"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm

Quote :

" What is "crack science" about proving Mann's hockey stick to be a fraud? Do you need to see what happens when you put the rest of his data into the chart and see how it doesn't match the "observed record"? "

http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

Quote :

" Do you need to see that? Do you need to see the historical evidence of warm and cool periods that his fraudckey stick completely wiped out? AND THIS IS WHAT YOU HOLD UP AS STRONG AND VALID SCIENCE. Who's got the crack science on their side, again? And how many on the AGW side have denounced this? ZERO. In fact, they DEFEND IT."

You seem to have stopped reading about global warming about 15 years ago, because you're spouting decade+ old information that has long been refuted. Mann's hockey stick has held up. Your information is out of date. There's also been hundreds of study's since Mann's showing the same stick. The fact that you focus on Mann shows that you get all your information from the crackpot non-scientific right wing sources that spend most of their time harping on Al Gore.

Quote :

" We refute the evidence because it is invalid. Again, the burden of proof is on the person claiming the sky is falling while bringing up fraudulent studies."

You don't know the evidence, you're shown that over and over and over again.

Quote :

"We can't even fucking quantify the god damned effect."

Yes we can, it's been done in a lab thousands of times. You can do it yourself without purchasing much equipment.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

Quote :

"Mann and his lying cronies say it's linear, yet we have known for a LONG time that the effect is logarithmic."

Again, you're out of date regarding Mann. And please source this logarithmic effect. This seems to contradict you.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm

Quote :

"OK, now tell me what the temperature SHOULD HAVE BEEN so that you can show that the temperature was actually raised by that amount due to CO2. That's the basic problem. By declaring the entire climate system to be dominated by a trace gas in the atmosphere, you have a huge mountain of proof to overcome to show it to be the case."

Nobody has declared that it's the dominant force, just that it's an active one that contributes to other feedback cycles. If it were *the* dominant force, you and I would both be dead right now because it's almost doubled in the past 100 years.

Quote :

"The first one is the only thing that is indisputable. On what are you basing the rest of this? Rigged data sets? Right."

You have to prove the data set is rigged you simpleton. Anyone can claim that about any data set, to actually have credibility YOU have to examine the methodology and point out the flaws.

Quote :

"Actually, no, they didn't. If you knew ANYTHING about this you'd know that it was hotly debated when the theory was first proposed in the early 20th century (IIRC on the date). It was only towards the end of the last century that the theory was accepted as gospel by scientists with a political agenda."

Source please.

Quote :

"In science: CONSENSUS. MEANS. JACK. FUCKING. SHIT."

Actually, it means everything. The only reason you can say that the Earth is round is because of the modern scientific consensus that informed you of it. It is literally the best thing we have, period. There is nothing more reliable for discerning reality than the consensus of experts.

Quote :

" If, in science, you have to cling to a consensus, it means one thing: you don't have the evidence to back up your claims."

No, it means that your evidence has been reviewed by all the other scientists and they all agree. Do you even know what the peer review process is?

Quote :

"Here's a better statistic: 100% of climate scientists would like to continue getting funding for climate research. it has been shown time and time again that scientists who question the status-quo on AGW have their funding cut, their fellowships destroyed, and their careers ruined. So OF COURSE they are gonna toe the line. That's not science, though. That's fucking politics. And you are stupid enough to buy into it."

Are you kidding? To prove AGW false would net you a fucking Nobel Peace Prize. Nobody is interesting in funding shit that is old news. Science is a constant race to one-up each other and, ideally, prove somebody is wrong and muscle them out of the competitive environment. You don't know shit about the scientific method, peer review, or the grant process.


Aaronburro: You are using every repeatedly-disproven argument in the book that denialists have been using since the late 90's and it's embarrassing to see. Go here from now on to check every argument you make: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php and don't fucking mention it unless you're refuting THEIR refutation of it. You are out of date, a fucking idiot pawn, and possibly the stupidest piece of shit on this entire forum. You're extremely typical of right wing denialists who put the cart before the horse. They bristle at the idea of economic controls on carbon, and work backwards to believing AGW must be false, because that would mean their ideology isn't universally applicable. So naturally you latch onto any dumb fucking crackpot who couldn't get published outside of a Creation Research Institute journal because you want to believe it so bad you'd trust a hobo on the street on the issue if he told you what you want to hear. You are dumb as a fucking brick.

8/12/2011 11:43:37 AM

Quote :

"Quote : "The burden of proof is on warmists to prove something problematic is going on. It's not on "non-believers" to prove otherwise." They've put out ample evidence of rising temperatures, receding glaciers, changing heat distribution, increasing ocean acidity, rising sea levels, all occuring independent of sun cycles and in a completely unprecedented pace compared to geological history. Just because you're too fucking lazy to read their research or too fucking dumb to interpret it doesn't mean they aren't properly handling the burden of proof."

I'm pretty sure I haven't cursed at anyone in this discussion. And beyond that you've known me for 3 years, outside of TWW. Whats with the rudeness? I also disagree with your statement. Nevermind that not a single thing you said leads one to blame CO2.

8/12/2011 12:25:11 PM

Quote :

"And when you make a statement like this you prove that you are NOT a scientist. let me see if I can get this through your thick empty fucking skull. In science: CONSENSUS. MEANS. JACK. FUCKING. SHIT. Did you get that? Do you need me to repeat it? I'll bold it for you. In science: CONSENSUS. MEANS. JACK. FUCKING. SHIT. If, in science, you have to cling to a consensus, it means one thing: you don't have the evidence to back up your claims."

Wow, all that rage to argue against a point I didn't even make. The consensus is due to scientific conclusions that resulted from decades of peer reviewed measurements, experimentation, and research as myself and others have repeatedly shown. It's not due to crackpot conspiracy theories that don't hold up to a single second of critical thinking. The only people that the "all scientists once thought the earth was flat" (not actually true, it was the church) argument applies to are the climate change deniers who quite literally, have not a single shred of evidence on their side. They are a religion at this point, no different then people who believe that they have an imaginary friend in the sky who grants them wishes if they pray really hard (for things like get rid of all the gays/blacks/poor people).

8/12/2011 1:08:35 PM

Quote :

"This requires an even greater conspiracy theory than the one that killed Kennedy"

no, it really doesn't. It just requires human greed and desire to maintain one's current research. The shit is murky, at best, so there's very little wrong with pushing forward with something and then later retracting it when more information comes to light. Not to mention the fact that any of the "experts" aren't experts in climatology, rather in other unrelated fields. For them, a changing climate would make be a plausible explanation, and if they aren't as informed in the debate as they should be, it would be easy for them to make a statement in error. The Wegman Report detailed just how secluded the climatology community truly is, and it is astonishing. So, no, it really doesn't take a huge conspiracy to pull something like this off, especially when finding conflicting evidence is just as difficult as finding supporting evidence. Then, when you couple that with the desire of the people at the helm not to admit a major mea culpa on work the probably initially believed in, it's a perfect recipe for something like this. Add in politics and the power that can come with this, and it's a perfect storm.

Quote :

"Wrong. Here's a few articles from just one site showing that, yet again, you are simply ignorant of the evidence."

and yet, when we look at the actual data, we see no alterations. how odd. how could those articles be so wrong? fuck...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/22/atlantic-conveyor-belt-current-still-going-strong/

Quote :

"http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2010-04-07-glacier-national-park_N.htm"

let's deal with the first link in your "glaciers are disappearing!!! OMFG!!!" let's see what it says...

Quote :

"The park's glaciers have been slowly melting since about 1850, when the centuries-long Little Ice Age ended. They once numbered as many as 150, and 37 of those glaciers eventually were named."

well shit, NOT AGW, is it?

and then you go on to list links to retreating glaciers, proving my point. That focus is ONLY put on retreating glaciers, and not on ones wth accretion. It's a problem in science when you ignore the evidence that is inconvenient.
http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

Quote :

"Source please."

How bout wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
last 100 years it's 1.8mm/year, with a recent change of unknown statistical significance. DOH! typed one too many zeros, lol.

Quote :

"You haven't cited a single fact at all, your entire case rests on accusing all AGW proponents, worldwide, of being part of a conspiracy to lie and commit fraud."

No, we've actually got FACTS showing that the Hockey Stick was a fraud. and that no one in the AGW camp will call out a clear and obvious fraud speaks VOLUMES about them.

Quote :

"They've put out ample evidence of rising temperatures, receding glaciers, changing heat distribution, increasing ocean acidity, rising sea levels, all occuring independent of sun cycles and in a completely unprecedented pace compared to geological history."

Right, after FAKING the geological history.

Quote :

"http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm"

You know how that reads? "Hey, we are completely full of shit, so here is a non-falsifiable explanation for why we aren't. We're gonna make CO2 out to be a major driver of climate, despite any actual evidence for it. We'll say that something else changed, we don't know what, and then CO2 took over. But it's all CO2's fault. Yep. Yep."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm
"Urban and rural show the same trend" THat is a FLAT OUT LIE. Period. End of story. The only way they can "show the same trend" is after manipulation by James Hansen and his cronies. The UHI was a KNOWN effect that has been recently "discredited" because it is inconvenient.

Quote :

"http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm"

Oh look... proxies... you know what proxies mean? FAKED DATA. Besides, saying "he did it wrong but still got the right answer" isn't "science." Moreover, many of these proxy studies have been shown to be equally fraudulent, often times being done by members of the original Mann study. DOn't believe me? Read the Wegman report. And Briffa's tree rings? The results were shown to be due to one fucking tree. Take that tree out, and the stick disappears. Nevermind the fact that Mann's fraudkey stick removed known phenomena.

Quote :

"Mann's hockey stick has held up. "

Really? We've shown that the LIA and MWP were bullshit? riiiiiiiiiiight. His study fell flat on its face. It's a shame that people like you are too stupid to see that. You put in a fucking PHONE BOOK as input data, and it gives you back a hockey stick. And you are defending that is "holding up"? AHAHAHAHAHA.

Quote :

"Nobody has declared that it's the dominant force"

By focusing on CO2 and ONLY CO2, they sure beg to differ.

Quote :

"You have to prove the data set is rigged you simpleton. "

It's actually been proven.

Quote :

"Actually, it means everything."

Argument over. You don't know science. Again, no one points to a fucking "consensus" that the earth is round. They point to pictures. When you appeal to a consensus, you admit defeat.

Quote :

"Do you even know what the peer review process is?"

And do you even know how fucked up the peer review process is? Wegman Report and Climategate emails prove it. Oh wait, I'll bet you are running back to skepticalscience again aren't you? BUT THEY WERE CLEEEEEEEEEAAAAAARED!!! Yeah, by institutions that wanted to keep the research money flowing.

Quote :

"Are you kidding? To prove AGW false would net you a fucking Nobel Peace Prize."

Yeah, if you could get past the rigged peer-review process. But you can't, because Mann and his buddies have purposefully rigged it, and we even have their admissions of that!.

[Edited on August 12, 2011 at 2:07 PM. Reason : ]

8/12/2011 1:49:02 PM

Quote :

"DOn't believe me? Read the Wegman report."

Wasn't the Wegman report retracted because it was such a pile of shit?

[Edited on August 12, 2011 at 2:28 PM. Reason : Google Answer: Yes, blatant plagarism and dubious claims]

8/12/2011 2:18:21 PM

^only part of it was found to be in error I believe.

aaronburro, people will take your side of the argument more seriously if you stop cursing and name calling. Come on man!

8/12/2011 2:33:44 PM

The journal retracted the entire article. Part of it plagarised Wikipedia (among others) -- pretty much calls everything into question IMO

8/12/2011 2:39:42 PM

sounds just like an IPCC report then!

yuk yuk yuk

8/12/2011 4:11:51 PM

Quote :

"Argument over. You don't know science. Again, no one points to a fucking "consensus" that the earth is round. They point to pictures. When you appeal to a consensus, you admit defeat."

Touting the power of peer review isn't appealing to consensus. Science is evidence + peer review.

8/12/2011 4:21:51 PM

Quote :

"aaronburro, people will take your side of the argument more seriously if you stop cursing and name calling."

No we won't, or at least I won't. Not all sides of an argument deserve equal consideration, no matter how nicely a person defends their position. I'll debate the methods we should go about dealing with climate change. I'll debate whether or not it's worth the cost today to prevent known consequences tomorrow, based on what we know the severity of those consequences to be. I'll even listen to someone who thinks nuclear energy is the best way forward to solve our energy problems while having minimal impact on our environment. What I won't do is debate with someone who flat out denies the impact human beings have had on our planet.

Warren Jeffs was really nice when he argued that gang bangs with 12 year olds bring you closer to god. Unfortunately, we have a consensus among modern human society that raping 12 year olds is bad(aaronburro also disagrees with this). Therefore, his argument was shot down and he's spending the rest of his life in jail. We also have a consensus among modern thinkers (people with 2 brain cells to rub together and an education) that human beings have historically treated the earth like shit, with climate change being the major consequence. Arguing that it isn't, and that it is in fact a massive global conspiracy perpetuated mostly be people in academic research so they can get rich is just as crazy as arguing that sex with 12 year olds is ok (again aaronburro did this too). So no, I don't think I will listen to his argument.

8/12/2011 5:06:36 PM

Quote :

"human beings have historically treated the earth like shit"

In Before LoneSnark pops up to say "Well so has every other animal on the planet. Do you really think a bear cares that he just crapped in the woods or wiped out a family of baby birds when he knocked down that tree looking for honey?"

8/12/2011 5:24:52 PM

I found this kinda funny and relevant.

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_322_en.pdf

Quote :

"Respondents that consider climate change to be a very serious problem are more likely to: ? be aged between 25 and 39 years ? have completed their education at age 20 or older ? to be managers, white-collar workers or students ? to access the internet at least occasionally"

Which makes me wonder which one of the following aaronburro fits into?

Quote :

" Other groups most likely to consider that climate change is not a serious issue are: ? those aged 55 or older ? those who completed their education prior to the age of 16 years ? retired ? never use the internet"

I mean, what a crappy excuse for a global conspiracy. It can't even convince the uneducated masses and people with no access to real information that it's happening.

[Edited on August 12, 2011 at 5:38 PM. Reason : :]

8/12/2011 5:36:21 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, if you could get past the rigged peer-review process. But you can't, because Mann and his buddies have purposefully rigged it, and we even have their admissions of that!. "

climate conspiracy theorists.

honestly, if it was this fucking easy to fake research to get govt funding, then every fucking branch of science would do it. not just the ones republicans find politicaly compromising.

8/12/2011 6:00:04 PM

Quote :

"Wasn't the Wegman report retracted because it was such a pile of shit?"

no, it wasn;t. DOH! There are allegations of plagiarism, yet the key claims of the report STILL haven't been disproven. Would you like them to go back and rewrite it to say the exact same thing, just in different words?

Quote :

"Touting the power of peer review isn't appealing to consensus. Science is evidence + peer review."

But that's not what's happening here. he's saying "but so many experts agree!!!!" And, moreover, a polluted peer-review process really doesn't mean that much.

Quote :

"Not all sides of an argument deserve equal consideration, no matter how nicely a person defends their position. "

Spoken like a true fascist.

Quote :

"Warren Jeffs was really nice when he argued that gang bangs with 12 year olds bring you closer to god. Unfortunately, we have a consensus among modern human society that raping 12 year olds is bad(aaronburro also disagrees with this). Therefore, his argument was shot down and he's spending the rest of his life in jail. "

Because child sexual assault is identical to scientific evidence not existing. there aren't enough rolly eyes for that statement.

^ the pressure exerted on scientists to toe the line has been well documented. THis guy thinks that consensus in science means something though, which is just plain laughable. Then he goes to a website with outright lies on it and tries to post them with a straight face. This is also a guy saying that a model that creates the exact same phenomenon 98% of the time, no matter what data set is used, is a valid model. It's quite laughable, actually

8/12/2011 7:43:12 PM

Can someone post a link (or just a citation) to a peer reviewed journal article that argues the anti-AGW position, retracted or not? Thanks.

The only thing I can find is about the citation network of climate scientists. I don't care. I want to see the science that people think backs the anti-AGW position, that appeared in a peer reviewed format.

8/12/2011 7:56:20 PM

a peer-reviewed format that has been co-opted to exclude such papers. Yep, that's a fair request. yep.

8/12/2011 7:58:46 PM

I think you misheard. I didn't say "give me a paper in X journal". Do you have any idea the sheer number of papers in journals that fit the definition of peer reviewed?

8/12/2011 8:08:16 PM