Global warming: truth or propaganda?

[Al_Masetti]

The thing I posted was taken from www.climatechangedebate.org and may or may not be authoritative and rigorous.

The point was that there are many issues that need to be considered, particularly when the science is complicated.

The computer models lack a realistic comprehensive set of climate relationships because we DON’T KNOW what drives climate. We are learning all the time.

The notion that man-made influences drive climate (and the extent to which such man-made influences drive climate) are unknown. There is NO quantitative data; it’s all a bunch of computer models that generate a range of potential outcomes … the problem is that the range of outcomes changes every time they tweak the models.

Any scientist who doesn’t read everything he can get his or her hands on is doing sloppy work.

We do know that there is a time lag between temperature and CO2; the temp drives the CO2 not the other way around.

CO2 is not a pollutant, regardless of what the courts say. Try growing plants without CO2; carbon dioxide is essential for photosynthesis, which most folks (hopefully) learn in freshman high school biology.

People who tune in to www.climatechangedebate.org and to www.climateaudit.org as well as to more popular sites such as www.junkscience.com learn that more and more experts in climate science are coming around to the notion that climate change (and “global warming”) comes about owing to natural causes.

There is no way that one post can contain all of the essential physics that impact the forces affecting climate change.

 

[steveandersen]

The thing I posted was taken from www.climatechangedebate.org and may or may not be authoritative and rigorous.

then why did you post it?

The point was that there are many issues that need to be considered, particularly when the science is complicated.

The computer models lack a realistic comprehensive set of climate relationships because we DON’T KNOW what drives climate. We are learning all the time.

Of course we know what drives the climate. The sun drives the climate within the parameters set by atmospheric composition, size & depth of the oceans, size and location of the continents, etc.
To be sure we don’t know every last interaction, it is complex, and the best we might be able to expect (like most chaotic/multi-parameter systems) would be a range of outcomes

But the basics of what makes the wind blow and the rains fall are pretty well known.

The notion that man-made influences drive climate (and the extent to which such man-made influences drive climate) are unknown. There is NO quantitative data; it’s all a bunch of computer models that generate a range of potential outcomes … the problem is that the range of outcomes changes every time they tweak the models.

Which is what you expect with models. It is called sensitivity analysis. Like I said before I run models all the time. You have to teak them to see how they change with changing parameters so that if/when you see changing parameters in your data set you can try to anticipate the effect.
I’m not sure why you have such a problem with changing models… that is what they are for.

Any scientist who doesn’t read everything he can get his or her hands on is doing sloppy work.

Well of course any scientist worth his salt must be well versed in his subject. That of course does not translate into reading everything.

We do know that there is a time lag between temperature and CO2; the temp drives the CO2 not the other way around.

As I stated before; Of course atmospheric CO2 goes up before atmospheric temperature. That is how it is theorized that the mechanism works. CO2 affects the transmissivity of the atmosphere so that the ground can’t radiate energy back into space at the same rate without going through a temperature increase. Increased air temp is a secondary effect and would be expected to lag.

CO2 is not a pollutant, regardless of what the courts say. Try growing plants without CO2; carbon dioxide is essential for photosynthesis, which most folks (hopefully) learn in freshman high school biology.

The definition of “pollutant” is a lot like the definition of a “weed”

Something is only a pollutant if it is in the wrong amounts or in the wrong place.

Sure CO2 is essential for life on earth that doesn’t mean that it would be a good thing the breath the stuff coming out of a car’s tail pipe. I didn’t need to take freshman biology to learn that one.

People who tune in to www.climatechangedebate.org and to www.climateaudit.org as well as to more popular sites such as www.junkscience.com learn that more and more experts in climate science are coming around to the notion that climate change (and “global warming”) comes about owing to natural causes.

well of course it is due to natural cuases
that doesn’t preclude a human component
(humans are natural after all )

There is no way that one post can contain all of the essential physics that impact the forces affecting climate change.

Sure you can. Just learn about the following
Black body radiation, heat transport, Physical Chemistry, Thermodynamics

That will give you the essentials to look at the data and make up your own mind rather than reading someone else’s’ book or web page.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Scientists do need to read everything.

What would a scientist reply with, if it emerged that their work was flawed … because they were too busy to do the due diligence? That’s the essence of science.

Sensitivity analysis is not science.

Here’s a piece of contradictory evidence … just to add confusion to the discussion of AGW. [Anthropogenic global warming … the man-made variety, versus the normal and natural variety]

epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=175b568a-802a-23ad-4c6

I’ll add a few lines of the text here …

Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt

Posted By Marc Morano – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov – 9:39 AM ET

Ilulissat, Greenland – The July 27-29 2007 U.S. Senate trip to Greenland to investigate fears of a glacier meltdown revealed an Arctic land where current climatic conditions are neither alarming nor linked to a rise in man-made carbon dioxide emissions, according to many of the latest peer-reviewed scientific findings. Recent research has found that Greenland has been warming since the 1880’s, but since 1955, temperature averages at Greenland stations have been colder than the period between 1881-1955.

A recent study concluded Greenland was as warm or warmer in the 1930’s and 40’s and the rate of warming from 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than the warming from 1995-2005. One 2005 study found Greenland gaining ice in the interior higher elevations and thinning ice at the lower elevations. In addition, the often media promoted fears of Greenland’s ice completely melting and a subsequent catastrophic sea level rise are directly at odds with the latest scientific studies. These studies suggest that the biggest perceived threat to Greenland’s glaciers may be contained in unproven computer models predicting a future catastrophic melt.

 

[steveandersen]

Scientists do need to read everything.

What would a scientist reply with, if it emerged that their work was flawed … because they were too busy to do the due diligence? That’s the essence of science.

Sensitivity analysis is not science.

Of course it is part of a scientific evaluation as much a part as due diligence is.

How else would you determine the relationship between variables?

Here’s a piece of contradictory evidence … just to add confusion to the discussion of AGW. [Anthropogenic global warming … the man-made variety, versus the normal and natural variety]

epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=175b568a-802a-23ad-4c6

I’ll add a few lines of the text here …

Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt

Posted By Marc Morano – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov – 9:39 AM ET

Ilulissat, Greenland – The July 27-29 2007 U.S. Senate trip to Greenland to investigate fears of a glacier meltdown revealed an Arctic land where current climatic conditions are neither alarming nor linked to a rise in man-made carbon dioxide emissions, according to many of the latest peer-reviewed scientific findings. Recent research has found that Greenland has been warming since the 1880’s,

You mean a few decades after the industrial revolution started and London, Manchester, Birmingham, et al were choked with coal smoke?

Yeah right that is really contradictory

but since 1955, temperature averages at Greenland stations have been colder than the period between 1881-1955.

well since some models of climate change predict a colder north Atlantic how is that in any way contradictory?

A recent study concluded Greenland was as warm or warmer in the 1930’s and 40’s and the rate of warming from 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than the warming from 1995-2005.

so your big evidence is that there is natural variation in climate?

Wow I would never have thought of that one

One 2005 study found Greenland gaining ice in the interior higher elevations and thinning ice at the lower elevations.

Hmmm more snow and ice up on the mountains than in the lowlands…
They had to do a study to find that one out?

BTW warmer moister air would be expected to produce more high altitude snow and ice. The fact that this study indicates that that increased snow and ice is not making its way into the lowlands as you would expect with normal glacier activity seems to underline the possibility that something may be disrupting that process.

In addition, the often media promoted fears of Greenland’s ice completely melting and a subsequent catastrophic sea level rise are directly at odds with the latest scientific studies.

(a) Who really cares what non-scientific media say?
(b) Only certain models predict major sea level changes other models do not

These studies suggest that the biggest perceived threat to Greenland’s glaciers may be contained in unproven computer models predicting a future catastrophic melt.

Just like in the Oregon Petition that you mentioned (name removed by moderator)ost #84 you are using the word catastrophic (or rather the people you are quoting are using the word you don’t tend to write a whole lot of your own stuff)
Something can still change even if that change is not catastrophic.
(of course catastrophe is like weed or pollutant, the definition can vary)

As I pointed out in post #64 you can easily go to NOAA’s monitoring sites and look at sea level trends on your own if you want to read everyting. Near where I live the trend is 3.28 mm/yr with 95% confidence. That’s about a foot a century. (the trends vary from station to station and oddly enough the trend in my area is about 1/3 to 50% higher than at other east coast stations but about equal to the Gulf Coast stations (I don’t know if I should feel special or paranoid) but all the trends are upwards…)

A foot a century, is that a catastrophe? I don’t know; ask me in a century or 3.