Global Warming?

[LeafByNiggle]

Abyssina in this very thread actually gave you a very complete answer. Please answer it and tell us all why it’s wrong.

OK, let’s start with the 1974 Time article that Abyssina cited. Its relevance to the the global warming issue, as explained in this article, is minimal, as the “cooling scare” of the 1970’s was mostly promoted by the media, and not by the scientific literature, which was, even back then, predicting global warming.

The rest of the citations were of people who predicted things that did not come to pass. This is not a logical argument against global warming. If it is anything, it is an argument against all predictive science. How are a few failed predictions of some scientists in the past more important than the near unanimous agreement of climate scientists today, who have the benefit of vastly more data than was available to those in the past?

 

[TARRAT]

That is not surprising if you consider a report “believable” only if it agrees with your pre-conceived notion.

Why not? That is exactly what you are doing. It is totally unbelievable to me that something that the environment needs to exist is what is causing an unbalance in nature. That is just not logical.

 

[weller2]

…]

Well, you have managed to put a lot of misrepresentation in a single post. Let’s break it down, shall we?

I don’t think much of the article. It touts a publication by a class of students who,

I hate to break it to you, but MOST research is actually done by grad students. Professors mainly deal with paperwork and overseeing the students. So the quality of this paper is probably the same as everything else out there.

under the direction of their non-scientist professor,

This is the guy’s CV: soc.hawaii.edu/mora/Publications/CamiloMoraCV.pdf
With 9 years of full-time experience after Ph.D., he would meet formal criteria for a department head in most of institutions I know.

Plus, a specialist in ecosystem biology looks competent to investigate impact of global warming,

assembled a bunch of computer models created by others in order to reach a conclusion. In other words, it’s totally derivative,

In other words, it’s a totally legit way of doing science, known as meta-analysis or systematic review. Particularly popular in medical science.

based on selected conclusions,

Duh. Everyone, even with passing interest in science knows that all models published since 1985 or so predict that year 2100 will be between 2 and 6 deg. C warmer over the 1900-1950 mean, with about 3.5 deg. C being the most popular number. So an average of these of these models will also predict a similar warming (what else?). So the result of this study is nothing unexpected. The only novelty here is his way of presenting the results instead of saying “3 deg. C global average warming over the 1900-1950 multi-year mean”.

without their having so much as a bowing acquaintance with any real data,

For your information, climate models are not based on temperature measurements. They are based on laws of physics. Temperature measurements are used to validate the models.

and no actual research

Meaningless term.

And this product is a “high-profile article” in one of the “world’s most prestigious scientific journals”? What a sad commentary on scientific journalism nowadays.

Again for your information, technical papers (like that one) are not journalism, they are not written by journalists, although the periodicals they are published in are called “journals”. They are however reviewed by experts in the field prior to publication.

Also, the conclusion seems to be that if we massively reduce emissions starting now (never mind that doing it in the U.S. alone would not affect anything) we will put off doomsday by 20 to 25 years, but only put it off. We’ll fry all the same, just later.

Another gross misrepresentation. Nobody will not fry, people will just die of hunger because of extended drought. thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/10/20/206899/ncar-daidrought-under-global-warming-a-review/

And yes – further warming is unavoidable because of the CO2 we have already put in the system. Emission reductions can only limit the warming in 2050-2100 timeframe. In other words, the choice is between your convenience and the life of your grandchildren – and I understand why many people are willing to opt for the former.

 

[Ender]

The rest of the citations were of people who predicted things that did not come to pass. This is not a logical argument against global warming.

If the main argument in favor of global warming is the predictive value of the models that have been created then why is it not logical to challenge the models by pointing out where the predictions fail?

If it is anything, it is an argument against all predictive science.

It may not be an argument against all predictive science but it is surely valid to point out, if the predictions are wrong in a significant way, that perhaps the processes being modeled are insufficiently well understood and that the models are not as good as we are being led to believe.

How are a few failed predictions of some scientists in the past more important than the near unanimous agreement of climate scientists today, who have the benefit of vastly more data than was available to those in the past?

There is another more significant predictive failure that involves all of the models created to predict the global warming trend. Back in 2009, NOAA issued its annual State of the Climate Report and, in commenting on the decade-long absence of any warming, noted that it would take a 15 year trend to be meaningful. We have now had that very 15 year hiatus in warming and every model has had to be adjusted to account for a trend that all of them predicted could not happen. I imagine it is quite a simple thing to adjust some parameters in the models to now allow them to explain away a 20 year trend but if they were wrong after claiming a 95% certainty last time, why should they be believed now?The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate. (NOAA, 2009)
Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If the main argument in favor of global warming is the predictive value of the models that have been created then why is it not logical to challenge the models by pointing out where the predictions fail?

because they are not the same models.

It may not be an argument against all predictive science but it is surely valid to point out, if the predictions are wrong in a significant way, that perhaps the processes being modeled are insufficiently well understood and that the models are not as good as we are being led to believe.

If specific models were being disputed, then it would indeed be valid to point out predictive failures of those specific models. But it would be wrong to throw out the entire field of study and ignore the fact that on the average the predictions have proved true, at least to the extent that can be verified over such a short time span. The ice overall has retreated. The oceans have risen. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen to record levels. On this there can be no dispute.

There is another more significant predictive failure that involves all of the models created to predict the global warming trend. Back in 2009, NOAA issued its annual State of the Climate Report and, in commenting on the decade-long absence of any warming, noted that it would take a 15 year trend to be meaningful. We have now had that very 15 year hiatus in warming and every model has had to be adjusted to account for a trend that all of them predicted could not happen.

No model ever states that a particular outcome is impossible. All models give results with probabilities attached to various outcomes. It is normal part of science that models should be refined as more data is available. Unlike the Catholic Church with her deposit of faith, science is always ready to be challenged by better science. But that is not what the deniers in this thread are doing. No one is citing a better, more comprehensive study to refute global warming.

 

[Ender]

No model ever states that a particular outcome is impossible.

True, I should have said the models all predicted that 15 years of warming would not happen, not that it could not happen. That doesn’t alter the fact that all of the models were seriously flawed in respect to that prediction.

All models give results with probabilities attached to various outcomes.

The relevant point is that all the models attached the highest probability to their predictions about future warming and all of them turned out to be incorrect. Given that their probability levels were a significant part of the argument in favor of the theory it is equally significant that they were wrong.

It is normal part of science that models should be refined as more data is available.

That would have been the proper, scientific approach, but that was not how the models were sold to the public. Basically it was implied that the data were in and we knew all that was needed to be known. This was all part of the “near unanimous agreement of climate scientists today” mentality suggesting that resistance was futile.

science is always ready to be challenged by better science.

Not in this case. Those who challenge the AGW dogma are dismissed as deniers (an approach with which you are clearly familiar) and, as exemplified by the shenanigans at CRU, this is hardly about the science involved.

But that is not what the deniers in this thread are doing. No one is citing a better, more comprehensive study to refute global warming.

I don’t need to provide my own explanation of a phenomenon in order to be able to challenge a theory someone else has proposed. No one needs to explain the nature of electricity to justifiably reject the theory that lightening bolts are sparks from Thor’s hammer.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

.
That would have been the proper, scientific approach, but that was not how the models were sold to the public. Basically it was implied that the data were in and we knew all that was needed to be known.

Yes, once the media and politicians get a hold of an idea, it loses a lot of its scientific purity.

Not in this case. Those who challenge the AGW dogma are dismissed as deniers

There are idealogs on both sides. But how the challengers are dismissed depends a lot on the nature of the challenge. If it’s simply “GW is ludicrous!”, then it deserves to be dismissed. But if the challenge is based on relevant scientific data, then decent scientists will listen. Unfortunately, most of the challenges that I read here are of the “GW is ludicrous” variety rather than an unemotional rational presentation of relevant observations.

I don’t need to provide my own explanation of a phenomenon in order to be able to challenge a theory someone else has proposed. No one needs to explain the nature of electricity to justifiably reject the theory that lightening bolts are sparks from Thor’s hammer.

That’s because it is not a scientific theory. It is not falsifiable.

 

[StephenL]

Am I nuts or does it seem like all this strange weather could be because of sin? Is God Trying to tell us something about how we are living our lives?

 

[StephenL]

Am I nuts or does it seem like all this strange weather could be because of sin? Is God Trying to tell us something about how we are living our lives?

 

[weller2]

Am I nuts or does it seem like all this strange weather could be because of sin? Is God Trying to tell us something about how we are living our lives?

You could say that, but it’s not the kind of sin you’re probably thinking about…

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-08-27-tar_sands-open_pit.jpg

 

[manualman]

Do I understand Weller correctly that mining is a sin?? The same Weller sitting in front of a computer in a climate controlled room who drove his vehicle to the store at one point to purchase said computer (or perhaps had it delivered via a stinky diesel UPS truck). None of that would be possible without the mining. Not the computer, not the climate controlled room, not the vehicles.

To me, perhaps the largest single factor that makes the global warming issue unconvincing is that virtually NONE of those who claim to believe in it have changed their own lives in such a way as to meaningfully alter their impact. Instead, they propose shell games to rationalize their consumption and con jobs meant to prevent others from enjoying the benefits of development and technology. When I see Mr. Hansen and his ilk become Amish, I might be impressed. As long as he’s driving around new hybrid cars and jetting to conferences, not so much.

I mean seriously, would any of you take a preacher seriously in his sermons about how damaging sin is if he openly visited prostitutes, robbed banks, mugged little old ladies and ran an abortion clinic? Yet that’s what these doomsday prophets want us to buy. Forget it pal.

P.S. What’s wrong with a new hybrid car? Battery pack. Heavy metal mining makes about a ton (2,000#) of mine tailings for every resulting POUND of refined heavy metal (such as the lead or nickel found in batteries). If your average new Prius has about 60# of such specialty metals in the battery pack, then there are somewhere out there about 120,000 pounds of highly toxic heavy metal mine tailings generated to create that battery. So which is more “green”: buying a new Prius to get 50mpg or rescuing a 1995 Saturn SL stick shift from a junkyard, rebuilding it’s engine to run well with a minimum of parts (these usually just need new piston rings and bearings and a good cleaning) and getting 40mpg? Obviously the latter. It also costs a lot less money. It’s the strategy I personally used for the past 5 years when times were tough. I’ve never seen a high profile “green guy” take such an approach. It would require actual sacrifice, wouldn’t it? These guys don’t really believe, so they aren’t willing to sacrifice their own convenience. They just want to control the behavior of others.

 

[SamH]

“Fifth ice age is on the way……Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold.” – Los Angles Times October 23, 1912

America in longest warm spell since 1776; temperature line records a 25 year rise - New York Times 3/27/1933

Greenland’s polar climate has moderated so consistently that communities of hunters have evolved into fishing villages. Sea mammals, vanishing from the west coast, have been replaced by codfish and other fish species in the area’s southern waters. - August 29, 1954

After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder. - New York Times - January 30, 1961

Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor “…the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born,” Newsweek magazine, January 26, 1970.

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind. We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” - Barry Commoner Washington University Earth Day 1970

New Ice Age Coming—It’s Already Getting Colder. Some midsummer day, perhaps not too far in the future, a hard, killing frost will sweep down on the wheat fields of Saskatchewan, the Dakotas and the Russian steppes……Los Angles Times Oct 24, 1971

Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000. - Los Angles Times - May 16, 1972

Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people. - The Birmingham Post (England) July 26, 1999

Officials with the Panama Canal Authority, managers of the locks and reservoirs since the United States relinquished control of the canal in 1999, warn that global warming, increased shipping traffic and bigger seagoing vessels could cripple the canal’s capacity to operate within a decade. CNN November 1, 2000

Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer (2008), report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field. “We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history],” David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker. - National Geographic News June 20, 2008

I think I’ll wait another 100 years to panic.

 

[Ender]

That’s because it is not a scientific theory. It is not falsifiable.

Since the theory of AGW is unaffected by the data - and therefore not falsifiable - it seems it fails the criterion necessary to be considered scientific as well.

Ender

 

[TARRAT]

“Fifth ice age is on the way……Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold.” – Los Angles Times October 23, 1912

America in longest warm spell since 1776; temperature line records a 25 year rise - New York Times 3/27/1933

Greenland’s polar climate has moderated so consistently that communities of hunters have evolved into fishing villages. Sea mammals, vanishing from the west coast, have been replaced by codfish and other fish species in the area’s southern waters. - August 29, 1954

After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder. - New York Times - January 30, 1961

Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor “…the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born,” Newsweek magazine, January 26, 1970.

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind. We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” - Barry Commoner Washington University Earth Day 1970

New Ice Age Coming—It’s Already Getting Colder. Some midsummer day, perhaps not too far in the future, a hard, killing frost will sweep down on the wheat fields of Saskatchewan, the Dakotas and the Russian steppes……Los Angles Times Oct 24, 1971

Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000. - Los Angles Times - May 16, 1972

Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people. - The Birmingham Post (England) July 26, 1999

Officials with the Panama Canal Authority, managers of the locks and reservoirs since the United States relinquished control of the canal in 1999, warn that global warming, increased shipping traffic and bigger seagoing vessels could cripple the canal’s capacity to operate within a decade. CNN November 1, 2000

Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer (2008), report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field. “We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history],” David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker. - National Geographic News June 20, 2008

I think I’ll wait another 100 years to panic.

Great answer to all the chicken littles.

 

[Muze]

Am I nuts or does it seem like all this strange weather could be because of sin? Is God Trying to tell us something about how we are living our lives?

You’re nuts

 

[dshix]

You’re nuts

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Since the theory of AGW is unaffected by the data - and therefore not falsifiable - it seems it fails the criterion necessary to be considered scientific as well.

Ender

I don’t know what you mean by “unaffected by the data”. These theories are difficult, but not impossible to prove or disprove. In principle all you have to do is wait 100 years, as SamH said, and then see what happens.

 

[YADA]

“Fifth ice age is on the way……Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold.” – Los Angles Times October 23, 1912

America in longest warm spell since 1776; temperature line records a 25 year rise - New York Times 3/27/1933

Greenland’s polar climate has moderated so consistently that communities of hunters have evolved into fishing villages. Sea mammals, vanishing from the west coast, have been replaced by codfish and other fish species in the area’s southern waters. - August 29, 1954

After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder. - New York Times - January 30, 1961

Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor “…the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born,” Newsweek magazine, January 26, 1970.

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind. We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” - Barry Commoner Washington University Earth Day 1970

New Ice Age Coming—It’s Already Getting Colder. Some midsummer day, perhaps not too far in the future, a hard, killing frost will sweep down on the wheat fields of Saskatchewan, the Dakotas and the Russian steppes……Los Angles Times Oct 24, 1971

Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000. - Los Angles Times - May 16, 1972 …

…I think I’ll wait another 100 years to panic.

In addition to stories like this - you have the science that tells you the world used to be warmer - and less covered by glacial ice …

Here: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7580294.stm

thehistoryblog.com/archives/24207

climateaudit.org/2005/11/18/archaeological-finds-in-retreating-swiss-glacier/

climatedepot.com/2013/10/14/melting-glacier-in-alaska-reveals-ancient-remains-of-forest-evidence-of-warm-periods/

One wonders what man made cause resulted in these earlier ice free stages? And what were the oceans doing at that time - because we know that we are in imminent danger of rising sea levels … Since Ford had yet to invent the Model T - thus it could not have been the internal combustion engine and the resultant increased CO2 levels

Truthfully - I am glad that God is in charge … We need to take care of our world - do as little harm as possible - Ultimately God is the creator - have faith

 

[SamH]

I don’t know what you mean by “unaffected by the data”. These theories are difficult, but not impossible to prove or disprove. In principle all you have to do is wait 100 years, as SamH said, and then see what happens.

The other thing is all the predictions that were made 20 years ago about the doom we faced in 20 years - you know when 20 years into the future seemed like a long time.

U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER SAYS GREENHOUSE EFFECT COULD WIPE SOME NATIONS OFF MAP - entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of “eco-refugees,” threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect - Associated Press June 30, 1989

STUDY FORESEES 86 NEW POWER PLANTS TO COOL U.S. WHEN GLOBE GETS HOTTER: Global warming could force Americans to build 86 more power plants – at a cost of $110 billion – to keep all their air conditioners running 20 years from now, a new study says…Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010, and the drain on power would require the building of 86 new midsize power plants - Associated Press May 15, 1989

Some predictions for the next decade (1990’s) are not difficult to make… Americans may see the '80s migration to the Sun Belt reverse as a global warming trend rekindles interest in cooler climates. - Dallas Morning News December 5th 1989

‘‘I think we’re in trouble. When you realize how little time we have left - we are now given not 10 years to save the rainforests, but in many cases five years. Madagascar will largely be gone in five years unless something happens. And nothing is happening.’’ - ABC - The Miracle Planet April 22, 1990

One of the world’s leading climate experts warned of an underestimated threat posed by the buildup of greenhouse gases ’ an abrupt collapse of the ocean’s prevailing circulation system that could send temperatures across Europe plummeting in a span of 10 years. If that system shut down today, winter temperatures in the North Atlantic region would fall by 20 or more degrees Fahrenheit within 10 years. Dublin would acquire the climate of Spitsbergen, 600 miles north of the Arctic Circle. “The consequences could be devastating,” said Wallace S. Broecker, Newberry Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University’s - Science Magazine Dec 1, 1997

Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people. - The Birmingham Post (England) July 26, 1999

A report last week claimed that within a decade, the disease (Malaria) will be common again on the Spanish coast. The effects of global warming are coming home to roost in the developed world. - The Guardian September 11, 1999

Britain’s winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives. Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain’s culture, as warmer winters - which scientists are attributing to global climate change - produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries. - Charles Onians -UK Independent Mar 20, 2000

Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting even. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is," Dr David Viner, Senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia - Mar 20, 2000

 

[Ender]

I don’t know what you mean by “unaffected by the data”. These theories are difficult, but not impossible to prove or disprove. In principle all you have to do is wait 100 years, as SamH said, and then see what happens.

By that definition a tout’s prediction of who will win the seventh race at Santa Anita is a scientific theory as well. On the other hand, if he’s missed badly on some of his previous predictions there is little reason to bet the farm on his prediction about the outcome of the next race … which is pretty much what we’re being asked to do regarding “solutions” to AGW.

Ender