The War of Data, And Why I Am Lukewarm About Global Warming

a reply to: jrod

You're saying that I'm ignorant for not seeing that you're enlightened and intelligent. I am stupid for buying into unproven science. I can't carry on an intelligent discussion with you about climate change. Do I have this right? Well, we won't discuss this, OK. I'll just ask a few questions. Who has proven that this is not natural climate change? Who has proven that it is man made? Are the changes cyclical? These questions should easy for someone as enlightened as you.

a reply to: buddah6

Now I feel like you are putting words in my mouth, you arr misrepresenting what I wrote.

I wrote ignorant because you rant how you want to discuss science yet end up discussing politics, Al Gore, and tax schemes.

I have no clue what your mindset is.

Do you at least not agree that humans are mostly responsible for the spikes in CH4 and C02 we are observing?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: buddah6

Now I feel like you are putting words in my mouth, you arr misrepresenting what I wrote.

I wrote ignorant because you rant how you want to discuss science yet end up discussing politics, Al Gore, and tax schemes.

I have no clue what your mindset is.

Do you at least not agree that humans are mostly responsible for the spikes in CH4 and C02 we are observing?

My last chemistry course was 40 years ago so it a little weak. Methane is naturally occurring gas in the atmosphere and is a product of decay. I can't answer the exact amount that is the result of man or his activity. Also, I don't know if deforestation is the reason for current CO2 levels. It could be the natural eruption of volcanoes which puts huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere or the effects of forest burning. I can think of a dozen variables in declaring man as the sole reason for atmospheric gas content. I would be arrogant in saying it is 100% natural or 100% manmade.

a reply to: buddah6

You didn't really answer the question, just evaded it in my opinion. Science suggests our activity is causing a warming trend largely from the rising CO2 and CH4 levels. Do you at least agree that there are observed CO2 and CH4 spikes?

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans?

a reply to: jrod

I picked data that everyone ignore, rather like swanne tried to do but everyone ignored. And as the data around the world don't 100% correspond to the theory of AGW, I agree with swanne that the AGW isn’t the ultimate answer, unlike some others seem to want to believe.
Climate change is happening, yes. But can we exactly say toward warming or cooling? No one knows per say, and as long the data doesn’t 100% match the theory, we cannot accept that theory as 100% truth.
Theories must match the facts and data, not ignore or distort data and facts to match an existing theory.

Parts across the world does indeed experience drought, but no one must forget that while parts experienced cold records since decades. That contradicts AGW. Therefore, AGW isn’t the only theory allowed to exist. One must also consider other theories. Unfortunately, that means using one’s brain and observe events as they are. In my case, I read about all those record-breaking colds, including in places extremely cold like Siberia. I observe and experience as Canadian summers become milder since 5 years, and Canadian winters get colder, breaking more often than before below -30 Celsius, so much that it snows less and less every year since 5 years (except in places bordering the ocean, due to the oceanic warmer temperatures).

Add to that the concerning temperature adjustments made and admitted by the NASA itself (not just Mr. Spencer).

I just read this article today:

www.msn.com...

I believe in global warming...and cooling, as a part of the natural weather patterns of this planet. What I don't believe is propaganda of doom due to a warming trend that has happened many times before on this planet. As a matter of fact if you dig deep enough, science holds we are still in a "mini ice age". The Earth WILL get warmer as we come out of it.

The whole Global Warming fear mongering by a certain segment of society is tantamount to the segment of religious society that preaches doom from the pulpit. Same thing, same tactics. Anyone that is reasonable should be able to cull through this nonsense!

a reply to: TheChrome

It is not doom porn.

There is much more fear mongering going on about ISIS on the boobtube by the main stream media.

Also there are far bigger issues than warming that we no doubt are the cause of. We are changing the chemistry of the atmosphere and ocean, we are polluting our freshwater supplies, we are tearing down forests at an alarming rate, we are also over fishing this planet's fish stocks.

It seems apparent to me that we need to stop exploiting this planet's resources for profit and use our collective knowledge to change what we can in order to better promote a sustainable planet.

Well OP you're probably wrong but there's a remote chance you're right somehow. I know you're distrusting and convinced something is amiss, but you may as well give up the fight. You and some others armed with some shovels are up against a mountain. Nothing you can do to stop what's occurring. It has gained momentum for decades, maybe centuries or more. We're going to control everything on this planet, if we survive. Almost everything. We'll control our body and every ecosystem and every landmass, sea/seafloor and molecule of atmosphere above. We're engineering our planet bit by bit, piece by piece. Natural evolution will cease to exist, or otherwise will pale in comparison to the vast changes we'll inject into the ecosystems of Earth. Nothing will be left untouched.

There's just one way for things to go back to the way they used to be. For that to happen humans have to be destroyed. And even after humans are gone, things won't be exactly like they were before. And eventually a species on this planet will rise up just as humans did and will try to do the same thing all over again, posing teh same problem.

And what's the problem, really? Humans will control almost everything, or fail and become extinct. Even if they try not to control everything, they'll be forced to. Their presence on Earth is too extensive, too deeply entrenched. They might try to recreate the Garden of Eden or preserve ecosystems in a natural state, but it'll be something manifest from their own mind, quite separate from anything natural. It's a vain pursuit of something which cannot be reached here on Earth. The only Eden is out there, somewhere. A planet like our own which has primitive life on it and is not scarred yet by the works of a dominating intelligent species.

Enjoy the beauty of Eden, but do not touch. If you so much as breath on it, you'll wake up feeling dizzy and Eden will be gone.

If we're unlucky, there's no Eden because some overbearing alien bully has touched every possible planet within our reach. But perhaps that'd be a good thing. Maybe we'd have to rethink what Eden is. We'd have to just be happy with what we got. If all you got is lemons...

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: TheChrome

It is not doom porn.

There is much more fear mongering going on about ISIS on the boobtube by the main stream media.

Also there are far bigger issues than warming that we no doubt are the cause of. We are changing the chemistry of the atmosphere and ocean, we are polluting our freshwater supplies, we are tearing down forests at an alarming rate, we are also over fishing this planet's fish stocks.

It seems apparent to me that we need to stop exploiting this planet's resources for profit and use our collective knowledge to change what we can in order to better promote a sustainable planet.

I agree with most of what you say. I like your Avatar by the way, since I am a surfer myself.

Each time I go to the river to fish, I am shocked by all the beer cans, plastic bottles and trash. Each time I go to the beach, I am shocked by all the beer cans, plastic bottles and trash. I always try to clean up other people's mess as much as possible sad to say. Yes we need to do our part for the environment, but Global Warming is a side Propaganda Issue that is fear mongering!

originally posted by: TheChrome
I just read this article today:

www.msn.com...

I believe in global warming...and cooling, as a part of the natural weather patterns of this planet. What I don't believe is propaganda of doom due to a warming trend that has happened many times before on this planet. As a matter of fact if you dig deep enough, science holds we are still in a "mini ice age". The Earth WILL get warmer as we come out of it.

So because the earth warmed previously due to natural causes, it can't warm now due to human causes? That's like saying that because trees used to fall in a forest from old age and disease, those men with power saws can't possibly have any significant effect on forests. Even when you see a huge clear-cut with scientific evidence of saw marks, tire tracks, saw blades, and pictures of the timber being hauled out. And a huge industry made up of people who saw trees and finance politicians.

What logic is that?

Actually the science holds that the forcing which cases ice ages/interglacial warm periods peaked in about 8000-6000 BC and is going lower, but greenhouse gases emitted by humans is way overwhelming that.

And the science also shows that the geological warming and cooling cycles are very different from what's happening now because there is a new input change which is happening ENORMOUSLY faster.

You accept geophysical evidence (indirect) of past climate change, but reject the much stronger current evidence from the same people?

The whole Global Warming fear mongering by a certain segment of society is tantamount to the segment of religious society that preaches doom from the pulpit. Same thing, same tactics. Anyone that is reasonable should be able to cull through this nonsense!

Just by assertion? You realize that understanding of this problem comes from basic physics and has been considered among professional scientists for about a century, and really understood 40 years ago, long before it ever became a public concern?

When do religious preachers have thousands of peer reviewed papers and quantitative evidence and observations over decades backing up their sermons?

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: TheChrome
I just read this article today:

www.msn.com...

I believe in global warming...and cooling, as a part of the natural weather patterns of this planet. What I don't believe is propaganda of doom due to a warming trend that has happened many times before on this planet. As a matter of fact if you dig deep enough, science holds we are still in a "mini ice age". The Earth WILL get warmer as we come out of it.

So because the earth warmed previously due to natural causes, it can't warm now due to human causes? That's like saying that because trees used to fall in a forest from old age and disease, those men with power saws can't possibly have any significant effect on forests. Even when you see a huge clear-cut with scientific evidence of saw marks, tire tracks, saw blades, and pictures of the timber being hauled out. And a huge industry made up of people who saw trees and finance politicians.

What logic is that?

Actually the science holds that the forcing which cases ice ages/interglacial warm periods peaked in about 8000-6000 BC and is going lower, but greenhouse gases emitted by humans is way overwhelming that.

The whole Global Warming fear mongering by a certain segment of society is tantamount to the segment of religious society that preaches doom from the pulpit. Same thing, same tactics. Anyone that is reasonable should be able to cull through this nonsense!

Just by assertion? You realize that understanding of this problem comes from basic physics and has been considered among professional scientists for about a century, and really understood 40 years ago, long before it ever became a public concern?

When do religious preachers have thousands of peer reviewed papers and quantitative evidence and observations over decades backing up their sermons?

"Backed up by decades of evidence." You just proved my point. The weather man can not predict accurately what tomorrow's weather will be. And yet I am supposed to think that data collected over the past 100 years (because before then data was extremely unreliable) that scientists have any handle whatsoever on the climate patterns of a planet that is millions of years old? Folly! As I said, I do not believe or disbelieve that there may be a current warming trend (even when data suggests otherwise) but is it anything that is abnormal or that we should be alarmed about? Probably not!

If anything, scientists dig a hole when they talk about certain warm periods in time like the article I provided a link for. Remember, scientists do not earn their own money, they are funded by grants and special interest groups who want a certain conclusion to be ascertained with no concern about objectivity. So beware!

a reply to: jonnywhite

Sorry, I know you were talking to the OP, but I just wanted to slip in and ask this:

Who says it must remain the same? With all the technology we've got, we can make shelter and farming that will take 15% of the entire surface of Earth, instead of the 60% we are right now taking.With all the new chemicals (and I mean chemical as meaning the bonding between various particles to form a stronger material) we can manufacture, we can stop all the logging, the petroleum, the mining. With further researches into chemistry, we could very well purify once more water and the atmosphere, either completely dissolving the polluants, or transforming them into something useful, like nutrients.

Healing the planet is now within reach of science's achievements, and will even more be in a few decades. We shouldn't give up healing the damage we caused: it is our moral duty to take that responsibility in our hands, and heal as much we can what we can heal, and reduce our impact on the environment.

For everyone in this thread, I also found this:

Climate scientists are obsessed with carbon dioxide. The newly released Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that “radiative forcing” from human-emitted CO2 is the leading driver of climate change. Carbon dioxide is blamed for everything from causing more droughts, floods, and hurricanes, to endangering polar bears and acidifying the oceans. But Earth’s climate is dominated by water, not carbon dioxide.


Earth’s water cycle encompasses the salt water of the oceans, the fresh water of rivers and lakes, and frozen icecaps and glaciers. It includes water flows within and between the oceans, atmosphere, and land, in the form of evaporation, precipitation, storms and weather. The water cycle contains enormous energy flows that shape Earth’s climate, temperature trends, and surface features. Water effects are orders of magnitude larger than the feared effects of carbon dioxide.

But for the last 15 years, Earth’s surface temperatures have failed to rise, despite rising atmospheric carbon dioxide. All climate models predicted a rapid rise in global temperatures, in conflict with actual measured data. Today’s models are often unable to predict weather conditions for a single season, let alone long-term climate trends.

Geologic evidence from past ice ages shows that atmospheric carbon dioxide increases follow, rather than precede, global temperature increases. As the oceans warm, they release CO2 into the atmosphere. Climate change is dominated by changes in the water cycle, driven by solar and gravitational forces, and carbon dioxide appears to play only a minor role.

Source: wattsupwiththat.com...


I think that is worth taking a look. I am not denying that the CO2 level is really high, I am merely thinking there may be other effects on Earth than global warming, even something much more disastrous: global cooling. Plants can adapt and live in warmer climates; not many plants survives in freezing temperature. No plants, no food.

But that is just one theory amongst others, like that indeed, the Earth follows a natural warming/cooling cycle, etc.

What I think the OP was trying to say was: Keep your mind open to other possibilities than always AGW, especially when the data doesn't 100% match the AGW theory... which it doesn't.

a reply to: jrod

Have any of you geniuses realized the blatant obvious?

Satellite data is gathered from space. From outside the Earth's atmosphere. Haven't any of you realized that therefore, satellite records such as these...



...are actually detecting how much heat has been reflected back to space, where the satellite's sensors are located?

a reply to: swanne
You've ignored my prior post regarding satellite measurements.

Again, satellite data is flawed. Give this from the company that brings you RSS a read.

It is gathered by infrared and microwave sounders stuck on satellites that measure a narrow area of the Earth as they are polar orbiters; they circle the Earth from pole-to-pole. As you are aware that the Earth is rotating, you should be able to see what happens - they pass over the poles far more often than the equator. An area in the Arctic Circle might be passed over every few hours, while an area near the equator might be passed over very few days.

You'll also notice on a lot of satellite temperature maps (like the one you have posted above) that the areas they pass over frequently (the polar regions) are greyed out - there are problems measuring these areas due to the pole-to-pole orbit, so it is often omitted by these satellites. Yet, these oft ignored polar regions are the fastest warming areas on the planet.

Further, if you know how microwave sounders work - they are great at broad sampling, but not all that accurate. They measure microwave radiation emission from the atmosphere on several different frequencies to obtain a number of different channels. Scientists then calculate the temperature of the various layers of the atmosphere by a Monte Carlo estimate. They are also calibrated with terrestrial samples (weather balloons is a frequent one). Infrared sounders are much more accurate, but also messed up by clouds/dust/etc.

You might notice in the RSS link that there is a little disclaimer:

All microwave sounding instruments were developed for day to day operational use in weather forecasting and thus are typically not calibrated to the precision needed for climate studies. A climate quality data set can be extracted from their measurements only by careful intercalibration of the data from the MSU, AMSU and ATMS instruments.

They are used because they are up there, not necessarily because they give an accurate picture of the Earth's climate.

If people only knew how serious this is.. they would be very afraid. Climate scientists, wonder why they are so quiet? they getting death treats (so they don't want the spotlight with their names), they basically can't tell how dire the situation is because most of the people all think this is a fairy tail. Also they know nothing serious will be done and perhaps it's not even possible anymore (most likely), at some point you just can't stop it anymore. Sure it happened in the past where 90% or more of the species died out because of rapid climate change but god knows how many (millions?) years we could have gotten a stable climate.. now even our species is getting at a risk for extinction... Don't think we are that resilient compared with many other species, sure we have technology and perhaps a few manage to survive all of this, maybe not. but for now we are only getting pointless debates about if it's real or not (human caused).

Anyways a good read:
www.esquire.com...

a reply to: Greven
Satellites do an ok job of measuring sea surface temperatures globally.
Why must everyone of these threads get derailed into a fool's debate of AGW?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

They should be superseded by more accurate records. When a scientist uses data from a flawed gathering method, he has to say as such in his writeup at the end of his research. A scientist is concerned with getting the most accurate data. So I'm sure he would be more willing to use more modern climate sampling methods to get climate data than rely on previously collected data from 50 years ago.

Hello, Ministry of Truth.

It does give you a neat rationale for completely dismissing everything in earth's pre-history though. Pay no attention to the paleoclimate behind that curtain ... or the Medieval Warm Period ... or the Little Ice Age.

Mr. Ketsuko wants to know ... since you seem to be so terribly informed, what would the exact climate of today be if there were no human impact on it? I mean if we all still lived in caves or didn't exist at all?

In exact degree ranges, please. I mean, if we can measure human impact so closely, then you ought to be able to tell us this. Just saying "A lot cooler" won't be enough.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: buddah6

Now I feel like you are putting words in my mouth, you arr misrepresenting what I wrote.

I wrote ignorant because you rant how you want to discuss science yet end up discussing politics, Al Gore, and tax schemes.

I have no clue what your mindset is.

Do you at least not agree that humans are mostly responsible for the spikes in CH4 and C02 we are observing?

I believe that there is seasonal changes in the amount of CH4 and CO2 in the atmosphere, yes. The natural processes that produce CH4 and CO2 are more active in the warm months than in the winter. I believe that many atmospheric anomalies used by the climate change group can be explained by seasonal changes. Case in point, is the NASA satellite picture of polar ice packs. The South Pole ice pictures are taken in December showing "less ice" and North Poles pictures take in July showing less ice. It is global warming!!!! Well this is true!! It is man made according to the global warming crowd...No, it is called summer.

Do you remember the drought in the southeast US a few years ago? The media published many picture of the lake that was ten feet lower than usual. Now, California is suffering a drought as well with the same type of pictures. In the 1930's we had the dust bowl in the middle of the country where drought and over-farming made agriculture impossible. Global warming/change? NASA has published satellite pictures of the water tables in California showing severe drought and the resulting lower water levels. Scientists say global warming but farmers say normal climatic cycles.

I was in the southeast last week and there is no evidence of drought today and middle America is doing just fine. California has been made the poster child for everything the "warmers" believe. Land misuse, natural resources abused and large agriculture. Oh, don't forget the snail darter, delta smelt protection, anti fur industry and protect the old growth forests. I am sure that California will survive and will rebound from all the climatic problems naturally. It will not be because the "efforts" of the EPA, NASA or the "warmers".

a reply to: jrod
The oceans are warming and becoming more acidic.
Again I ask why must everyone of these threads get degraded into a debate over AGW?
The scientific consensus is clear! and public opinion is moving toward their consensus.