Global Warming Has Ended

Originally posted by Majic
The fact that this offends certain people only proves my point.

I'm not offended by your position....only confused by it...and, at this point, largely in disagreement with it.

Originally posted by Majic
I prefer critical thinking and making up my own mind on the issues rather than having opinions dictated to me by governments and those of my colleagues who should know better than that.

To know better is to base opinions on a foundation of years of meteorological observations, measurements, science and math. That means it's not about subjectivism, biases or bigotry in that I will disregard data cause it suits my fancy or cherry pick data to fit a hypothesis built on parti pris and prejudices.

In regards to climatology, we should always base our opinions and summations on the given data, measurements and the performance of numerical climate models. If the mathematical algorithms and data input are wrong, it will reflect as such in forecast accuracy. Thus far, the global-mean surface temperature has risen 0.74°C over the past 100 years, climate models have been proven correct and are consistantly becoming more accurate.

Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections AAAS

The data shows us that our current levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane have exceeded pre-industrial levels going back 650,000 years and have been factored into the climate models.

CO2: pre-industrial 280 ppm to 379 ppm in 2005
Methane: pre-industrial 715ppb to 1,774ppb in 2005.

These climate models have demonstrated that recent trends cannot be explained without including increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

When you can show me evidence that our state of the art climate models are becoming more inaccurate and I will say your skeptism is warranted, otherwise I see no evidence of this self-professed critical thought.

GFDL Climate Research Highlights: Summaries, Graphics and Animations

NOAA ACTIVATES NEWEST CLIMATE & WEATHER SUPERCOMPUTERS

[edit on 2-2-2007 by Regenmacher]

Originally posted by loam
I hear you, alphabetaone, but given the way things are lining up, can you honestly argue the “potentials” are equally weighted or even close?

No I cant, which is exactly why I'm riding the middle.

Originally posted by loam
Like I said earlier, skepticism is all good and well, but at what point does that convert into unreasonable denial?

I would have to say UNreasonable denial begins when we're all too toasty to survive and someone states that nothing is wrong.

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by alphabetaone
…not NEAR enough to convince me that life needs to change drastically.

Again, I don’t know how you arrived at this conclusion.

That one is actually pretty easy to answer. Like GWB, "Im the decider" on what I choose to find feasible or not.

Originally posted by loam
Drastic changes only come to the unprepared.

In fact, that is the problem with this whole debate.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume the science is correct on this issue. How do you really think all of the “drastic” changes you claim might be required could actually be implemented?

No idea, frankly...yet to me it's like cancer in a way...I dont know how to cure it, but I certainly dont want chemotherapy to be sure i DONT have it

Originally posted by loam
Seems to me, if we are missing the boat on the reality of global climate change, the longer we wait, the more “drastic” things will become.

Food for thought.

Absolutely true... if the global warming theorists are right on the money, yes.
If they are wrong, no.


Like you, Loam, I surely hope we dont need luck as well


AB1

Unlawful Warrant

Originally posted by Regenmacher
When you can show me evidence that our state of the art climate models are becoming more inaccurate and I will say your skeptism is warranted, otherwise I see no evidence of this self-professed critical thought.

If I should ever want you to decide what my opinion or position on any issue should be or whether "skepticism is warranted", I'll be sure to let you know in a very public fashion.

I don't need anyone's permission to be a skeptic.

Wow--I've never seen a troll get away with this much...

Originally posted by Majic
If I should ever want you to decide what my opinion or position on any issue should be or whether "skepticism is warranted", I'll be sure to let you know in a very public fashion.

I will decide how I choose to see it and until you present scientific evidence that is the contrary to what is given, then I will continue see it as baseless skepticism because it lacks proof. I really don't care about these subjective opinions or desires that have little to do with proving or disproving climatological outlooks, I want to see data and facts about this topic.

Here's more on the performance of climate forecasting:
Global temperature change

Use of this method has dispelled numerous subjective opinions:

The scientific method involves the following basic facets:

* Observation. A constant feature of scientific inquiry.
* Description. Information must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable) as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry).
* Prediction. Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment.
* Control. Actively and fairly sampling the range of possible occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or counterbalance the risk of empirical bias.
* Falsifiability, or the elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases.
* Causal explanation. Many scientists and theorists on scientific method argue that concepts of causality are not obligatory to science, but are in fact well-defined only under particular, admittedly widespread conditions. Under these conditions the following requirements are generally regarded as important to scientific understanding:
* Identification of causes. Identification of the causes of a particular phenomenon to the best achievable extent.
* Covariation of events. The hypothesized causes must correlate with observed effects.
* Time-order relationship. The hypothesized causes must precede the observed effects in time.

[edit on 2-2-2007 by Regenmacher]

Where Blogs Come From

Originally posted by Regenmacher
I really don't care about these subjective opinions or desires that have little to do with proving or disproving climatological outlooks, I want to see data and facts about this topic.

God forbid anyone should be so presumptuous as to post their opinions in your discussion forum.

Originally posted by Regenmacher
I will decide how I choose to see it and until you present scientific evidence that is the contrary to what is given

Regen,

No One Is challenging your right to see things how you want to...YOU seem to be the one doing that, so lets knock it off already. Listen to yourself a moment, you seem seriously extremist and unwilling to admit that YOUR view is NOT the only one possible OR the only one out there.

Healthy debate about any subject is great...in fact, necessary...but honestly dont you think you're only seeing one side? One view? You make no concessions whatsoever that the global warming mindset MAY be flawed ONLY that it and ONLY it is accurate and any other way of thinking is almost taboo ... while many of us who think it could be flawed have conceded time and again on how it ALSO may be accurate......hell, if there were more people that thought and acted the way you seem to be, the absolute LEAST of our worries would be cataclysmic climate shifts.



AB1

Originally posted by alphabetaone

Regen,

No One Is challenging your right to see things how you want to...YOU seem to be the one doing that, so lets knock it off already. Listen to yourself a moment, you seem seriously extremist and unwilling to admit that YOUR view is NOT the only one possible OR the only one out there.

I will be happy to make concessions when I see the trend in forecasting is becoming more inaccurate and unstable, otherwise I see no reason jump off a proven ship when it has been useful tool to me for many years.

Forecasting isn't about extremism either or it would soon become an invalid and useless endeavor. Now if you want to include low percentile probablities in your climate outlook, like the sun going nova, Yellowstone going off, Norad launching or an ice age coming ....be my guest.




[edit on 2-2-2007 by Regenmacher]

The U.N. panels are not composed of U.N. employees.

They are independent scientists from the entire planet who work in their own institutions. The U.N. is merely the organizer for the conferences.


Why are people so much "on the fence"?

Are people on the fence about the essential validity of Newtonian and Einsteinian dynamics and gravitation? No. It is correct.

Are people on the fence about the essential validity of the atomic theory of matter? No.

Are people on the fence abou the essential validity of the statistical theory of heat (i.e random Bolzmannian/Maxwellian motions, hence no "cold" fluid)? No.

This is the same thing. It may be difficult to accept the logical consequences emotionally but the laws of physics do not give a crap.

You make no concessions whatsoever that the global warming mindset MAY be flawed ONLY that it and ONLY it is accurate and any other way of thinking is almost taboo ... while many of us who think it could be flawed have conceded time and again on how it ALSO may be accurate

The problem is that the "it may be flawed" position is that it is intellectually sterile.

In all substantive ways the internal action of the scietnific community has investigated potential, major flaws in enormous detail and expertise, far more than any armchair layman. These have mostly happened years and decades ago.

Saying it is reasonable to be skeptical is like splitting the difference about the existance of Iceland. No matter how many Icelanders you meet, or satellite photos, or reports from ship captains that the's a big ass island in the North Atlantic, somebody thinks it's reasonable to "be skeptical".

Or arguing whether the heart is really the organ responsible for pumping blood at a cardiologists convention (something figured out in the 15th century), while they discuss the latest techniques for robotic valve surgery and EKG monitoring.

Scientists were internally skeptical and not willing to make firm predictions, let's say in 1970 or even 1980. By late 80's early 90's, the evidence was looking very strong, and now it is overwhelming.

Originally posted by Majic
God forbid anyone should be so presumptuous as to post their opinions in your discussion forum.

Here's some more wisdom to enlighten those cave walls:




[edit on 2-2-2007 by Regenmacher]

Originally posted by mbkennel
Why are people so much "on the fence"?

I have been (until now) largely because it's been so damn difficult to weigh the validity of so many contradictory assertions from so many camps.

Because of the methodology of the IPCC's report, I for the first time feel satisfied that widespread fraud, bias and/or error is less likely. Of course, I’m still open to the possibility. But, absent any compelling information to the contrary, I find reluctance to give the IPCC’s most recent conclusions significant weight a less reasonable position to take.


[edit on 2-2-2007 by loam]

regenmacher, thank you for the exaustive research; I also do agree that there is such varied information coming down the pike but yet know from combining the information still keeps me on the fence as well. However, to me whether in just my intuitiveness, there is definately extreme odd weather issues that I feel no human can deny. I was in the Brown County Ohio ice storm a few winters ago and it was a phenomenon to see. Then the Hurricane Katrina; just to mention a few and know that these catastrophic events would trigger common sense and would tell me something is not right or normal with our weather. While there maybe variations of scientific reports, it will remain up to us as individuals to what we feel is the most accurate. Still down in my gut, I know something is seriously wrong.

Originally posted by Majic

Originally posted by Regenmacher
I really don't care about these subjective opinions or desires that have little to do with proving or disproving climatological outlooks, I want to see data and facts about this topic.

God forbid anyone should be so presumptuous as to post their opinions in your discussion forum.

Majic, I really think your comments are unneccessary and off the mark. Regenmacher is trying to present fair and accurate information from reliable sources. All he's asking from you and others is that YOU return the favor and come up with some sources for your disbelief in GW. So far, no one has, including yourself. You can't just state your opinion, which appears to not be based on anything factual, and expect everyone else to be convinced. You need to present some solid facts so we can know WHY you think the way you do. Until then, it's just that, an opinion based on nothing except fanciful wishing. How else are we to believe you have any credibility? We are discussing FACTS here, not fantasies and we're trying not to come fro a knee-jerk emotional response, but solid information, which Regenmacher has done a brilliant job at.

Originally posted by mbkennel

The problem is that the "it may be flawed" position is that it is intellectually sterile.

as is trusting the establishment because of their expertise.

if it cannot be explained in a bullet proof way it is no basis for a decision, yet all they doomsday merchants say is that the rise in temperatures cannot be explained (by them) without factoring in greenhous gasses.... that is pretty much the opposite of conclusive proof and i think people should demand explanations that don't stop at emotional shock&awe tactics.

In all substantive ways the internal action of the scietnific community has investigated potential, major flaws in enormous detail and expertise, far more than any armchair layman. These have mostly happened years and decades ago.

i'll try to explain why i'm *very* sceptical of the current rush towards weather collapse prophecies. first off, causality should be understood, ie. how are greenhouse gasses capturing heat and where are the limitations / pecularities of this mechanism.

so, GHGs block certain wavelengths, so far so good, the next questions would be a) how much do these wavelengths contribute and b) how much is already blocked?

armed with these basic questions i quickly found out that absorption patterns for CO2 are already near saturation, which means that more CO2 will only marginally increase GW. methane is more of a problem, because its concentration is much lower and therefore has a lot of headroom left, which is well known, but no-one in his right mind is blowing natural gas into the air but sells it instead, so a tax on methane emissions wouldn't create much revenue, while a CO2 tax is effectively an air tax and of course obscenely profitable (Kyoto accords).

aip.org

...A still weightier objection came from a simple laboratory measurement. A few years after Arrhenius published his hypothesis, Knut Ångström sent infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide. He put in as much of the gas in total as would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas in half or doubled it. The reason was that CO2 absorbed radiation only in specific bands of the spectrum, and it took only a trace of the gas to produce bands that were "saturated" — so thoroughly opaque that more gas could make little difference

Original thread.


the so called *proof* we have for GW is based on two premises, first and foremost the validity of computer models and simulations and secondly, extrapolation. note that the daily chorus is warning about sea level rise, melting glaciers, desertification and so on becoming catastrophic in the middle of the 21st century.

about computer models, i'll have to kindly ask how it can be accurate when significan emmisions of methane by plants went overlooked for so long?

Source

Living plants growing at their normal temperatures generated even larger quantities of methane, as much as 370 ng per gram of plant tissue per hour. Methane emission more than tripled when the plants, either living or dead, were exposed to sunlight.

cumulative effect: 150Mtons or 20% more emissions than originally estimated ( i'm quoting these numbers, they are way to round to be considered more than arough (gu)es(s)timate), so either your models are off or they were *on* because of fudge factors, either way they are incorrect, because the last option, namely that GHGs do not amount to much is politically reprehensible but worth a consideration if you factor in clouds... which traditionally absorb so much you can't even see through them


secondly, doomsday prophecies are nothing new, yet people keep falling for them, every generation seems to need its own doom&gloom thrill, no matter how *cough* well *cough* founded it is. ice age in the 1970s, earth covered in horse manure by 2000 (19th century), commuism to rule the world by 1970 ?(ok that was low).. the list goes on.... snake oil peddling offering unprecedented opportunities in service sector by 2020 ? ?

summary: fool me once ....

thridly, historical perspecitve: if looking into our Venusian future is good for the media then looking back is good for me, so why was Greenland burdened with its counter-intuitive name again? wait. agriculture on greenland, right? Viking settlements... need i say more?


fourthly: consider the opposite scenario: expanding glaciers, snowfall for the first time in millenia (650.000 years ? :lol people would be upset and rightly so, because a glacier is a desert and being used to it does not change that fact. considering that scenario, i'd wager that warming is preferrable and that the idea of a frozen (pun intended) climate that remains constant forever is tbh, absurd.


fifth: it's a BIG business, more taxes, more subsidies and more shouting in the media. can you hear the bull roar? i can, at taxpayer's expense, all these biofuel initiatives will eventually find themselves without resources and subsidies but i guess the politically adept will be milking 'reconstruction' or whatever the by-then latest craze might be for all its worth by then - again at taxpayer's expense.


That's obscenely obvious when you consider WHAT is being propagated: the 'hydrogen economy', horribly inefficient.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

biofuels: competing with food crops, require fertilzers (derived from fossil fuels), subsidized crops usually low yielding:

Source

The EU biofuels policy currently relies on an assumption that the heavily-subsidised cultivation of rapeseed will meet its biodiesel targets. However, this is a very large assumption. Already some 3 million hectares of agricultural land across the EU, an area roughly the size of Belgium, grows 10 millon tonnes of rapeseed. But since just 20% of this is ultimately used for biodiesel as opposed to food oil, another whole Belgium would have to be covered in the yellow rapeseed blanket to meet the targets. Rapeseed tires the land, and requires expensive crop rotation and fossil-based fertilisers. Growing rapeseed also has an opportunity cost of preventing farmers from growing more environmentally-friendly, less intensive, and often more profitable produce such as cereals or organic root vegetables. Under these circumstances, the supply of rapeseed oil is unlikely to be able meet the demand.

i guess good intentions are more importand than results, then?


With current scientific paradigm focusing solely on consensus, with populations believing anything that's going through the media, widespread hysteria is the inevitable consequence. You are of course very wrong and detrimental policies born out of emotional actionism will certainly lead to 'reforms' of one kind or another which will only aggravate the situation, requiring more intervention and alarmism.


what could and should be done is using solar collectors combined with heat pumps for heating purposes wherever possible, cutting down energy consumption is a goal by itself and does not require climate change related arguments. catching methane from decaying organic matter (ie. manure, etc) would be a plus either way, but it's not being done, while biofuels are eating all the subsidies. it's a racket, so my last question is:

will you remember your current stance when the craze levels off again?


PS: these threads keep coming back and reiterated very few weeks, there are more than enough references already, the mere fact that the involved 'main parties' seemingly enjoy this kind of constand rehearsal speaks volumes. with that out of the way, a thread you will throughly dislike can be found here

[edit on 3-2-2007 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by Long Lance
armed with these basic questions i quickly found out that absorption patterns for CO2 are already near saturation, which means that more CO2 will only marginally increase GW.

Maybe you should of read the entire historical progression of research rather than cherry picking an experiment from 1908, and we have learned much since then. Extrapolating a 100 year old limited lab experiment in order to explain the effects on a large and complex system like the climate is also going to be highly inaccurated and flawed.

So let's jump to 1938:

"This rise, Callendar asserted, could explain the observed warming. For he understood that even if the CO2 in the atmosphere did already absorb all the heat radiation passing through, adding more gas would change the height in the atmosphere where the absorption took place. That, he calculated, would make for warming."

More here: www.aip.org...

Originally posted by Long Lance
about computer models, i'll have to kindly ask how it can be accurate when significan emmisions of methane by plants went overlooked for so long?

That study "might" point to potentially even greater probems in the future, but CH4 concentration in the atmosphere has stopped rising since the early 90's, while C02 is still rising. So the models aren't way off, and we can check their accuracy by past performance.

Contribution of anthropogenic and natural sources to atmospheric methane variability nature
FIGURE 2. Variations in CH4 emissions attributed to different processes.

Originally posted by Long Lance
secondly, doomsday prophecies are nothing new, yet people keep falling for them, every generation seems to need its own doom&gloom thrill, no matter how *cough* well *cough* founded it is. ice age in the 1970s, earth covered in horse manure by 2000 (19th century), commuism to rule the world by 1970 ?(ok that was low).. the list goes on.... snake oil peddling offering unprecedented opportunities in service sector by 2020 ? ?

Global warming didn't stop in the 70's and the NSA said at that time an ice age prediction was not possible. Those other kooky examples are hardly a comparison to the current situation. So here's a lesson for everyone: don't cull your science stories from the mass media, if you want to be seen as credible.

From the 1975 NSA report:

"...we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate...".

The attack on this problem is in its infancy. ... Efforts to assemble such models [Coupled GCMs [WMC]] are just getting under way...

As for you last link, maybe they should look at how many seasonal cycles these observations cover before claiming it's a trend, and they lack of ground observation data.

Global warming on Mars? RealClimate

As for economics, America has lost site of the depression era lesson about saving for a rainy day. Now the rainy day has come and America is in record debt. As always, buyer beware for they have already sold us a war at $500+ billion.

The Awakening of the UsuryFree Creatives



[edit on 3-2-2007 by Regenmacher]

Who do you people hate, and why do hate them so much?

Who do you people hate, and why do hate them so much?

Originally posted by forestlady
Majic, I really think your comments are unneccessary and off the mark. Regenmacher is trying to present fair and accurate information from reliable sources. All he's asking from you and others is that YOU return the favor and come up with some sources for your disbelief in GW.

Thank you forestlady, you took the words RIGHT out of my mouth. Majic is known to deflect and derail these conversations/debates. Has he tried to change the subject onto "follow the money trail" yet?

Has anyone mentioned the new IPCC report which was approved by 100% consensus, line by line by over 100 countries(including the US of A) yet? Just thought I'd throw that out there.