USA Today: Could we be wrong about global warming?

[tlongII]

Actually the global warming theory promulgated by Gore is a bunch of crap. Bad science. And that has been proven.

 

[Minstrel]

Actually the global warming theory promulgated by Gore is a bunch of crap. Bad science. And that has been proven.

Al Gore isn't a scientist. He's a marketer, as far as this issue goes. Nobody in this thread has been referencing Al Gore in support of man-made global warming.

 

[tlongII]

Al Gore isn't a scientist. He's a marketer, as far as this issue goes. Nobody in this thread has been referencing Al Gore in support of man-made global warming.

All I can say is man-made global warming is a fallacy.

 

[mobes23]

All I can say is man-made global warming is a fallacy.

Excellent. And I'm sure this is based on a combination of your scientific background and years of study in the topic and has nothing to do with your own political agenda.

 

[Denny Crane]

Al Gore aint posting here, you are.
If Al Gore were to post here, I think you'd have a perfect right to demand he justify his numbers.
I'm not going to do it for him, because among other things, I've never even seen his presentation.
But I have seen what you've posted, and you are making specific claims that can be disputed.

barfo

I guess all these charts people posted with 350 PPM is a figment of my imagination.

 

[Denny Crane]

I've been to L.A. plenty, and during really bad smog days.

They don't compare to many days I spent on Maui when there was a Kona wind (opposite direction of trade winds) blowing. All the VOG (volcano smog) from the big island made the air white and reduced visibility to 100 feet.

How do we cap and trade volcanoes?

Speaking of cap and trade and Al Gore, Gore runs a company that profits off of morons doing cap & trade voluntarily.

Warning: language in this video NSFW

[video=youtube;AQygvUrBMGU]

 

[mobes23]

Yeah, I've seen some crazy hazy vog days in Kona too. Obviously, the difference is that we have zero control over volcanic eruptions.

Ever been to Mexico City? Boy howdy, now that place has smog. As the plane descends, you think wow, this is bad. Then as the plane continues to descend you keep thinking it can't get much worse but it does. Beautiful city, great people, incredible culture, but horrible air there.

 

[barfo]

I guess all these charts people posted with 350 PPM is a figment of my imagination.

So, to recap, you don't have to back up your assertions because someone else here posted a graph?

barfo

 

[Sug]

Look we manufactured the cold war to boost the economy, why can't we create another threat to do the same. Think of it like the insurance industry, or medical coverage. You might not ever need it, but people can make money from working towards preventing it.

 

[Denny Crane]

Look we manufactured the cold war to boost the economy, why can't we create another threat to do the same. Think of it like the insurance industry, or medical coverage. You might not ever need it, but people can make money from working towards preventing it.

Maybe we should work towards defending ourself from an alien attack, too. I do mean little green men from outer space.

 

[Denny Crane]

So, to recap, you don't have to back up your assertions because someone else here posted a graph?

barfo

To recap, there's some proclaimed consensus of "scientists" that are duping people, and it's actually scientific to be skeptical of their claims.

 

[mobes23]

To recap, there's some proclaimed consensus of "scientists" that are duping people, and it's actually scientific to be skeptical of their claims.

Somewhat true. The problem for both sides is the number of politicos pushing agendas and trying to whore out science however they can to support their agendas. Good solid science and understanding of it by policy makers is what we need.

Schleps googling to find graphs and random quotes that they don't understand and passing it off as irrefutable is the problem.

True for both sides.

 

[tlongII]

Excellent. And I'm sure this is based on a combination of your scientific background and years of study in the topic and has nothing to do with your own political agenda.

It's only based on my personal research. I have no political agenda.

 

[mobes23]

It's only based on my personal research. I have no political agenda.

Lol. Well nice work then -- you've successfully been able to reach conclusions an untold number of Ph.D. researchers have not.

 

[barfo]

Schleps googling to find graphs and random quotes that they don't understand and passing it off as irrefutable is the problem.

Agree 100%.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

Somewhat true. The problem for both sides is the number of politicos pushing agendas and trying to whore out science however they can to support their agendas. Good solid science and understanding of it by policy makers is what we need.

Schleps googling to find graphs and random quotes that they don't understand and passing it off as irrefutable is the problem.

True for both sides.

Since when is offering contradicting data an "irrefutable" position. People like Al Gore declaring "the debate is over" on anthropogenic GW are in an 'irrefutable' position, at least according to them.

Yet data exists that refutes the 'irrefutable' arguement, and it isn't answered by science, it's answered by opinion or guesstimates from unproven "models" that are constantly being tweaked as they become invalid.

 

[mobes23]

Since when is offering contradicting data an "irrefutable" position. People like Al Gore declaring "the debate is over" on anthropogenic GW are in an 'irrefutable' position, at least according to them.

Yet data exists that refutes the 'irrefutable' arguement, and it isn't answered by science, it's answered by opinion or guesstimates from unproven "models" that are constantly being tweaked as they become invalid.

Simply put, in this thread you have been the conservative version of Al Gore. No difference in approach. The only difference is in political agenda.

It's not that you are offering contradicting data that is the problem (in fact, that is a good thing in terms of scientific process as long as the data is solid and well considered). The problem is that the data is not as rock solid as you make it out to be. Good science would mean that you measure the strengths/weaknesses of it, not wield it like a sword at anyone who holds a different opinion.

You have continued to insist your googled data be explained, yet you immediately turn around and reject any models and theories that don't fit your agenda. Science should drive policy. Not the other way around.

 

[tlongII]

Lol. Well nice work then -- you've successfully been able to reach conclusions an untold number of Ph.D. researchers have not.

Conclusions coming soon...

 

[PapaG]

Simply put, in this thread you have been the conservative version of Al Gore. No difference in approach. The only difference is in political agenda.

Simply put, that's a losing argument. You tipped your hand. I've offered data that shows temps aren't increasing in correlation to CO2 emissions over the past ten years. That is a fact. You are being more like Gore by demonizing me instead of refuting the data. I doubt you even recognize this, however, but it is true.

It's not that you are offering contradicting data that is the problem (in fact, that is a good thing in terms of scientific process as long as the data is solid and well considered). The problem is that the data is not as rock solid as you make it out to be. Good science would mean that you measure the strengths/weaknesses of it, not wield it like a sword at anyone who holds a different opinion.

Great. Tell me the weakness of the CO2 vs. temperature data. You've yet to do it. Instead, you just lecture about how correct you are while belittling me as having a "political agenda". Silly.

You have continued to insist your googled data be explained, yet you immediately turn around and reject any models and theories that don't fit your agenda. Science should drive policy. Not the other way around.

You've offered no data to reject the CO2 vs. temp map. I've already conceded that I believe there is climate change. If you'd like to have a serious discussion, great. If you'd like to continue to attack the poster instead of the data, there is no reason for us to continue. As for "Googled" data, where did you get yours? Is it your data?

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Actually the global warming theory promulgated by Gore is a bunch of crap. Bad science. And that has been proven.

Oh well if you put it that way.


/thread

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Al Gore isn't a scientist. He's a marketer, as far as this issue goes. Nobody in this thread has been referencing Al Gore in support of man-made global warming.

Isn't he the one that invented the internet?

 

[Minstrel]

Isn't he the one that invented the internet?

Nope.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

 

[mobes23]

1. Demonizing. If I demonize you for anything, it's for your pretend scientific approach. Good scientists look to the holes in their own theories. Pros and cons are evaluated. Changes to hypotheses made. Nonscientists tend to think of things in absolutes. I've done graduate level research and I know what it means to try and tackle a problem that you do not know the answer to. It's a lonely and difficult proposition to grapple with data. Over time, you may reach a place of certainty, but it takes blood, sweat and tears to get there. Honestly, as a scientist, I'll admit I get angry when nonscientists act like know-it-alls and that their point is an absolute. Right or wrong, that is how I perceive you. Probably if we were out having a beer I wouldn't feel that way -- it's just the soul-less internet.

2. Problems with the data. I absolutely have discussed weaknesses. Go back through the thread and re-read my posts involving La Nina/El Nino effects, the fact that the data is erroneously trying to prove climactic change based on a data set of 10 years (actually even less than that), your crazy assumption that CO2 level is the only impact on global temperature, and the fact that models including the impact of CO2 are a much better fit than those without.

3. Impact of CO2 on global warming. Glad you brought this up. I'm glad to concede (and I actually already have in this thread) that the impact of CO2 on global warming might not be as large as thought in the past. My point in this thread is that the plot you're hanging your hat on is not nearly strong enough to support it. More data is needed. Is it interesting? Sure, I'm glad to give you that. Do we adjust policy because of it? Absolutely not. Get more data to support it, then maybe the policy goes a different way.

Edit: one other thing I'd like to add. While this thread has been frustrating at times, I actually do appreciate the opposing viewpoint regarding CO2. It's been awhile since I looked at the science behind this issue and things have changed some.

 

[PapaG]

1. Demonizing. If I demonize you for anything, it's for your pretend scientific approach. Good scientists look to the holes in their own theories. Pros and cons are evaluated. Changes to hypotheses made. Nonscientists tend to think of things in absolutes. I've done graduate level research and I know what it means to try and tackle a problem that you do not know the answer to. It's a lonely and difficult proposition to grapple with data. Over time, you may reach a place of certainty, but it takes blood, sweat and tears to get there. Honestly, as a scientist, I'll admit I get angry when nonscientists act like know-it-alls and that their point is an absolute. Right or wrong, that is how I perceive you. Probably if we were out having a beer I wouldn't feel that way -- it's just the soul-less internet.

YOU HAVE YET TO REFUTE THE CO2 VS. TEMP DATA. x100. Maybe that gets the point across again? There is no "certainty" about the impact on temps from the tiny % of greenhouse gases that man emits. The data I posted suggest an almost inverse relationship over the past 10 years. Saying "El Nino" from 1997 does not lead to a 10 year trend that does not support the claim.

2. Problems with the data. I absolutely have discussed weaknesses. Go back through the thread and re-read my posts involving La Nina/El Nino effects, the fact that the data is erroneously trying to prove climactic change based on a data set of 10 years (actually even less than that), your crazy assumption that CO2 level is the only impact on global temperature, and the fact that models including the impact of CO2 are a much better fit than those without.

You aren't even reading what I am posting. I never posted that, not even once. In fact, I posted what a tiny fraction emitted CO2 is in relation to greenhouse gases. Again, if you're not going to read my posts, why are you replying to them? Also, "models" that predict the future are not scientific proof. As a scientist, you should know this.

3. Impact of CO2 on global warming. Glad you brought this up. I'm glad to concede (and I actually already have in this thread) that the impact of CO2 on global warming might not be as large as thought in the past. My point in this thread is that the plot you're hanging your hat on is not nearly strong enough to support it. More data is needed. Is it interesting? Sure, I'm glad to give you that. Do we adjust policy because of it? Absolutely not. Get more data to support it, then maybe the policy goes a different way.

Of course more data is needed. That's the entire f**king point. There is not any recent data suggesting that our CO2 output is rapidly escalating temperatures. Period. The only evidence supports the contrary view, yet you are willing to make changes based on inconclusive data. Not very "scientific" of you, I must say. Seems more "political", actually.

In the meantime, I don't need to hear that "the planet has a fever" because some guy is driving an SUV, and I don't need legislation that will cripple an already wounded economy because it will "save the planet".

 

[Denny Crane]

1. Demonizing. If I demonize you for anything, it's for your pretend scientific approach. Good scientists look to the holes in their own theories. Pros and cons are evaluated. Changes to hypotheses made. Nonscientists tend to think of things in absolutes. I've done graduate level research and I know what it means to try and tackle a problem that you do not know the answer to. It's a lonely and difficult proposition to grapple with data. Over time, you may reach a place of certainty, but it takes blood, sweat and tears to get there. Honestly, as a scientist, I'll admit I get angry when nonscientists act like know-it-alls and that their point is an absolute. Right or wrong, that is how I perceive you. Probably if we were out having a beer I wouldn't feel that way -- it's just the soul-less internet.

2. Problems with the data. I absolutely have discussed weaknesses. Go back through the thread and re-read my posts involving La Nina/El Nino effects, the fact that the data is erroneously trying to prove climactic change based on a data set of 10 years (actually even less than that), your crazy assumption that CO2 level is the only impact on global temperature, and the fact that models including the impact of CO2 are a much better fit than those without.

3. Impact of CO2 on global warming. Glad you brought this up. I'm glad to concede (and I actually already have in this thread) that the impact of CO2 on global warming might not be as large as thought in the past. My point in this thread is that the plot you're hanging your hat on is not nearly strong enough to support it. More data is needed. Is it interesting? Sure, I'm glad to give you that. Do we adjust policy because of it? Absolutely not. Get more data to support it, then maybe the policy goes a different way.

Edit: one other thing I'd like to add. While this thread has been frustrating at times, I actually do appreciate the opposing viewpoint regarding CO2. It's been awhile since I looked at the science behind this issue and things have changed some.

Something to consider, and I've never ever seen that this has been done before...

Take two jars. One is just filled with air. The other contains air but with CO2 at 700 PPM. Leave them sit in the sun. You should be able to detect the kind of temperature change the extra CO2 supposedly causes.

It sure seems like a simple experiment.

 

[PapaG]

Edit: one other thing I'd like to add. While this thread has been frustrating at times, I actually do appreciate the opposing viewpoint regarding CO2. It's been awhile since I looked at the science behind this issue and things have changed some.

I'll admit that my focus is very narrow and deals with anthropogenic global warming. That doesn't mean I don't think the climate is changing. I'm just looking for data that supports the common claim that our output of CO2 is the primary cause for temperatures rising. All evidence I've found suggests otherwise.

 

[mobes23]

YOU HAVE YET TO REFUTE THE CO2 VS. TEMP DATA. x100. Maybe that gets the point across again? There is no "certainty" about the impact on temps from the tiny % of greenhouse gases that man emits. The data I posted suggest an almost inverse relationship over the past 10 years. Saying "El Nino" from 1997 does not lead to a 10 year trend that does not support the claim.



You aren't even reading what I am posting. I never posted that, not even once. In fact, I posted what a tiny fraction emitted CO2 is in relation to greenhouse gases. Again, if you're not going to read my posts, why are you replying to them? Also, "models" that predict the future are not scientific proof. As a scientist, you should know this.



Of course more data is needed. That's the entire f**king point. There is not any recent data suggesting that our CO2 output is rapidly escalating temperatures. Period. The only evidence supports the contrary view, yet you are willing to make changes based on inconclusive data. Not very "scientific" of you, I must say. Seems more "political", actually.

In the meantime, I don't need to hear that "the planet has a fever" because some guy is driving an SUV, and I don't need legislation that will cripple an already wounded economy because it will "save the planet".

You missed the boat about the flawed assumption regarding CO2 trend and global temps. You keep wanting to know why they don't correlate. Let's just assume there are OTHER factors that work to lower global temp over a short period. Volcanic eruptions or massive sandstorms (if I remember right, crazy as it sounds, sandstorms actually do have a solid impact) put an unusual amount of particulate into the atmosphere to deflect the sun's light over a short period of time (say 10 years). La Nina is strong and lowers global temp. The melting of the polar ice provides a new sink for CO2 and not as much of the global CO2 is in the atmosphere to act as a greenhouse gas. I have no idea whether some or all of these are correct, but the point is that other forces are at play in determining global temp. Some of them may very well have had a larger impact on decreasing global temp than CO2 had on increasing it during that 10 year period. This doesn't mean that CO2 isn't important -- it just depends on what those other factors might be and the magnitude of their impact.

The weight of the data is in favor of the fact that global warming is occurring and that CO2 plays a major role. I could've post a crazy number of peer reviewed articles that would drown out your plot (that seemed to come from a blog.) I don't think we shut down the economy over the current strong scientific consensus, but we're fools if we don't start trying to address the issue. At the same time, let's gather more data and make some informed decisions. I'd like to think we're not at the point of directing major international policy based on blogs. Twitter maybe, but not blogs.

I'll put the rest of your post in the circular file labelled "econ major pretending to be a scientist".

 

[Denny Crane]

I'll admit that my focus is very narrow and deals with anthropogenic global warming. That doesn't mean I don't think the climate is changing. I'm just looking for data that supports the common claim that our output of CO2 is the primary cause for temperatures rising. All evidence I've found suggests otherwise.

What the data shows is that those who seem so sure shouldn't be so sure. This begs the question of why they act so sure. mobes23 hit that one out of the park - politics, not science.

It seems to me the loudest people on this issue are the types who riot outside the WTO meetings. They're anti-capitalist if they insist on doing things of minimal true benefit for the ecology at major expense to the economy. The key being - anything to be a major expense to the economy/harm it.

The vast majority of species who ever lived on this planet are extinct. Extinction is the premise behind the THEORY of Evolution. So given those truths, I'd be looking at weighting economic conditions over ecological ones in general. If there's little cost to favoring the ecology, then I'm all for it. Like buying the Prius, or using something other than CFCs in spray cans of stuff, or using paper wrappers instead of Styrofoam for your fast food. Those things actually have had very real and big impacts on improving the ecology at minimal cost.

 

[Denny Crane]

You missed the boat about the flawed assumption regarding CO2 trend and global temps. You keep wanting to know why they don't correlate. Let's just assume there are OTHER factors that work to lower global temp over a short period. Volcanic eruptions or massive sandstorms (if I remember right, crazy as it sounds, sandstorms actually do have a solid impact) put an unusual amount of particulate into the atmosphere to deflect the sun's light over a short period of time (say 10 years). La Nina is strong and lowers global temp. The melting of the polar ice provides a new sink for CO2 and not as much of the global CO2 is in the atmosphere to act as a greenhouse gas. I have no idea whether some or all of these are correct, but the point is that other forces are at play in determining global temp. Some of them may very well have had a larger impact on decreasing global temp than CO2 had on increasing it during that 10 year period. This doesn't mean that CO2 isn't important -- it just depends on what those other factors might be and the magnitude of their impact.

The weight of the data is in favor of the fact that global warming is occurring and that CO2 plays a major role. I could've post a crazy number of peer reviewed articles that would drown out your plot (that seemed to come from a blog.) I don't think we shut down the economy over the current strong scientific consensus, but we're fools if we don't start trying to address the issue. At the same time, let's gather more data and make some informed decisions. I'd like to think we're not at the point of directing major international policy based on blogs. Twitter maybe, but not blogs.

I'll put the rest of your post in the circular file labelled "econ major pretending to be a scientist".

Actually, the global warming alarmists claim that the oceans release considerable amounts of trapped CO2 and methane as things get warmer.

But they like to have it both ways. If it gets warmer, "see, I told you so!" and if it gets colder, "that's global warming too."

 

[mobes23]

Actually, the global warming alarmists claim that the oceans release considerable amounts of trapped CO2 and methane as things get warmer.

That's true of water that already contains high levels of CO2. Increasing water temp WOULD release more of those gases.

On the other hand, water from ice formed during low CO2/methane historic periods would initially serve as CO2/methane sinks.