A good read about the Global Warming debate

[caneman]

Not intended as a political argument or debated thread but a good read which I believe may or may not affect tropical weather. How is that for playing both sides of the fence?

http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/topstories/197613

[x-y-no]

Well, he makes a bunch of general statements about "hooey" and "not science" and disparaging comments about "students of students" (are we to believe that scientific understanding declines with each generation? I think not.) But he fails to say one word about what he thinks is wrong in the physics of the models. Certainly he cannot deny the greenhouse effect - without it the Earth would be frozen solid. So it's incumbent on him to explain why he would think greenhouse gasses of human origin have no effect. He doesn't do this.

Sorry, but I'm not impressed.

[x-y-no]

Properly, this should be in the Global Weather forum - I'm moving it there.

[caneman]

I'm not sure that would be concerned proper to be moving it. As stated this was never open for a debate. Merely educational. I find it interesting that you debated it (and an 85 year olds expert opinion). According to Global Warming believers the affect will actually increase and elevate Hurricane activity. Therefore, making it proper to be in a Tropical forum. Seems it would have been more proper for a more neutral moderator on this subject to determine if it was appropriate and therefore should be moved. Just a thought........

[x-y-no]

Long before I became a moderator it was decided that global warming discussions belong in the Global Weather forum. It's not just something I made up. I deliberately left a shadow link so people could find it.

As for my debating the opinion of an "85 year old expert" - in my experience age does not equal infallibility. In fact that is precisely my issue with his "students of students" comment.

Argument by authority is a classic fallacy.

[caneman]

Equally in can be said that a younger generation can sometimes look to power, fame and monetary gains, grants, etc.. first and facts second. You need not look at just GW to know this. Many people can and do come up with conclusions first and then find facts to support it later. In the end, the article did a good job supporting both claims and I think it wise to leave it to others to form their own conclusions.

[caneman]

OK. Last time an 85 year old expert was attempted to be discredited. Here is a great read from a scientist who studies hostorical climate changes who states the alarmist are out without due cause. Please read with an open mind and let no one person intimidate nor use scare tactics.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/stor ... 97,00.html

[x-y-no]

OK. Last time an 85 year old expert was attempted to be discredited. Here is a great read from a scientist who studies hostorical climate changes who states the alarmist are out without due cause. Please read with an open mind and let no one person intimidate nor use scare tactics.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/stor ... 97,00.html

Skipping past the political issue of NASA policy ...

Professor Carter asserts:

First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.

Carter is well aware why 1998 was anomalously warm - it had one of the largest el Nino events in history. Deliberately choosing an anomalous end-point, especially one where the anomaly has a well understood cause, is thoroughly illegitimate. The smoothed average of global temperature continues to show an increasing trend.

Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

This is simply false. See Mears et al, Santer et al and Sherwood et al. A good discussion of this issue can be found here.

Third, there are strong indications from solar studies that Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades.

He's overstating our ability to forecast solar output here. But regardless, this is irrelevant to the issue of anthropogenic global warming. If it happens that solar output significantly decreases in the future then obviously that would be a good thing in terms of counteracting AGW. But we really have only speculation to suggest it might do so.


The rest of the article appears to all be politics, so I'll stop here.

[caneman]

x-y-no, or anyone else who cares to read. This article does a good job explaining with, I might add facts and research explaining exactly how solar flairing and lack there of is the major contributing factor to cooling and heating of the earth. According to this article we will have major cooling by the year 2020. Ironinc in the sense that this would correlate with the when we begin to expect a lessening of Hurricane activity or what we call climatology/cycles. Bottom line, is much more research needs to be done over a longer period of time. You can try and make a case against and 85 year old expert scientist who, you say, may be past his prime but you can't argue with soil samples taken from many years ago. Great read, don't by the hype and hysteria. Let research, science and time to take its course. Keep an open mind.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/fina ... db11f4&p=4

[x-y-no]

I've read the papers by Svensmark et al and Vezier and I'm familiar with the others which Professor Patterson cites as the basis for his argument. There are serious problems with all of them which those authors have failed to answer:

First there is no trend in cosmic ray flux (CRF) over the past half century. See, for instance,

Richardson et al. (2002), “Long-term trends in interplanetary magnetic field strength and solar wind structure during the twentieth Century”, J. Geophys. Res., Vol 107, A10

or

Benestad, R.E. (2002) Solar Activity and Earth's Climate, Praxis-Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg, 287pp, ISBN: 3-540-43302-3


Second, night-side temperatures have increased more than day-side temperatures (that is the global average diurnal temperature variation has decreased.) This is inconsistent with the claim that the observed warming is due to decreased CRF. By contrast, this decrease in diurnal variation is precisely what is predicted if the warming is due to increased greenhouse effect.


Third, if this hypothesis were correct, we would expect to see a pronounced 11-year cycle in global surface temperature correlated with the solar cycle. There is such a signal, but it is substantially smaller than the overall warming trend.


Fourth, the mechanism proposed for this hypothetical effect makes little sence since there is no shortage of cloud condesation nuclei (mostly ) in the atmosphere. Clouds form wherever there is sufficient moisture and vertical movement.

[caneman]

Hmmm, fascinating. Nearly 71% of people believe that Global Warming is of a natural cyclical occurance and GW's are just using scare tactics. Unlike Global Warming hysterias, the cyclical nature of Earth is actually provable and over a far greater length of time than what GW's use.

Edited to remove purely political commentary.

[x-y-no]

Hmmm, fascinating. Nearly 71% of people believe that Global Warming is of a natural cyclical occurance and GW's are just using scare tactics.

You offer no source, but assuming this is true, what is that supposed to prove? Surely you don't mean to imply that a majority of people believing something makes it true? I can offer many counterexamples to that.

Unlike Global Warming hysterias, the cyclical nature of Earth is actually provable and over a far greater length of time than what GW's use.

Ignoring the deliberately inflammatory (and politically loaded) reference to "Global Warming hysterias" ... absolutely nobody disputes the existence of various climate cycles. In fact, the study of the mechanisms behind those cycles are a very large part of the research which has led to global warming theory.

[caneman]

Hmmm, fascinating. Nearly 71% of people believe that Global Warming is of a natural cyclical occurance and GW's are just using scare tactics.

You offer no source, but assuming this is true, what is that supposed to prove? Surely you don't mean to imply that a majority of people believing something makes it true? I can offer many counterexamples to that.

Sorry, I though I had posted the article. Here you go.

ALMOST three quarters of people believe global warming is a 'natural occurrence' and not a result of carbon emissions, a survey claimed today.

This goes against the views of the vast majority of scientists who believe the rise in the earth's temperatures is due to pollution.

The online study which polled nearly 4000 votes found that a staggering 71 percent of people think that the rise in air temperature happens naturally.

And 65 percent think that scientists' catastrophic predictions if pollution isn't curbed are 'far fetched'.

Emma Hardcastle, publisher at Pocket Issue which carried out the research, said: "If 71% of people feel that Man has nothing to do with the recent change in our climate then those same people are not going to buy into any movement to reduce their carbon footprint.

"We need to make it clear that there is nothing natural about the significant rise in both carbon emissions and global temperatures since the industrial revolution.

"Pocket Issue’s brief is to help people to understand the facts, encouraging them to click through to a carbon counter as a result.

"Pocket Issue feel that the poll highlights the need for government and influential bodies to concentrate on getting the public to understand the facts about global warming and ‘why’ rather than ‘how’ they should reduce their carbon footprint."

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which represents most scientists, stated earlier that the increase in global temperatures is 'very likely due to the observed increase of man-made greenhouse gas concentrations'.

They define very likely as 'more than 90 percent certain'.

Copyright © 2006 National News +44(0)207 684 3000

Unlike Global Warming hysterias, the cyclical nature of Earth is actually provable and over a far greater length of time than what GW's use.

Ignoring the deliberately inflammatory (and politically loaded) reference to "Global Warming hysterias" ... absolutely nobody disputes the existence of various climate cycles. In fact, the study of the mechanisms behind those cycles are a very large part of the research which has led to global warming theory.

I'm not sure what word would be more appropriate other than hysteria when anyone who disagrees with them is refered to as ignorant or not knowing. IF you have a better word, please let me know. This is a commonly used tactic when someone disagrees.

[x-y-no]

ALMOST three quarters of people believe global warming is a 'natural occurrence' and not a result of carbon emissions, a survey claimed today.

This goes against the views of the vast majority of scientists who believe the rise in the earth's temperatures is due to pollution.

The online study which polled nearly 4000 votes found that a staggering 71 percent of people think that the rise in air temperature happens naturally.

An online poll?

Being self-selected samples, online polls aren't worth the pixels it takes to display them.

But even if this were carried out in a sound manner, I still fail to see what it is supposed to demonstrate.

...

I'm not sure what word would be more appropriate other than hysteria when anyone who disagrees with them is refered to as ignorant or not knowing. IF you have a better word, please let me know. This is a commonly used tactic when someone disagrees.

It's simple. Instead of using emotionally and politically charged desriptions of what you believe to be the state of mind of others, simply stick to the science, as I did whan I responded "absolutely nobody disputes the existence of various climate cycles. In fact, the study of the mechanisms behind those cycles are a very large part of the research which has led to global warming theory" - a comment which I note you choose to ignore (as indeed you have chosen to ignore all the substance of all my responses in this thread.)

[caneman]

ALMOST three quarters of people believe global warming is a 'natural occurrence' and not a result of carbon emissions, a survey claimed today.

This goes against the views of the vast majority of scientists who believe the rise in the earth's temperatures is due to pollution.

The online study which polled nearly 4000 votes found that a staggering 71 percent of people think that the rise in air temperature happens naturally.

An online poll?

Being self-selected samples, online polls aren't worth the pixels it takes to display them.

In your opinion.

But even if this were carried out in a sound manner, I still fail to see what it is supposed to demonstrate.

It demonstrates that the mojority disagree with Global Weather being man made. Nuff said.

...

I'm not sure what word would be more appropriate other than hysteria when anyone who disagrees with them is refered to as ignorant or not knowing. IF you have a better word, please let me know. This is a commonly used tactic when someone disagrees.

It's simple. Instead of using emotionally and politically charged desriptions of what you believe to be the state of mind of others, simply stick to the science,
Hard to stick with science when science tells people that are against them that they are not knowledgeable.

as I did whan I responded "absolutely nobody disputes the existence of various climate cycles. In fact, the study of the mechanisms behind those cycles are a very large part of the research which has led to global warming theory" - a comment which I note you choose to ignore (as indeed you have chosen to ignore all the substance of all my responses in this thread.)

It's being ignored because the vast majority of mand made Global Warming theory is based on a relatively short period of time in history as oppossed to info I've provided you like core sampels from earth that go back hundreds of years.

[caneman]

ALMOST three quarters of people believe global warming is a 'natural occurrence' and not a result of carbon emissions, a survey claimed today.

This goes against the views of the vast majority of scientists who believe the rise in the earth's temperatures is due to pollution.

The online study which polled nearly 4000 votes found that a staggering 71 percent of people think that the rise in air temperature happens naturally.

An online poll?

Being self-selected samples, online polls aren't worth the pixels it takes to display them.

In your opinion.

But even if this were carried out in a sound manner, I still fail to see what it is supposed to demonstrate.

...
It demonstrates that the mojority disagree with Global Weather being man made. Nuff said.

I'm not sure what word would be more appropriate other than hysteria when anyone who disagrees with them is refered to as ignorant or not knowing. IF you have a better word, please let me know. This is a commonly used tactic when someone disagrees.

It's simple. Instead of using emotionally and politically charged desriptions of what you believe to be the state of mind of others, simply stick to the science,
Hard to stick with science when science tells people that are against them that they are not knowledgeable.

as I did whan I responded "absolutely nobody disputes the existence of various climate cycles. In fact, the study of the mechanisms behind those cycles are a very large part of the research which has led to global warming theory" - a comment which I note you choose to ignore (as indeed you have chosen to ignore all the substance of all my responses in this thread.)

It's being ignored because the vast majority of mand made Global Warming theory is based on a relatively short period of time in history as oppossed to info I've provided you like core sampels from earth that go back hundreds of years.

[x-y-no]

It's being ignored because the vast majority of mand made Global Warming theory is based on a relatively short period of time in history as oppossed to info I've provided you like core sampels from earth that go back hundreds of years.

First of all, that's simply false. As I've already pointed out, paleoclimatology plays a huge role in global warming theory.

Second, when I bring up specific factual arguments (for example the four arguments against the cosmic ray flux hypothesis which I offered above) then time frame has nothing to do with it. It's purely a scientific debate. And that, my friend, is what this site is about (WRT the fields of weather and climate.)

[curtadams]

[It's being ignored because the vast majority of mand made Global Warming theory is based on a relatively short period of time in history as oppossed to info I've provided you like core sampels from earth that go back hundreds of years.

That's a bizarre complaint. We only have 100 years of observing polonium poisoning. Should we conclude that there's no good evidence that polonium is poisonous because the observations are all relatively recent? The evidence that human greenhouse gasses are causing major climate alterations is overwhelming, from temperature gradients to circulation changes to isotope alterations. Good thing, too, becuase if adding insulation *didn't* warm the earth, we'd have to rewrite all of physics and that would be a major bummer.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

Interesting information. This thread has excellent
information...global warming is a complex
process with a wide range of potential
ramifications in terms of weather and
climate.