Global warming is epic

reply to post by GreenGlassDoor

There have been a few who took that bet

I doubt that very much. Climate models do not operate on daily, weekly, monthly, or even annual levels. Climatologists know this. They also know that weather is not the same as climate. They know that predicting weather is what meteorologists do.

reply to post by GreenGlassDoor


I've been over that survey with someone else in a different thread. What you need to do, if you're actually interested in learning, is click on the link to the survey and read the actual survey. Forbes isn't representing it very well.

Edited...

reply to post by Diablos

You're thinking of TV "meteorologists". Weathermen.

Meteorology is a science and it works.
But weather is not the same thing as climate.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Diablos

 

You're thinking of TV "meteorologists". Weathermen.

Meteorology is a science and it works.
But weather is not the same thing as climate.

edit on 3/9/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

My mistake, thanks for catching that.

reply to post by Phage


Here's a bet.

[T]he Global Warming Policy Foundation's scientific adviser Dr David Whitehouse had won a £100 bet made on the programme four years ago with climatologist Dr James Annan. Annan predicted temperatures would rise in that period; Whitehouse predicted they wouldn't. Annan lost.

But you'd never guess it from his high-handed tone when he was asked why he'd lost. "Just bad luck," Annan explained, going on to insist (contradicting most available real-world data, it must be said) that the trend for global warming remained "robustly positive." He then agreed to another four-year bet. If it went against him a second time would he change his mind, Annan was asked. At first he appeared to agree that it would but then he started backtracking, insisting that it wouldn't change in the slightest his view that carbon dioxide causes global warming….

Source

I'm not asking for a weather prediction, but a temperature prediction. Temperature is the climatologists ply in trade. Without it, we have no basis to claim global warming or cooling.

The above source also cites a delicious Doomslaying argument in Wired.

reply to post by Kali74


Great. I'll yield to your superior knowledge of statistics. Find it for me, rather than say you did it.

reply to post by GreenGlassDoor

Yup he lost the bet. But the bet he made had nothing to do with what you said.
This is what you said.

if they can accurately give you an the temperature tomorrow, the average temperature next week, the average temperature next month, and the average temperature next year.

The bet was that a record would be set by 2011, a four year period. The bet was not for an accurate temperature. The bet was not for tomorrow, not next week, not next month, not next year. I expressed doubt that a climatologist would make such a bet. You have not shown that one has. I think you made it up.

BTW, while 1998 is still the record setting year for global temperatures the ten warmest years on record have occurred in the period since then. And let's not forget that for the US, 2012 was the hottest year on record.

Originally posted by jjkenobi

So I have to wonder, what is your goal? I live in a very conservative area and the main schtick with Global Warming is that liberals want to tax the hell out of everyone and every corporation over it. That isn't going to fix the environment! Al Gore is now richer than Mitt Romney. Has all the money Al made from global warming speeches fixed anything? Of course not, he flies all over the world with his entourage. And when he's not flying everywhere he's at home living in his giant mansion.

Just how is this a valid argument against man-made Global Warming. Attaching Al Gore??? How do you know he's richer then Mitt Romney?? Any sources - no. What does it matter.

I'm truly ashamed for you and your ilk. Your ignorance is astonishing.

reply to post by Phage


Which is even worse. He had a 1/3 chance (the results being a temperature value that will increase, decrease, or stay the same). So not only could he not give an accurate prediction on the temperature, he could not give an accurate prediction to a general direction to temperature trend.

Then had the scientific explanation of "bad luck". Being wrong is being wrong and it's back to drawing board to figure out why.

Scientific theory demands verification of the hypothesis.

As far as hot goes, OK, so? The days immediately following September 11th, 2001 were also warmer, possibly because of the grounded flights and their contrails. So there's an instance of people cooling the planet. Sure, it's a little different since the contrails are reflecting the sunlight back out into space, and the argument is that the CO2 et al. emissions has a direct correlation to an increase in temperature and it will have negative consequences.

National Geographic lays out the problems.

They bring up the hot weather, which will cause draughts and there will be less rain in the Southeast, citing metrics going back to 1900.

However, the 20th Century was unusually wet in the US according to a survey that used tree rings. Great news for green lawns and crop growing, bad news for us living in the 21st Century.

Investigations of long-term drought in other regions of the southeastern US have similar findings: the 20th century appears wetter in the context of the last 400–1000 years (Cook et al 2010, McEwan et al 2011, Seager et al 2009, Stahle et al 1988), although it should be noted that Cook et al (2010) and Seager et al (2009) are not independent from our reconstruction as they utilize some of the same proxy data. An analysis of two independent tree-ring records in our study area generally supports the indication that the 20th century was wetter in the context of the last 250 years

[removed the end link].

A long-term perspective on a modern drought in the American Southeast

The other thing is the oceans will rise because of the ice melts. Nat Geo puts it at 21-feet. In 1958, Dr. Frank Baxter was claiming that it would be 150-feet.


JPL puts the number at 262-feet for all ice melt.

The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is shooting for 6 to 20-inches by 2100 at the lower end and leaves open the top for interpretation.

But is it melting?

Greenland and the Arctic Sea Ice extent are hitting record lows. Greenland is supposed to add 23-feet if all its ice melts. The IPCC in 2007, stated they expect the ice sheet to melt over a period of 1000-years (remember this point, it is important).

What's more interesting is while the Greenland sea ice extent is decreasing, the interior ice is increasing. Is the increase big enough to offset the decrease? Well, no, but George Mason climatologist Patrick Micheals combined the two for the sake of argument and points out that this is nothing to be alarmed about because of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).

So how long would it take for all the sea levels to rise, at the 2005 combined/loss rate of .23mm per year, about 1 meter? 1000/.23 = 4347.8 years.

Moreover, according to NASA Antarctic Sea Ice is increasing.

So the ocean level rising is a problem in some future millennia if the trend continues. But are people responsible for it? After all, there were no ice poles in the Triassic, and possibly Jurassic period, and the Greenland ice sheet was also totally gone 120,000 years ago.

So, I'm kind of bored with this topic now. I just don't see the call for alarm nor somebody producing a hypothesis with a verifiable, repeatable, and predictable outcome. Sorry.

There is no need for bickering or political name calling. You got the cards or you don't.

reply to post by GreenGlassDoor


I'll say that, as a climate skeptic, you do seem to at least grasp a few things that the vast majority of self-proclaimed ones around here absolutely don't - so I can appreciate that.

For example, it's nice to see someone from the other side post the 1958 Bell Labs video about global warming for once, instead of just ranting and raving about how Al Gore invented the whole thing, and in the 70's they were all predicting Global Cooling anyway blah blah...


But I think you're still misguided on a few things:

First of all, quoting Patrick Michaels = NO. He is a notorious fossil fuel funded shill. See here for proof right out of the man's own mouth:

Famous Global Warming Skeptic Scientist admits "40 percent" of his funding comes from Big Oil

And yes this does matter, because his whole argument, i.e. trying to write off ice melt in the Arctic as natural variation is intellectually dishonest. Just like comparing Arctic ice loss to Antarctic gain is dishonest. That's because the former is MUCH (5 times) greater than the latter. And this is exactly the pattern climatologists did predict - since the Arctic is mostly water, subject to ocean heat content (where the vast majority of global warming is going) and the Antarctic is essentially a large, sealed off continental climate of its own.

See these links for more info:

NSIDC: All ABout Sea Ice
Poles apart: satellites reveal why Antarctic sea ice grows as Arctic melts


Also, justifying sea level rise as not a big deal based on a steady rate of increase is also dishonest. Since everything about the science predicts it will accelerate, and this prediction has once again been confirmed, even shown to be underestimated in fact. There is plenty of reason to be concerned:

Fear of 'catastrophic' sea-level rise as ice sheets melt faster than predicted

reply to post by GreenGlassDoor

But the bigger point on why this all dishonest, and by that I mean the constant write-offs toward "natural" variations and cycles - is because it completely ignores the basic tenets of the underlying science: the physics.

Man made climate change is not a guess. It's not even a theory really. It is a basic consequence of these proven, fundamental, and unavoidable physical laws.

You demand that this stuff be verifiable, repeatable and predictable.

Well guess what - Check✓ Check✓ and Check✓

...
The heat trapping effects of GHG's were verified in experiments done by John Tyndall over 150 years ago:

Tyndall, 1861

...
These experiments have been repeated over time and time again. Today they are easy and can be done at home:





...
Meanwhile a warming atmosphere from the physics of increasing CO2 was predicted over 100 years ago:

Arrhenius, 1896 (pdf)

...
Most importantly however is that it's all been confirmed since then. By that I don't mean just some ambiguously warming planet has been confirmed - I mean an atmosphere being directly heated (more accurately - less cooled) by increasing GHG's. This has been measured, not modeled. I already posted a link to one of these studies earlier in this thread. Here it is again:



Harries et al, 2001

There are several more.


So the point is we absolutely know man-made GHG's are changing our climate. We also know if we keep pumping them up there it will get worse. All the deflection on this is done by people who are either deliberately misleading the debate, don't know what they're talking about, or just in complete denial about it.

There is a very legitimate debate on just how much worse it will get (due to the complicated nature of climate sensitivity/feedbacks), but it's definitely happening, it's definitely getting worse (no matter how many climatologists make silly short-sighted 4 year bets) - and to play this all off as natural or not a big deal is completely dishonest, ignorant, and downright dangerous.

Them's the facts.

Political forces constantly try to ignore them, deflect them, cherry-pick them, misrepresent them - but at the end of the day these things are bound by the laws of physics and math, which are universal, axiomatic and totally unambiguous.

2+2 = 4 no matter how anyone wants to spin it. GHGs + atmosphere = warming no matter how much anyone wants to point at the Sun, the Antarctic, Al Gore, or their friend Tony the meteorologist.

reply to post by GreenGlassDoor


I don't understand why you can't read the survey yourself? Why wouldn't you want to stand on your own knowledge rather than pick apart another persons? But very well.

The article is titled: Shock Poll: Meteorologists Are Global Warming Skeptics

The author of the article doesn't exactly lie about the results of the survey however he is putting quite a spin a spin on it. He claims this:

The survey confirms what many scientists have been reporting for years; the politically focused bureaucratic leadership of many science organizations is severely out of touch with the scientists themselves regarding global warming issues.

But that isn't exactly what the survey shows, again he doesn't lie he just omits some pretty important data.

According to American Meteorological Society (AMS) data, 89% of AMS meteorologists believe global warming is happening, but only a minority (30%) is very worried about global warming.

Here he states that 89% of the polled AMS meteorologists believe global warming is happening, but only 30% of them are very worried about it. So let's break it down.1,862 AMS meteorologists participated in the survey.

Survey

A diverse set of AMS members responded to the survey. Respondents tended
to be PhD-educated (52%), middle-aged or older (59% aged 50 or older),
males (85%), specializing in Meteorology/Atmospheric Science (66%),
employed in government (29%), university (28%), or for-profit organization
(23%), and focusing professionally on research (41%) or forecasting (19%).
Most (56%) had published in peer-reviewed journals in the last 5 years.Of
those who published, 23% had written more than half of their papers about
climate change. Liberal respondents significantly outnumbered conservative
respondents (48% vs. 21%).

1. In this survey, the term “global warming” refers to the premise that
the world’s average temperature has been increasing over the past 150
years, may be increasing more in the future, and that the world’s climate
may change as a result.

Regardless of the cause, do you think that global warming is happening?
Yes 89%
No 4%
Don't Know 7%
n = 1815

89% think global warming is happening, no spin there from the Forbes article.

2a. How sure are you that global warming is happening?
[Asked if answer to Question 1 is “Yes”]

Extremely sure 46%
Very sure 37%
Somewhat sure 16%
Not at all sure 1%
n = 1607

83% are very sure or extremely sure global warming is happening.

3. Do you think that the global warming that has occurred over the past
150 years has been caused...
[Asked if answer to Question 1 is “Yes”]

Mostly by human activity 59%
More-or-less equally by human activity
and natural events 11%
Mostly by natural events 6%
I do not believe we (scientists) know
enough yet to determine the degree of
human or natural causation, even in the
general terms stated in the categories
above
23%
I don’t know 1%
n = 1605

59% believe it is caused mostly by human activity 11% believe equally human and natural. That's 70% believe that human activity is affecting the climate.

Skipping to the question the author puts a bit of spin on, in the article he accurately states only 30% are very worried about global warming... here's what he is leaving out.

6. How worried are you about global warming?
[Asked if answer to Question 1 is “Yes” or “Don’t know”]

Very worried 30%
Somewhat worried 42%
Not very worried 20%
Not at all worried 8%
n = 1734

Very worried 30%, somewhat worried 42%, not very worried 20%. That totals 92% worried to some degree. Very different picture, no?

Originally posted by inverslyproportional

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

Originally posted by redtic
My question is - how can you AGW skeptics out there continue to deny in the face of the overwhelming scientific evidence?

Because they all think they know better.... Most people are dumb as rocks.

The sad part is that even if everyone woke up to the reality of the situation tomorrow.... it's probably too late to do anything about it.

Gonna be a long hot Summer...

Ok, lets say man actually does as all you believers want, and we force billions to die of starvation and exposure, as they will now jot be abke to produce or move enough food for almost all people, and then many more will die from not being able to heat their homes etc..

What? I'm having trouble understanding the above 'sentence'. If you're trying to say that reducing manmade CO2 emissions will starve 'billions' of people, I think you're wrong. All you have to do is look at what Germany has done and you'll realize it's possible without impacting the power grid.

Now 1 volcano, just 1, and not even a big one, a very small volcanic eruption takes place, all of the deaths of all those billions will be for naught, as any co2 that was not released by man, will have been made up for thousands of times over, quite easily, by just 1 very small volcanic eruption.

This argument is ridiculous and shows that you haven't done any research on the subject.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide

Did you catch that? Humans produce 24 BILLION TONS OF CO2 ANNUALLY. *that means every year in case you don't know.*

What part of nature makes billions of times more co2 every year than man in history is too hard for you fools to understand?

Oh please enlighten us with your wisdom.... pfft... Please show us the graphs which indicate a spike in temps after a major eruption. You can't find any because they don't exist!! The fact is that after a major eruption, global temps actually DROP!!

The eruptions of both Mt. St. Helens in 1980 and Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, actually lead to short-term global cooling, not warming, as sulfur dioxide (SO2), ash and other particles in the air and stratosphere reflect some solar energy instead of letting it into Earth’s atmosphere. SO2, which converts to sulfuric acid aerosol when it hits the stratosphere, can linger there for as long as seven years and can exercise a cooling effect long after a volcanic eruption has taken place.

The entire premise is stupid, the inability of believers to understand science, and math, which they claim proves their religious beliefs, if laughable.

The only thing stupid and laughable here is your argument.

I also notice not one of you brainiacs, has yet to address what I have stated, as it is all true, and all debunks your religion.
At least your smart enough not to ooen your mouth about it, and remove all diubts about your intelligence levels.

You have no idea how idiotic you sound do you?

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by GreenGlassDoor

 

But the bigger point on why this all dishonest, and by that I mean the constant write-offs toward "natural" variations and cycles - is because it completely ignores the basic tenets of the underlying science: the physics.

Man made climate change is not a guess. It's not even a theory really. It is a basic consequence of these proven, fundamental, and unavoidable physical laws.

You demand that this stuff be verifiable, repeatable and predictable.

Well guess what - Check✓ Check✓ and Check✓

Thank you for your cogent argument, I applaud your patience and persistence. It's hard to make a reasoned and well sourced argument to people who 1) don't believe in science, 2) don't have the time to think and 3) just want to be contrary for effect.

I keep coming back here to bang my head against that particular wall because I never know when I'm going to learn something new - about a subject, about research and sources, about how to phase something in a more effective manner, or learn something more about my own biases towards certain people and ideas.

Again, thank you.

reply to post by FyreByrd


Hey no problemo.

I know how you feel - I've been banging my head against this wall for years now. The things you describe are exactly what this place should be about: deconstructing subject matter to its core, learning about different perspectives - and ourselves - in the process, i.e. denying ignorance.

I have no issue with the very very very small percentage of climate skeptics who actually manage to uphold this kind of thought process - because that's true skepticism.

It's just unfortunate that the vast majority seem to be a brick wall of ideological groupthink and confirmation bias. As a conspiracy theorist, it disappoints me to have to come to ATS and see so many other conspiracy theorists are such obvious sheep.


But always good to see others who do get it. The global warming topic around here really has changed too I feel. It used to be DOMINATED by the hysterical denialbots. But now you look around threads like this one and see many constructive responses by many awesome members

Nice to see my thread got hijacked by rational thought

I'll leave with a graphic that sums it up pretty well..

reply to post by redtic

Please why dont you go and look at the PhD thesis this paper is based on.. Look at that, then go compare the graphs you are using with the ones they are based on! Then ask why there is an uptick in one showing the last x years had big issues and then try and reconcile that with proxy studies with a resolution of three hundred years!!!

How on earth one is expected to believe this when such errors are in the data simply amazes me. I would not be at all surprised if this paper isn't withdrawn pretty quickly.

Please also ask how it is acceptable to graft instrumental data onto proxy study data without actually saying thats what you're doing?'This study and people who shout about it should leave well alone. There are credible scientists all over the world crying out concerning the damage we are doing to our environment. Richard Betts (UK Met office) Nick Stokes (CSIRO) to take two great examples, these guys need to be heard...But garbage like this is just stiffling them. shame on you.

I am just about done with an environmental science course. I am probably much more educated on this issue than any of you deniers.

Originally posted by DaTroof
Ocean currents and volcanic activity have a greater impact than man could ever achieve due to industry. This study set out to ignore everything except for its conclusion, which was determined before even glancing at any data.

The ocean currents changing is the result of a positive feedback loop. Therefore, ocean currents require an input to change. One way the currents can change is by the ice caps in Greenland, bringing lots of freshwater into the water. West of Europe, there is a gyre that brings warm water towards it, allowing the atmosphere to be much warmer. This is very obvious considering London and Hudson Bay are at the same latitude, yet Hudson Bay is much colder because there is not an influx of heat coming from the ocean. So, the freshwater from the melted ice caps in Greenland would decrease the concentration of salt in the ocean. Because of this, thermohaline circulation no longer can occur since there is no saltwater to sink, prohibiting the transfer of heat. In the end, Europe would be much colder.

The CO2 emissions from volcanic eruptions are only a miniscule percent of the amount of anthropogenic CO2. Volcanoes release 200 million tonnes of CO2 per year, while humans cause 26.8 billion tonnes of CO2 to be released into the atmosphere per year.

Originally posted by kozmo
Until I see UNBIASED, direct scientific data that points conclusively to AGW while ALSO factoring in Solar Cycles, I am inclined to believe that this is part of the Earth's millennial old heating-cooling cycle. Beyond that, the argument is so politicized it is impossible to take seriously.

If you want to look at it on the space level, how about you compare Venus and Mercury? Mercury is closer to the sun, yet Venus is hotter. This is because CO2 in Venus captures lots of heat. Therefore, the idea that all the planets are heating still doesn't falsify that carbon emissions are heating the Earth.

If you look at this picture:



you can tell that the temperature is directly proportional to CO2. This is very interesting because Earth is naturally supposed to have a higher amount of CO2 during this time period, yet our carbon emissions have completely augmented this. It may be possible that Antarctica, which this graph refers to, could soon be 20 degrees above normal. If you take in account the CO2 coming in the future, things look even more grim. There are times when you shouldn't be cynical towards the mainstream. Global warming awareness is one of the only good things that is endorsed in this society.

If you'd like to know how the data was obtained on this graph, I'll explain. In Antarctica, some guys get long rods of ice out of the surface. Then, they can look at the rod over time and melt it. As it melts, it releases different amounts of CO2. Those different amounts of CO2 are visible in the CO2 fluctuations in the graph.

Temperature over time can also be measured by looking at the fossils of some curvy snail-like creature I forgot the name of. They rotate clockwise or counterclockwise depending on how warm/cold the climate is.

Originally posted by kingears
I believe that AGW is what governments want people to believe is happening so that they can justify their carbon taxes etc.

The carbon taxes are to swerve industries away from polluting the environment.

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
1 a singke volcanic eruption releases more co2 than man has in his entire existence, correct? I hooe you agree as itnis a fact.

2 every day more co2 is released from rotting lant matter than man has made in his entire exisence, correct? I hope you agree as this is a fact.

3 of all the co2 in the atmosphere man is replsponsible for only a tenthousandth of that value, correct? I hope you agree, as it is a fact.
...
I will await your response, and dont quote some hack job scientist, I want facts numbers , and rational thought here.
...
Also, please explain how during the dino days, when co2 was literally thousands of times higher than it is today, yet no out of control warming happened.

I hope to God that you are one of those secret agents people on this forum talk about that write on the forum to change people's minds about things. Your first three "facts" would be rejected by every single scientist with a brain. Also, I have numbers on the graph in this post.

During the dino days, life was adapted to this. We're emitting CO2 at too high a rate, giving too little time for organisms to adapt. Also, the high plant loss prohibits CO2 from transferring from the atmosphere to the biosphere.

reply to post by catswithbigpaws


All of that about Co2? How about methane? It's supposed to have a much greater impact on warming over a short and long term horizon (say long term 100 years, short term 10 years) when compared to Co2.

What about the methane clathrates being released helping to intensify the arctic positive feedback loop?

I'm sure methane is taught in that class at least some?