Is there Proof that Man iS causing "Global Warming"?

And Michael Mann is the prince of truth. I know that isn't so. He tried to get rid of the Medieval Warm period ( had the offending data put aside in a file labeled "Confidentioal) and the little ice age in the hockey stick curve. It was not even included in the current 4th assessment with no explanation. I saw his critique of the Wegman report. He danced arouind the complaints but answered a different question that was not even brought up. I was closely involved in that whole fiasco. Mann complained violently when Wegman didn't respond to his questions within 3 weeks whereas Steve McIntyre waited three years without a response from Mann. I have behind the scenes information on some of this and it is very interesting. Truth teller, I think not.

Mann tried to shoot down Beck on his CO2 but never even mentioned CO2. He cleverly attacked what is not the main point of contention. Although temperature was charted it was not the main point of the paper. The paper concerned itself with tests of CO2 primarily from 1812 to 1957. I personnaly went over the data presented in this article from the original sources and checked the math. I also did an analysis of variance on the different scientist's data and found a good correlation of variation on overlapping data timewise. ie it showed that different scientists in the same time period found similar variability besides the mean which was consistent.

Mann also shot down Landscheid's paper (relation of solar cycles to climate change) but like most of Mann's critiques they have more of an ad hominem flavor than real acience.

I find it curious that it is Mann who does most of the grunt work when his material is attacked. Others don't seem to come to his aid. If they do I don't see it.

One point Mel, your knowledge of the earth's atmosphere seems to be excellent. Beat's mine. Acknowledged. But I challenge the conclusion that troposphereic temperatures support GHG AGW.

Originally posted by CradleoftheNuclides
And Michael Mann is the prince of truth. I know that isn't so. He tried to get rid of the Medieval Warm period ( had the offending data put aside in a file labeled "Confidentioal) and the little ice age in the hockey stick curve. It was not even included in the current 4th assessment with no explanation.

MBH98 wasn't included because it has been superceded by his more recent reconstructions, his 1999 data is though. Just like Briffa's 1998 data is no longer used. It's what happens, science moves on, we acquire more data and use improved methods. That's also why Lamb (1991) is no longer used, except by people like Beck, heh.

All the modern high resolution multi-proxy reconstructions, at least a dozen of them, essentially show the same thing. I guess they all keep their data in a top secret file...

There is another entry on Beck on realclimate, I think it's called 'Beck to the future', funny, no? But you'll notice that neither are actually written by Michael Mann. Many researchers use realclimate in an attempt to disseminate the current science to the interested public.

[edit on 12-6-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by forestlady
Melatonin, good post and you explained it with just a few words so that anyone can understand it.
What people tend to forget when they citing what happened millions of years ago, is that 1) life on planet earth was much different then, different life forms, flora and fauna, etc. and 2) that it took a massively long time for these changes to be effected, meaning that many lifeforms could survive because they could adapt. This GW that we presently have is happening way too fast for life forms to adapt and change, i.e. they are dying or already dead.

From my understanding, the rate at which global warming is happening is very debatable. Also, life on Earth recovered fine from that big asteroid that killed the dinosaurs.

We already have a Great Extinction well underway.

How so? No one even knows the exact amount of lifeforms that are on the Earth. New species are discovered everyday. There is more forest in North America today than there was 100 years ago. The rainforests are also in a much healthier condition than previously thought and are not being cut down nearly as fast as claimed (if they were, they'd be gone already). You can't claim a "Great Extinction" is occuring if you don't know how much life there is on Earth. That's like saying you're running out of money without knowing how much money you have.

We also know that at least some of the things that humans do are harmful to the environment: fuel fumes weakening ancient structures, "clearcutting" the ocean's floor has greatly lessened the amount of plankton, which many, many forms of sea life eat and therefore cannot sustain themselves without enough plankton, and that pollution from factories and cars creates smog, which makes the horizon yellow and dims the view, while irritating people's eyes and breathing passages.

Agreed, however, innovation is curing these things up. Industry doesn't release pollution these days as dirty as it did decades ago.

Look around you and you will see that things are alot different than they were 30 years ago. Less butterflies, honeybees, birds., etc., especially in cities, water that is more polluted, seas that have far less fish.
I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea.

I don't see any shortage of bees, butterflies, or birds, as a matter of fact, it is becoming a bit of a semi-profession destroying beehives that keep being built on the home I live in. As for the ocean, we've explroed less than 1% of the oceans. No one knows how much life is in them.

It is true that certain populations of fish and so forth were being depleted too fast due to certain fishing, but that has since been stopped.

[edit on 12-6-2007 by WheelsRCool]

Originally posted by melatonin
I posted it in the other thread.

CO2 is a GHG, it is just simple basic physics - increasing its concentration in the atmosphere will increase global temperatures. This was known as far back as 1850 with Fourier and shown more explicitly by Arrhenius in 1896.

This is a random question, but how do we know that CO2 released into the atmosphere remains in the atmosphere? I read somewhere that this is debated.

Also, isn't more methane (a GHG) released into the atmosphere from nature than CO2 from humans? Can this have an effect?

As i said in another post, CO2 is not the cause of the current warming.

First of all, all the surface warming on Earth happens at the troposphere, which is where all the weather occurs, storms, hail, snow, clouds, wind patterns, etc, etc.

Second of all we do know that "water vapor" is what causes most of the warming in the troposphere. As a matter of fact 95% of the warming in the troposphere is caused by water vapor, and the other 5% is caused by CO2 (as well as other GHGs).

Water vapor retains more than twice the amount of CO2, and it exists in greater quantities naturally.

As for the member who asked what the 384ppm of CO2 is in reference to, it is the total amount of CO2, in reference to all other gases which exists in the atmosphere.

That 380-384ppm is equals to 0.038 % to 0.0384%. The amount of all GHG present in different regions of the atmosphere is different. Water vapor in contrast exists as up to 4% of all atmospheric gases, 21% is oxygen and 78% is nitrogen. There are other GHG which constitute even smaller percentages of all gases in the atmosphere.

BTW, as i have presented many times before there is much research which shows the Earth was warmer during the RWP and the MWP than it is now, but everytime some people claim, oh no, it is Mann and associates who are right, despite the fact that the evidence shows that in Africa, North Emerica, South America, Europe, China, Japan, the Sargasso Sea, the south China Sea, etc, etc, all the research shows temperatures were much warmer during the Roman and Medieval periods in all these places at around the same time than it is now.

[edit on 13-6-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by HooHaa
The cant even predict the weather for a 5 day forecast properly how can they tell me the weather in 30 years? People put out info on the entire solar system suffering from a "warming" effect.. The earth has climatic cycles that it naturally goes through. One super volcanic eruption can through us into an ice age..Sorry but i have found no concrete evidence that proves we are responsible for global warming.. Before I get slammed on all these stats and computer models remember you can find just as much info, stats and models for the opposing idea...

From my understanding, predicting the weather and predicting the future climate are two completely separate things.

However, predicting the weather for a changed climate I don't get how they claim to do this.

If they can't properly predict the weather for the current climate, how do they make weather predictions (storms, floods, droughts, etc...) for a predicted future climate?

Originally posted by Muaddib
As i said in another post, CO2 is not the cause of the current warming.

First of all, all the surface warming on Earth is caused by the troposphere, which is where all the weather occurs, storms, hail, snow, clouds, wind patterns, etc, etc.

Second of all we do know that "water vapor" is what causes most of the wamring in the troposphere. As a matter of fact 95% of the warming in the troposphere is caused by water vapor, and the other 5% is caused by CO2 (as well as other GHGs).

Water vapor retains more than twice the amount of CO2, and it exists in greater quantities naturally.

As for the member who asked what the 384ppm of CO2 is in reference to, it is the total amount of CO2, in reference to all other gases which exists in the atmosphere.

That 380-384ppm is equals to 0.038 % to 0.0384%. The amount of all GHG present in different regions of the atmosphere is different. Water vapor in contrast exists as up to 4% of all atmospheric gases, 21% is oxygen and 78% is nitrogen. There are other GHG which constitute even smaller percentages of all gases in the atmosphere.

BTW, as i have presented many times before there is much research which shows the Earth was warmer during the RWP and the MWP than it is now, but everytime some people claim, oh no, it is Mann and associates who are right, despite the fact that the evidence shows that in Africa, North Emerica, South America, Europe, China, Japan, the Sargasso Sea, the south China Sea, etc, etc, all the research shows temperatures were much warmer during the Roman and Medieval periods in all these places at around the same time.

The thing with Mann and his associates over at realclimate.org is that they present very scientific arguments proposing global warming, which those of us who aren't trained scientists in that field can't respond to.

Because I believe global warming is tied to money and that a lot of scientists who don't believe in it are afraid to come forward due to stunting their careers and seeing their funds dry up, I do not believe everything they say though.

It would be interesting if that guy Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor from MIT, could make a website to provide a counter to realclimate.

While I am not saying realclimate.org is wrong, the whole eugenics theory was supported by scientists as well early in the twentieth century, and that turned out to be fake, so IMO they could be wrong.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
This is about proving Global Warming. Is it possible? This is about scrutinizing the strongest data from the 'pro-Global Warming' view.
I cannot be more clear: This isn't about rhetoric, or opinions, or anything but hard facts. In fact, it's not even about evidence that shows otherwise. It's about intensely scrutinizing the best data that supports it, so that we can truly understand it.
I've started a sibling thread for the data that supports it:
Is there Proof that Man isn't causing "Global Warming"?

Well I was hoping we could get everyone presenting the facts that support each side, in seperate locations, and keep it clean -and merely pick apart the data introduced for each side- to get to a level where we could all see it more clearly and understandable "bias-free".

I'm not trying to be some sort of "dictator" here. I just see this as a HIGHLY polarized and complex issue, and casual lookers have little hope of truly understanding it. Any arugments there? I happen to have a background with studying polarized "binary" ideologies and such, and with seeking ways to find the way to get everyone thru the fog of rhetoric and disinfo to hopefully rational understanding. This Global Warming issue is no exception, and if we can all settle down and do this "scienitifically" there's a hope we can get down to the hard facts we can all agree on to find the truth that lies between the 2 side of any big story or drama in human affairs.

If we can all gets the hard numbers supporting each side, then we can compare them to get some real perspective. Or we can all debate this until the next Ice Age, the NWO, or whatever happens pick your scenario. Without the hard numbers, it's hard to see how we can expect to make such hardlined opinions for ether view.

The Real Climate website is linked to Al Gore through the EMS founder, Arlie Schardt, who was Gore's director of Communications and had other high office jobs in Gore's campaigns for office in at least three occasions.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I posted the above link a while back.

Anyways, the main activities of EMS (Environmental Media Services) is to providing web hosting and support for environmental issues sites like RealClimate...

You can also see how highly regarded Gore is at the "Fake", i mean Real.. Climate website, as well as those members in these forums who agree with the claims posted at the Real Climate website where Mann is one of the directors.

www.realclimate.org...

And the above is despite the fact that many "real scientists" see "an inconvinient truth" as nothing more than a political ploy and nothing close to "an educational film" as they claim in the RealClimate website...

As for asking for other websites that can refute what is claimed in RealClimate, there are several, just like there are several scientists who disagree with the claim that AGW is the cause of the current Climate Change.

There are many threads in this forum where evidence which refutes such claims ahve been posted and where research and data has been linked which debunks the claims of the AGW crowd.

[edit on 13-6-2007 by Muaddib]

So what does everyone think of this chart I layered together?



Does anyone have any problems with the sources / data?

www.globalwarmingart.com...:Solar_Cycle_Variations_png
www.globalwarmingart.com...:Satellite_Temperatures_png
www.ohiopeakoilaction.org...
www.ohiopeakoilaction.org...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

WheelsRCool:

The rate at which GW is proceeding is not up for debate. It is also proceeding faster than any such changes that have happened in the past that we know about. They know this thru ice core samples.
It's been all over the news that honeybees are disappearing all over the U.S. and several European countries. Have you not heard of Colony Collapse Disorder? Just Google "honeybees disappearance" and you'll get tons of info. When I was growing up in the '50s in Los Angeles, there were tons of birds, bees and butterflies. There are not so many now.

Also Google "Holocene extinction". (We are living in the Holocene era) you will also find tons of info there, and that, also, is a topic that is not debated, scientists/biologists know that a giant extinction is underway.

This one is from Wikipedia (but if you don't think that source is completely reliable there are lots of other sources):

"The Holocene extinction event is a name customarily given to the widespread, ongoing mass extinction of species during the modern Holocene epoch. The large number of extinctions span numerous families of plants and animals including mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles and arthropods; a sizeable fraction of these extinctions are occurring in the rainforests. Because the rate of this extinction event appears to be much more rapid than the "Big Five" mass extinctions, it is also known as the Sixth Extinction. Since 1500 AD, 784 extinctions have been documented by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.[1] However, since most extinctions are likely to go undocumented, scientists estimate that during the last century, between 20,000 and two million species have become extinct, but the precise total cannot be determined more accurately within the limits of present knowledge. Up to 140,000 species per year (based on Species-area theory)[2] may be the present rate of extinction based upon upper bound estimating."

As far as clearcutting the ocean's floor, it is destroying the plankton in the water, which leaves much less food for fish. Nothing is being done to lessen the clearcutting. Fish also used to be much more plentiful. Halibut used to be very inexpensive, now you hardly ever see it in stores. They are farming salmon because there aren't enough salmon to feed the demand. The oceans are extremely polluted and nothing is being done about that.

[edit on 13/6/07 by forestlady]

I thought this thread was supposed to be about proving that human activity is responsible for global warming. Which was done in the first few posts without any need for CO2 to be involved ......

All the subsequent ad hom attacks on scientists who produce research which doesn't say what you want it to say, or which you don't understand, is just pathetic.

Out of interest though, how many people have read the full IPCC AR4 WG1 Report yet? I know I've only read a few chapters myself. Surely to debate the issues raised in that report properly (including the issue of GHGs, the importance of which I personally feel has over-estimated) one must first read and understand it?

Originally posted by forestlady
WheelsRCool:

The rate at which GW is proceeding is not up for debate. It is also proceeding faster than any such changes that have happened in the past that we know about. They know this thru ice core samples.

It's been all over the news that honeybees are disappearing all over the U.S. and several European countries. Have you not heard of Colony Collapse Disorder? Just Google "honeybees disappearance" and you'll get tons of info. When I was growing up in the '50s in Los Angeles, there were tons of birds, bees and butterflies. There are not so many now.
..

just one quick question: which should receive more attention, iyo, GW or destruction of habitats?

Originally posted by WheelsRCool
This is a random question, but how do we know that CO2 released into the atmosphere remains in the atmosphere? I read somewhere that this is debated.

Studies show that we are releasing about 7GtC every year into the atmosphere. Half this amount can completely account for the yearly increase. The remainder is removed by ocean and terrestrial sinks. As there is no net loss from these sinks, where the yearly rise comes from is pretty easy to see.

Only by some very questionable mathmatical and logical gymnastics can human-sourced CO2 emissions not account for this yearly rise.

Also, isn't more methane (a GHG) released into the atmosphere from nature than CO2 from humans? Can this have an effect?

Methane increases are in the ppb range and the forcing from CH4 is lower than CO2 currently. Also, increases have pretty much levelled off.

Methane is just another part of the carbon cycle. CH4 is coverted to CO2.

Originally posted by forestlady
WheelsRCool:
The rate at which GW is proceeding is not up for debate.

Yes it is. They said the same thing about eugenics.

It is also proceeding faster than any such changes that have happened in the past that we know about. They know this thru ice core samples.

So they say. they are some scientists who refute that, as evidenced from reading this thread.

It's been all over the news that honeybees are disappearing all over the U.S. and several European countries. Have you not heard of Colony Collapse Disorder? Just Google "honeybees disappearance" and you'll get tons of info. When I was growing up in the '50s in Los Angeles, there were tons of birds, bees and butterflies. There are not so many now.

And the media are the purveyors of truth and not blatant fearmongering? Y2K was all over the news, H5N1 was all over the news as well, and now this whole honeybee thing seems to not be causing any major problem as I haven't seen it in any headlines at all.

Also Google "Holocene extinction". (We are living in the Holocene era) you will also find tons of info there, and that, also, is a topic that is not debated, scientists/biologists know that a giant extinction is underway.

They've been claiming about massive extinctions since the year 1000 A.D. There was a guy back then who claimed that the Earth could no longer support all the life on it. In the 50s, 60s, and 70s, there were people claiming half of all life on Earth would be extinct by 2000.

The fact is they cannot know this because no one can measure how much life is on the Earth. It isn't possible. And even if you could count all the life, then you have to go back and count again to see if certain lifeforms are disasppearing or not, which has enormous margin for error, especially considering lifeforms move from one area to another.

This one is from Wikipedia (but if you don't think that source is completely reliable there are lots of other sources):

"The Holocene extinction event is a name customarily given to the widespread, ongoing mass extinction of species during the modern Holocene epoch. The large number of extinctions span numerous families of plants and animals including mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles and arthropods; a sizeable fraction of these extinctions are occurring in the rainforests. Because the rate of this extinction event appears to be much more rapid than the "Big Five" mass extinctions, it is also known as the Sixth Extinction. Since 1500 AD, 784 extinctions have been documented by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.[1] However, since most extinctions are likely to go undocumented, scientists estimate that during the last century, between 20,000 and two million species have become extinct, but the precise total cannot be determined more accurately within the limits of present knowledge. Up to 140,000 species per year (based on Species-area theory)[2] may be the present rate of extinction based upon upper bound estimating."

Yes, it's all estimated. No one really knows for sure. No one has gone through the rainforests end-to-end and recorded how many lifeforms there are and which are dying. New ones are discovered everyday. According to the scientists Patrick Moore and Philip Stott, the rainforests are absolutely fine, better than they've been in awhile actually.

As far as clearcutting the ocean's floor, it is destroying the plankton in the water, which leaves much less food for fish. Nothing is being done to lessen the clearcutting. Fish also used to be much more plentiful. Halibut used to be very inexpensive, now you hardly ever see it in stores. They are farming salmon because there aren't enough salmon to feed the demand. The oceans are extremely polluted and nothing is being done about that.

They do what they can. Nations such as the United States have laws regarding what can be dumped into the oceans, lakes, rivers, etc...As far as fish, that is more coastal regions and they have since learned to be more careful about that so as not to over-fish those regions. The blue water oceans themselves though, out in the Pacific and the Atlantic, etc...I would think are fine.

Originally posted by Essan
All the subsequent ad hom attacks on scientists who produce research which doesn't say what you want it to say, or which you don't understand, is just pathetic.

I don't think so. When there is bias involved in the science, one should have great reason to be skeptical. Global warming science isn't just regular science, it is science with ENORMOUS political and social and economic implications because of how it will be used to shape policy.

Considering that global warming is tied in with the environmental movement, who seek a lot of funding, and considering that a lot of global warming scientists rely on government believing in global warming to pay their salaries, and furthermore considering global warming science is not double-blind (thus bias can seep into the research easily), one has great reason to be suspicious. GW science essentially is tied to people with very passionate viewpoints and a lot of money.

There's a reason why global warming skeptics get death threats.

Or look at The Weather Channel's Heidi Cullen, who claims that any meteorologist who doesn't believe in global warming should have their American Meteorological Association license revoked.

Gee, so what ever happened to free debate in this country?

These days, there are editors of scientific journals openly taking sides on the global warming issue, something that is very wrong as well.

We can't ignore the laws of economics. If global warming is used to create the wrong policies, we could end up with a real nightmare situation on our hands.

Remember the Kyoto Treaty? The media screamed bloody murder when the U.S. refused to sign it. They conveniently ignored that it would have likely ruined the U.S. economy because of all the draconian laws and regulations, put the U.S. under United Nations jurisdiction, and yet it didn't include the world's number two and three largest polluters, China and India, because they are "developing nations," yet China is expected to surpass America as the world's largest polluter soon.

Because of these economic dangers, people need to be incredibly skeptical about global warming.

Even if it is later proven without a doubt that human-induced global warming is real, we still don't know if it will be damaging to the Earth or not.

There are many politicians who would simply run with the idea that if it's real, it will be damaging.

But some say that if it is real, it would likely be helpful to the Earth.

But then let's assume it is shown to be real and will cause damages. Okay, so does that mean we need to automatically enact a bunch of crazy legislation the way many people want to without considering the consequences? Not a chance.

Remember, there's the laws of science, but also the laws of economics which we can't ignore as well.

If it is 1) proven human-inducedglobal warming is real, and 2) proven it will be damaging, then likely the free-makret is the best answer, not carbon regulations and laws and bannings of this and that.

Environmentalists (who are tied in with global warming) have a hatred of civilization overall and have no problem calling to ban who knows what when they think their cause is just. Their bannings caused so many damaging side effects though that Congress ordered them to start providing cost-benefit analyses with their proposals (to which they were outraged about).

So we need to tread lightly.

And furthermore, science is about being skeptical. That's the whole point of it. To ask questions.

Originally posted by Muaddib
The Real Climate website is linked to Al Gore through the EMS founder, Arlie Schardt, who was Gore's director of Communications and had other high office jobs in Gore's campaigns for office in at least three occasions.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I posted the above link a while back.

Anyways, the main activities of EMS (Environmental Media Services) is to providing web hosting and support for environmental issues sites like RealClimate...

You can also see how highly regarded Gore is at the "Fake", i mean Real.. Climate website, as well as those members in these forums who agree with the claims posted at the Real Climate website where Mann is one of the directors.

www.realclimate.org...

And the above is despite the fact that many "real scientists" see "an inconvinient truth" as nothing more than a political ploy and nothing close to "an educational film" as they claim in the RealClimate website...

As for asking for other websites that can refute what is claimed in RealClimate, there are several, just like there are several scientists who disagree with the claim that AGW is the cause of the current Climate Change.

There are many threads in this forum where evidence which refutes such claims ahve been posted and where research and data has been linked which debunks the claims of the AGW crowd.

[edit on 13-6-2007 by Muaddib]

Can you list those several websites?

WheelsRCool, maybe your should brush up on your Mark Twain. One quote you might run across is:
"It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

(Sorry for double post).

[edit on 13/6/07 by forestlady]

WheelsRCool: Would you stop destroying my threads? This is the 2nd one in a row now ON THE SAME SPECIFIC TOPIC.

There's the other thread for you to present evidence that man isn't causing global warming. In here you can scrutinize the data the other side presents.

Why don't you try to PROVE that man isn't IN THE PROPER THREAD? Why must you jump all over this thread spewing your filthy conjecture all over the place attackign things that nobdy mentioned? Could be because you're already screamed ove rand over your feelings about the GW as nazism? You prove yourself a selfish fool by mucking up this discussion without even proving your own views in a thread designed to let you get your argument out in without what you're doing here.

Don't even respond here. Please. Go prove that man isn't causing it in the proper thread, and scrutinize any bad data they post over here. Then we can all decide on what is really going on. If you continue here you prove that you don't have a leg to stand on.

And don't get me wrong, I'd love to easily prove the GW is bs and that the Dem's llike Al Gore are engaging in intentional terrormongering disinfo. But that doesn't mean I'm going to be a biased fool and subvert all reason. You're not making it any easier, and you're making your position look foolish.

[edit on 13-6-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]