Global Warming

[xyzer]

Nope, old feller..

The fact is that global temperatures are increasing, weather patterns are becoming more erratic and there is every reason to believe much of this is related to human behavior.

There is no causal relationship except in the eyes of the alarmists and believers in junk science like you apparently are. I want an intelligent comparison of weather patterns in the decade when Columbus discovered America, versus patterns the decade of the 1990s? Thats as distant a view of certainty as the models the IPCC consults are? Otherwise your attempt to link human behavior to weather or climate is dubious? Strictly an opinion.

[Pooeypants]

You're right, comparing weather patterns is silly because this is about climate change, not weather change.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: Pooeypants You're right, comparing weather patterns is silly because this is about climate change, not weather change.

What do you think climate is? Weather patterns are just a short look at what the climate is like during that particular period.


That has to be you're silliest comment to date on the subject.

{Pooey, I'm gonna ask you a serious question here, do you believe that there is an optimal climate for the earth?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio What do you think climate is? Weather patterns are just a short look at what the climate is like during that particular period. That has to be your silliest comment to date on the subject.

I was merely pointing out that predicting the weather and predicting the climate is exactly the same thing. Xyzer asked for comparison of weather patterns from 15th century to the 20th/21st century, although we can extrapolate the climate patterns, there's obviously no way to know the exact weather unless we had some kind of time machine.

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio {Pooey, I'm gonna ask you a serious question here, do you believe that there is an optimal climate for the earth?

There's no such thing as far as I am concerned. Unless you're talking about some artificial parameters.

[Mr.Vicchio]

No pooey, predicting the weather and predicting climate are two COMPLETELY different animals. On this one, please, trust me. Weather is short term, what's gonna happen over the next 3-5 days. Climate is long range and FAR more fickle and difficult. I.E. they have yet to get it right. 30 years ago we were CERTAIN that the earth would be embraced by a Glacial period....




Okay good, I was just checking.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio No pooey, predicting the weather and predicting climate are two COMPLETELY different animals. On this one, please, trust me. Weather is short term, what's gonna happen over the next 3-5 days. Climate is long range and FAR more fickle and difficult.

I know, which is precisely why I said that talking about weather prediction is moot when we're in a discussion about climate change.

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio I.E. they have yet to get it right. 30 years ago we were CERTAIN that the earth would be embraced by a Glacial period....

Were we? Or are you taking the publications of a few magazines as consensus fact?

[Mr.Vicchio]

It was the common belief among the "leading scientist" studying climate. Were there those that disagreed, of course. But it was the leading belief.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio It was the common belief among the "leading scientist" studying climate. Were there those that disagreed, of course. But it was the leading belief.

Who are the "leading scientist"? I think you're exaggerating the facts, the National Academy of science at the time recommended more research (unlike now, where action is preferable, quite a step up wouldn't you say?). Source

[Mr.Vicchio]

You cite again that website which is dedicated to pushing the "act on Global Warming Agenda" If I want biased propaganda I would go to Exxon's ecological website.

Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s ( See Time Magazine’s 1974 article "Another Ice Age" citing Bryson: & see Newsweek’s 1975 article "The Cooling World" citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms "sky is falling" man-made global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. "Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?" Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. "All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air," Bryson said. "You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide," he added. "We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind's addition of ‘greenhouse gases’ until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used. We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question -- too important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem," Bryson explained in 2005.

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

That's just one example, the guy was a leader in climatology in the 1970's and he wasn't alone in the "Ice Age Scare"

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio You cite again that website which is dedicated to pushing the "act on Global Warming Agenda" If I want biased propaganda I would go to Exxon's ecological website.

Then which website would you rather read from?

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics That's just one example, the guy was a leader in climatology in the 1970's and he wasn't alone in the "Ice Age Scare"

Fair dues, but again I will stress that in the article I cited, they reference directly a report from mid 1970's from the US NAS stated that more research was needed before better predictions of the climate could be made. You are aware of what the NAS is, aren't you?

Of course, you can keep citing about a lack of consensus, but it seems that's not true at all, not the difference in that these are Joint statements from NAS's around the world who are urging action. If you really want to mislead people into thinking that this just another "science fad", you've got another think coming.

[Mr.Vicchio]

You cited skeptics, and there were, but unlike today, those skeptics were not demonized.

[xyzer]

Here is another article that reveals even more doubters of the alarmist theories we've been exposed to..
http://http://www.counterpunch.com/c...n06092007.html

I invite you to read this revealing article. As we've covered before Pooey there are other factors which affect climate still unexplained and not included in scientific models. e.g. atmospheric moisture.

The Achilles' heel of the computer models (which form the cornerstone of CO2 fearmongering), is their failure to deal with water. As vapor, it's a more important greenhouse gas than CO2 by a factor of twenty, yet models have proven incapable of dealing with it. The global water cycle is complicated, with at least as much unknown as is known.

There are a number of other scientific areas that have been unused in the formulations of the conclusions (appraisal) by the IPCC. e.g. geological records and the imperciseness of ice core data?
And then there is this one...

Besides the inability to deal with water, the other huge embarrassment facing the modelers is the well-researched and well-established fact published in many papers that temperature changes first and CO2 levels change 600 to 1,000 years later. Any rational person would immediately conclude that CO2 could not possibly cause temperature if the rise in CO2 in comes centuries after the rise in temperature. The computer modelers as usual have an involuted response: They say the temperature increase is initiated by the "relatively weak" effect of increasing heat from the sun during the rising phase of the Milankovich cycle (Milankovich's meticulously calculated cycles on rising and falling heat input from the sun are universally accepted by astrophysicists). That effect initiates the warming of the oceans, which - just as Dr. Martin Hertzberg says - releases lots of CO2. According to the modelers the released CO2 is the real culprit because it amplifies the "relatively weak" effect of the sun, turning minor warming into a really serious matter.

Also the article contains a list of some of the expert dissidents against dogma!

From what I observe we are being swept over a waterfall of alarmist hyperbole? The IPCC's agenda driven arm, demagogues like Gore. a sensation seeking press, et al.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio You cited skeptics, and there were, but unlike today, those skeptics were not demonized.

I cited the National Academy of science, same as I do today for their statement on global warming. So who would you take as a reliable source? What's wrong with the NAS?

[Mr.Vicchio]

It's not that it's unreliable, I didn't say that.

My POINT Pooey, is that back then, when the alarmist came out, there was scientific discourse and the situation debated, tested and generally disproved.

Today, people that question Global Warming are castigated by the media, by government agencies with a stake in the GW game.

Does it ever occur to you that perhaps this is just a political football, whose backers have personal gain in mind rather then science?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Here is another article that reveals even more doubters of the alarmist theories we've been exposed to.. Alexander Cockburn: Dissidents Against Dogma

Xyzer, your url does not need two http://, it's non-functional that way.

Quote by: xyzer I invite you to read this revealing article. As we've covered before Pooey there are other factors which affect climate still unexplained and not included in scientific models. e.g. atmospheric moisture. "The Achilles' heel of the computer models (which form the cornerstone of CO2 fearmongering), is their failure to deal with water. As vapor, it's a more important greenhouse gas than CO2 by a factor of twenty, yet models have proven incapable of dealing with it. The global water cycle is complicated, with at least as much unknown as is known."

Water vapour in climate modelling, although I doubt you'll actually read this.

Quote by: xyzer There are a number of other scientific areas that have been unused in the formulations of the conclusions (appraisal) by the IPCC. e.g. geological records and the impreciseness of ice core data? And then there is this one..."Besides the inability to deal with water, the other huge embarrassment facing the modelers is the well-researched and well-established fact published in many papers that temperature changes first and CO2 levels change 600 to 1,000 years later. Any rational person would immediately conclude that CO2 could not possibly cause temperature if the rise in CO2 in comes centuries after the rise in temperature. The computer modelers as usual have an involuted response: They say the temperature increase is initiated by the "relatively weak" effect of increasing heat from the sun during the rising phase of the Milankovich cycle (Milankovich's meticulously calculated cycles on rising and falling heat input from the sun are universally accepted by astrophysicists). That effect initiates the warming of the oceans, which - just as Dr. Martin Hertzberg says - releases lots of CO2. According to the modelers the released CO2 is the real culprit because it amplifies the "relatively weak" effect of the sun, turning minor warming into a really serious matter."

More misleading information, which is easily cleared up in this article.

Quote by: xyzer Also the article contains a list of some of the expert dissidents against dogma!

Doesn't mean much, I know of at least one Professor of Biochemistry who champions Intelligent design...

Quote by: xyzer From what I observe we are being swept over a waterfall of alarmist hyperbole? The IPCC's agenda driven arm, demagogues like Gore. a sensation seeking press, et al.

The only alarmist here is you and Mr Vicchio, you believe that the action will ruin our economy, which is not the case. Either way, it is a win-win situation; the shift to a more energy efficient civilisation is inevitable and is advantageous in the long run. Perhaps it is you who is afraid of change...

For those interested, one may read up a little on Cockburn from one climate scientist's perspective.

It's funny, you'll eat up the words of a political journalist, but be completely sceptical of all the National Academy of science in the world. I think it shows quite clearly that you're not interested in an objective look at the science, just your own tunnel vision view.

[Chris]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Does it ever occur to you that perhaps this is just a political football, whose backers have personal gain in mind rather then science?

what personal gain? carbon credits?

Carbon credits are already a scam, we have established that. But there are more people who believe in global warming than just a few fools trying to sell credits. Its actually a great majority of scientists.

Much like the great majority of scientists who are non-religious, most scientists believe and warn us of global warming.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Chris, a great "majority" of scientist once thought a lot of things that are later proven wrong.

And many of those scientist that are "warning us" of global warming also rely on Grant money... and gee a lot of scientist also say if you aren't pushing GW you don't get the $$.

Which is a good part of what I meant by personal gain. There are also politicians that stand to gain political power by taking the GW ball and running with it.

And BTW Chris, that "great majority" isn't nearly as solid as you think, if you bother to look into it, there is a sizable block of anti-GW scientist out there. and by anti-GW I'm talking about man-caused and stoppable GW

[xyzer]

PooeyThanks for the reminder of the double http problem? I'm copying the url with a single http in it but not noticing it's duplicated. I'll be more careful in the future. Haven't a clue as to why this is happening?

Interesting, your myth example confirms Cockburns assertion that there is a flaw in ice core intrepretation? So how does this variable fit into the climate models the IPCC refers to? Is this another proxy that adds uncertainty? Maybe it's just another example of the imperciseness of computer models that are not all inclusive and are usually rigged with what the experimenter thinks are the factors that may fit(influence) the hypothesis?

Other than that, the onedissident you quote writes(attacks Cockburn) with such evident sarcasm and subjectivety as to be untrustworthy? Who said Cockburn was the expert? It was the scientists he quoted we were concerned with. I note in the comments to his article others feel the same way as I do about his motives.

We are concerned with agenda driven folks making certainity out of flawed or changing variables. How reliable are the proxys? What ever happened to the the idea that an uncertain conclusion should result in further study? Is it prudent to so quickly attempt to utilize resources to further uncertain conclusions?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Interesting, your myth example confirms Cockburns assertion that there is a flaw in ice core intrepretation? So how does this variable fit into the climate models the IPCC refers to? Is this another proxy that adds uncertainty?

Let's see, he's citing a report from 1997 by Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski. Now, I can't help but notice that it's been a decade since then and we've got new papers published. Of course, if you could show me that their data is in error, your point might have a leg to stand on.

Quote by: xyzer Maybe it's just another example of the imperciseness of computer models that are not all inclusive and are usually rigged with what the experimenter thinks are the factors that may fit(influence) the hypothesis?

So, where does your phobia of these models come from?

Quote by: xyzer Other than that, the one dissident you quote writes(attacks Cockburn) with such evident sarcasm and subjectivety as to be untrustworthy? Who said Cockburn was the expert? It was the scientists he quoted we were concerned with. I note in the comments to his article others feel the same way as I do about his motives.

His tone doesn't matter, it's the content with which he makes his statements.

Quote by: xyzer We are concerned with agenda driven folks making certainty out of flawed or changing variables. How reliable are the proxys? What ever happened to the the idea that an uncertain conclusion should result in further study? Is it prudent to so quickly attempt to utilize resources to further uncertain conclusions?

What are you talking about exactly? Do you realise how many independent studies have been undertaken? You think that the entire scientific community would turn a blind eye to this? Where's your proof of that? I'm really not sure where you are going with this, apart from in circles.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Pooey, do you care how many scientist, top scientist dismiss anthropomorphic climate change?