Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says

Global temps throughout history have oscilated between warm periods and cool periods (ice age, or medieval warm period)

We started accurately measuring temperatures in the late 1800s, as we were warming back up from a cold couple hundred years during the little ice age. So we've been measuring the rise from a cold valley in global temperatures during the 1800s. Add in with that natural variability, our recent understanding of the PDO and AMO, we began to be concerned with global warming in the 80s and 90s as the PDO and then AMO flipped back to the warm phase. Its helpful to note here that the concern was global cooling in the 70s, when the PDO and AMO were both in the cold phases, and it was insanely cold in the northern hemisphere.

So - things start warming up in the late 80s, and we get the ozone layer/global warming hypothesis, (and we'll just chalk it up to coincidence that this occurred at the same time that the boomers were taking the mantle of power in politics, science, etc when this theory began to go mainstream) temperatures continue warming, C02 is rising, CO2 is the result of industrialization, the boomers overall thing industrialization is bad, AlGore, etc. This was also when communications increased exponentially, as well as a huge expansion of available technology, allowing us to measure stuff more accurately than before (sea ice, glaciers, global temps, etc)

There was certainly a rise through the 90s, peaking in 98, falling and plateauing in the 2000s, and apparently trying to fall again as the PDO goes into its cold cycle again.

So while humans and industrialization may have something to do with the warming, there are more variables than the AGW proponents would lead the populace at large to believe. And its entirely possible that what we're witnessing is just part of the cyclical patterns that are so long term that humanity doesn't have the scope to understand them yet (like how often we go into full fledged ice ages... which lets be honest, would be much worse than global warming. The Great Lakes used to be glaciers. As much as I love snow, I don't know that I could handle the intensity of the cold that would be needed for that to occur again)

I don't think there are many who want to destroy the planet. I really don't. But I think the folks who are skeptical of this are so because it has become not just a scientific debate, but a policy debate. And if the AGW proponents are wrong about the warming, the costs will be born by an increasingly poorer populace in the midst of an economic crisis.

jmundie wrote:Global temps throughout history have oscilated between warm periods and cool periods (ice age, or medieval warm period)

We started accurately measuring temperatures in the late 1800s, as we were warming back up from a cold couple hundred years during the little ice age. So we've been measuring the rise from a cold valley in global temperatures during the 1800s. Add in with that natural variability, our recent understanding of the PDO and AMO, we began to be concerned with global warming in the 80s and 90s as the PDO and then AMO flipped back to the warm phase. Its helpful to note here that the concern was global cooling in the 70s, when the PDO and AMO were both in the cold phases, and it was insanely cold in the northern hemisphere.

So - things start warming up in the late 80s, and we get the ozone layer/global warming hypothesis, (and we'll just chalk it up to coincidence that this occurred at the same time that the boomers were taking the mantle of power in politics, science, etc when this theory began to go mainstream) temperatures continue warming, C02 is rising, CO2 is the result of industrialization, the boomers overall thing industrialization is bad, AlGore, etc. This was also when communications increased exponentially, as well as a huge expansion of available technology, allowing us to measure stuff more accurately than before (sea ice, glaciers, global temps, etc)

There was certainly a rise through the 90s, peaking in 98, falling and plateauing in the 2000s, and apparently trying to fall again as the PDO goes into its cold cycle again.

So while humans and industrialization may have something to do with the warming, there are more variables than the AGW proponents would lead the populace at large to believe. And its entirely possible that what we're witnessing is just part of the cyclical patterns that are so long term that humanity doesn't have the scope to understand them yet (like how often we go into full fledged ice ages... which lets be honest, would be much worse than global warming. The Great Lakes used to be glaciers. As much as I love snow, I don't know that I could handle the intensity of the cold that would be needed for that to occur again)

I don't think there are many who want to destroy the planet. I really don't. But I think the folks who are skeptical of this are so because it has become not just a scientific debate, but a policy debate. And if the AGW proponents are wrong about the warming, the costs will be born by an increasingly poorer populace in the midst of an economic crisis.

Mundie, you covered a lot of ground with that little write up. There are some factual observations in there but it's also peppered with many opinions of yours. They may be well formed opinions but some of the conclusions you are drawing are not supported by hard science.

While not every aspect of the "Little Ice Age" is understood, most of the research has shown that the cooling during that period was most likely due to increased volcanic activity and decreased sun intensity. Also assuming there is a "baseline" climate, the warming recovery from this period has already happened and we are warming beyond those levels now. I think the idea is interesting, but there just isn't much solid science to suggest that the warming we've seen over the past century is due to us coming out of this medieval cold period. This is evident from the Wiki article you linked, which is a great jumping off point for additional reading.

snowdog wrote:

Stovepipe wrote:You want to beat the PDO drum now? Show me the money because I'm not seeing it.

Uhh, you do understand the PDO yes? The PDO generally runs in 30 year increments (give or take a few years).

1910-1940 +PDO followed by 1940-1970 -PDO cycle. Plotted against global temps vs Hadcrut3 data.


1970-2000 +PDO followed by 2000 to current -PDO cycle. Plotted same as above.


Of course if you take a trend line from 1900 to now it will be positive. This isn't some great discovery. I have said from the beginning we are warming and will continue to slowly warm until the onset of the next ice age. Now your job is to prove that the reason we are warming is due to CO2 and not natural cycles. So far your projections and testable hypothesis has failed.

Snowdog, you're getting sloppy. Just because Mundie is posting in the thread now you don't have a license to pass off opinions as facts. Show me how the flatly trended PDO is related to the warming trend of the past 100 years. Ideally I'd like to see some sources but for starters I'll accept a logical explanation.

Here's the chart again for reference.

Stovepipe wrote:Snowdog, you're getting sloppy. Just because Mundie is posting in the thread now you don't have a license to pass off opinions as facts. Show me how the flatly trended PDO is related to the warming trend of the past 100 years. Ideally I'd like to see some sources but for starters I'll accept a logical explanation.

Uhh, where did I get sloppy again? I haven't posted any opinion. You would like to see some sources for starters? Yeah the graphs I posted are all the sources you need, it gives you actual temp data and you obviously have the PDO data. What more do you want?

-PDO = cooling temps, +PDO = warming temps. What is confusing you is we aren't stating that the PDO has anything to do with the larger scale warming that has been happening since the LIA. This will continue to happen till the onset of the next Ice Age. At that point, I would guess the cooling will start outpacing the warming.

What the PDO will be helpful for is predicting the next 20 to 30 years. The PDO flipped a few years ago to negative which means cooling global temps. Why is this important? Because the projections you are trying to defend, which are already way behind the 8 ball when it comes to global temps, are only going to get worse over the foreseeable future. Projections = warming, outside your window = cooling.

snowdog wrote:

Stovepipe wrote:Snowdog, you're getting sloppy. Just because Mundie is posting in the thread now you don't have a license to pass off opinions as facts. Show me how the flatly trended PDO is related to the warming trend of the past 100 years. Ideally I'd like to see some sources but for starters I'll accept a logical explanation.

Uhh, where did I get sloppy again? I haven't posted any opinion. You would like to see some sources for starters? Yeah the graphs I posted are all the sources you need, it gives you actual temp data and you obviously have the PDO data. What more do you want?

-PDO = cooling temps, +PDO = warming temps. What is confusing you is we aren't stating that the PDO has anything to do with the larger scale warming that has been happening since the LIA. This will continue to happen till the onset of the next Ice Age. At that point, I would guess the cooling will start outpacing the warming.

What the PDO will be helpful for is predicting the next 20 to 30 years. The PDO flipped a few years ago to negative which means cooling global temps. Why is this important? Because the projections you are trying to defend, which are already way behind the 8 ball when it comes to global temps, are only going to get worse over the foreseeable future. Projections = warming, outside your window = cooling.

PDO has been shown to have NOTHING to do with climate which means it has very little to do with this conversation. Is it helpful in predicting weather? Maybe, but the flat trend has no bearing at all on climate just like the La Nina dip in 2008 has no bearing on climate. The projections "I'm trying to defend" are not behind the 8 ball despite you yelling at clouds. Observations are NOT way off as you claim. You have no evidence to suggest that the leveling off of the warming will continue (as shown in the past 3 years), especially considering the current La Nina is neutralizing. Hell, even the PDO link to weather fluctuations isn't perfectly correlated. Your case is weak and over and over again you are hedging your bets on a handful of years of observed weather that isn't at all statistically significant climate wise.

More on the Little Ice Age. Assuming we were in a warming period as we recovered from this period, it most likely stopped 50 to 100 years ago. The most logical explanation for the Little Ice Age is solar irradiance and volcanic activity.

Solar activity has not increased since mid last century:





Volcanic activity has had a net negative forcing (cooling) effect over the past century:



One can not say with any confidence that the current warming trend is the result of a recovery from the Little Ice Age.

Stovepipe wrote:

snowdog wrote:

Stovepipe wrote:Snowdog, you're getting sloppy. Just because Mundie is posting in the thread now you don't have a license to pass off opinions as facts. Show me how the flatly trended PDO is related to the warming trend of the past 100 years. Ideally I'd like to see some sources but for starters I'll accept a logical explanation.

Uhh, where did I get sloppy again? I haven't posted any opinion. You would like to see some sources for starters? Yeah the graphs I posted are all the sources you need, it gives you actual temp data and you obviously have the PDO data. What more do you want?

-PDO = cooling temps, +PDO = warming temps. What is confusing you is we aren't stating that the PDO has anything to do with the larger scale warming that has been happening since the LIA. This will continue to happen till the onset of the next Ice Age. At that point, I would guess the cooling will start outpacing the warming.

What the PDO will be helpful for is predicting the next 20 to 30 years. The PDO flipped a few years ago to negative which means cooling global temps. Why is this important? Because the projections you are trying to defend, which are already way behind the 8 ball when it comes to global temps, are only going to get worse over the foreseeable future. Projections = warming, outside your window = cooling.

PDO has been shown to have NOTHING to do with climate which means it has very little to do with this conversation. Is it helpful in predicting weather? Maybe, but the flat trend has no bearing at all on climate just like the La Nina dip in 2008 has no bearing on climate. The projections "I'm trying to defend" are not behind the 8 ball despite you yelling at clouds. Observations are NOT way off as you claim. You have no evidence to suggest that the leveling off of the warming will continue (as shown in the past 3 years), especially considering the current La Nina is neutralizing. Hell, even the PDO link to weather fluctuations isn't perfectly correlated. Your case is weak and over and over again you are hedging your bets on a handful of years of observed weather that isn't at all statistically significant climate wise.

If we're being honest with ourselves, the amount of time for which we have solid measurements of temperature is statistically significant "climate wise"

That's the biggest reason I'm skeptical to buy into the climate change doom scenario. We have a lot of awesome technology that tells us a lot of interesting things. But I can't jump on board the idea that we can accurately measure temperatures globally, and compare them to temperature records from thousands or millions of years ago with the kind of accuracy needed to tell if we are warming or cooling. Add in that this is just as much a political issue as a scientific one, an issue that certain people stand to make large amounts of money from, and my skepticism deepens.

I'm also fully convinced that the earth's population will likely fall dramatically due to a collapse in western civilization's suicide empire before our rampant release of CO2 causes destruction. And if population goes down dramatically, and energy consumption drops due to a combination of economic fallout and technology, things will all work themselves out.

And lastly - I'm skeptical because AGW have been calamatously wrong on multiple occasions. Remember after katrina how all the hurricanes would be devestating and more frequent? Remember how temps were supposed to be going up like a hockey stick, but turns out, that model created a hockey stick chart from whatever data was put into it? Remember how Europe wasn't supposed to get snow again, and the last 3 winters they have had epic, generational cold outbreaks?

Stovepipe wrote:PDO has been shown to have NOTHING to do with climate which means it has very little to do with this conversation.

Actual it has quite a bit to do with climate but once again Stove is there with his head stuck in the sand. That may be why the IPCC projections suck as bad as they do because all your consensus circle jerk buddies think that PDO/AMO aren't considered climate.

The projections "I'm trying to defend" are not behind the 8 ball despite you yelling at clouds. Observations are NOT way off as you claim. You have no evidence to suggest that the leveling off of the warming will continue (as shown in the past 3 years), especially considering the current La Nina is neutralizing.

Show me how good those projections are. You still have provided nothing, NOTHING, to disprove my assertions and refute the data I have presented. Just weak sauce arguments of Nina (when you dont understand the PDO correlation which makes it that much more funny) and give it more time. Yelling it clouds while your head is firmly stuck in the sand...is that even possible?

Your case is weak and over and over again you are hedging your bets on a handful of years of observed weather that isn't at all statistically significant climate wise.

I'm not hedging my bets on anything. You can't prove CO2 is driving the warming and I can easily prove that the AGW hypothesis is failing the testable phase.

Stovepipe wrote:Solar activity has not increased since mid last century:

Really?

snowdog wrote:

Stovepipe wrote:Solar activity has not increased since mid last century:

Really?

Are you blind to what the axis labels are on that chart?

Speaking of the sun. Adding to the -PDO is the fact that we are heading into a relatively quite period for the sun (if sunspot forecasts are correct). If this were to happen over the next 20 to 30 years and the sun were to go into a hibernation of sorts....it isn't global warming that we have to fear.

I don't think it's possible for you to be any more irrational in this thread snowdog. You've created this "escape clause" that you can whip out whenever you don't want to face reality and that is this "circle jerk science" crap. It's not only silly but because you are so arrogant with your arguments it's also intellectually dishonest in a big way.

After repeatedly making your claim that there aren't working climate models you are presented with studies that clearly show that indeed they have had considerable success simulating climate. You can't refute this other than to say it's "circle jerk science". Regardless of these studies being held to very high scrutiny, peer review, and replicated around the world. It's "circle jerk science" and it's invalid. That is so irrational it isn't even funny.

You originally claimed climate wasn't even warming and that sea levels are in fact falling. When it was pointed out to you very clearly that no such trends exist you tried change the meaning of the words "trend", "climate", and "weather". If you tried to argue that in a college science classroom you would be laughed out of the building.

You haven't been able to bring anything to the table that explains the warming trend other than the Little Ice Age hypothesis mixed with some PDO. When presented with evidence as to why that hypothesis carries little weight, you try to move the goal posts by showing a chart that does nothing but help to prove the points I made. I on the other hand can link you a number of robust studies that show a strong links between the warming and greenhouse gases (not water vapor, human introduced CO2) and you can refute them easily by saying "circle jerk, circle jerk". It's a very cheesy cop out and dumb as hell.

I've not put forth a single notion regarding AGW in this thread that can't be backed up with scientific evidence. You've done a lot of mouth breathing and presented very few links to studies that support your claims. I busted you on one chart that was a blatant cherry pick (the 1998 starting point) and poked holes in another one. You've attempted to reject reality by using science when it suits you and disregarding it when it doesn't. That is beyond irrational.

It doesn't really matter at all though, because luckily you are part of a very very tiny minority of people in this world. Not unlike the truthers and the birthers, you will look at what you want to look at and ignore everything else that doesn't support the story in your head. Trying to discredit the overwhelming scientific consensus using conspiracies of bad data and bad motives that you have no evidence of is very much intellectual dishonesty. You are a man drowning in a sea of science and nobody gives two craps.

I have no interest in trying to convince you. It doesn't matter how much or how strong the evidence is that is put before you, "circle jerk science" is wrong (unless it shows something you agree with). Going forward I'm going to continue posting interesting research on the topic in this thread for others to read. You can lollerskate over them all you want, you'll just continue to look foolish.

Wow, all that and you still haven't posted a damn thing that shows the projections are valid. Once again you fall back on the old hindcasting argument. The fact is you can simulate till the cows come home...the proof is in the pudding and it is there for everyone to see. The projections are crap and they are crap for a reason. It is circle jerk science in every sense of the word. Most of the peers that review these works are AGW proponents. I'm sure it is a real tough review process, so long as you dance and sing to the right tune. Sorry you dont like it but it is what is. Just calling a spade a spade.

Also, so far we have 3 other posters who have weighed in on the topic. A total of 5 counting you and I. You have yourself as the lone supporter, math/met who seems to be in the middle and Toot/Mundie/myself in the skeptical category.

Just remember, CO2 is outpacing even the worst case projection scenario yet temps are closely following the best case model projection. The projections obviously have huge errors in how they are resolving CO2 and the positive feedback mechanism. If you think global temps are going to catch the worst case projection (A2) in the next 30 years you need to open your eyes. -PDO and a quiet sun = continued cooling. Also you have not provided one shred of evidence that CO2 is driving the warming cycle.

Your debate techniques are classic by the way. You can't refute my arguments so instead you have resorted to strawmen and guilt by association. You have repeatedly made conspiracy charges, mentioned Beck and Palin and know you are mentioning truthers and birthers. Yet you want to talk to me about intellectual dishonesty? Come on.

We haven't even talked about the real science of warming. So I don't know what science you think you have brought forth or what science I have turned my back on. The only science I know that we have really gotten into was the positive feedback study.

You haven't poked holes in any of my arguments. You tried to with the sea level but in that you just took my words out of context. I've said since you brought that up that there isn't enough data yet but the last 3 years have shown a downward trend (which it has). I also said that it was just a response mechanism to the cooling global temps that have been going on over the last 10 years. Once again intellectual dishonesty from you.

You say I'm part of a tiny tiny minority. That doesn't bother me and it isn't as tiny as you think. Also people will be jumping in droves from your side over the next 20 years as people realize they have been duped and they see their more and more of their money being sucked down the energy hole in an already rough economy.

I certainly believe that the PDO is a bigger driver on the climate than even ENSO is...we have seen several ENSO phases in the last 100-200 years but only a few PDO phases. I think the PDO should be used like ENSO when it comes to... winter...hurricane and severe season long range forecasts.

I have actually done my own research as to what effects the negative and positive phases of the PDO have on OUR climate here in Tennessee. The negative phase correlates highly with colder temperatures and the positive phase correlates with warmer temps here in TN.

We just came off a relatively strong positive phase and now we are in a negative phase that will likely last for years and the temps will likely average out below normal here in this neck of the woods during this long negative phase of the PDO

Also...I wish more money was spent on researching natural climate change...small fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic oscillation systems is all that is necessary to cause climate change. You don’t need the sun... or any other external influence including man...it is simply what the climate system does.

This is actually quite easy for me to believe because I understand how complex processes are that drive climate one way or the other. I dont doubt that the removal of trees from the earth has caused a very minimal amount of global warming. IMO that warming is probably not even enough to measure... but I believe climate change will happen with or without our help.

If anyone is interested in reading some actual science on the topics that have been raised in this thread, here are some peer reviewed papers to chew on. These balance the evidence on both sides of the issue and not everything said in them is favorable for AGW theory. Very interesting reading.

On the correlation between CO2 and temperature:

Exploring Granger causality between global average observed time series of carbon dioxide and temperature (Kodra et al. 2010)
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m3571631l5173210/

From Granger causality to long-term causality: Application to climatic data (Smirnov & Mokhov, 2009)
http://pre.aps.org/abstract/PRE/v80/i1/e016208

Correlation Analysis between Global Temperature Anomaly and two main factors (CO2 and aa index) (Moon, 2008)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AGUSMGC43A..06M

Econometric analysis of global climate change (Stern & Kaufmann, 1999)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VHC-3XF080M-D&_user=10&_coverDate=11%2F30%2F1999&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=dc98f6ecca

A Bayesian Statistical Analysis of the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect (Tol & De Vos, 1998)
http://www.springerlink.com/content/x324801281540j8u/

Dependence of global temperatures on atmospheric CO2 and?solar?irradiance (Thomson, 1997)
http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8370.abstract

Global Warming and Global Dioxide Emission: An Empirical Study (Sun & Wong, 1996)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WJ7-45MGX3W-29&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1996&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ce8c3c947

Interannual extremes in the rate of rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1980 (Keeling et al. 1995)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v375/n6533/abs/375666a0.html

Coherence established between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature (Kuo et al. 1990)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v343/n6260/abs/343709a0.html


On whether the models are rigged to produce desired results:

Atmospheric Warming and the Amplification of Precipitation Extremes
http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2008/08/07/15/rainwarm.source.prod_affiliate.56.pdf

Precipitation extreme changes exceeding moisture content increases in MIROC and IPCC climate models
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/2/571.full

How difficult is it to recover from dangerous levels of global warming?
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/1/014012/pdf/1748-9326_4_1_014012.pdf

How reliable are climate models?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0870.2006.00211.x/full

Evaluating the carbon cycle of a coupled atmosphere-biosphere model
http://pine.sage.wisc.edu/pubs/articles/A-E/Delire/Delire2003%20GBC.pdf


On whether models are unreliable:

The remarkable predictability of inter-annual variability of Atlantic hurricanes during the past decade (Chen & Lin, 2011)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL047629.shtml

Use of variability modes to evaluate AR4 climate models over the Euro-Atlantic region (Casado & Pastor, 2011)
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k322171734nrt384/

A comparison of climate simulations for the last glacial maximum with three different versions of the ECHAM model and implications for summer-green tree refugia
http://www.clim-past.net/7/91/2011/cp-7-91-2011.html

Tropospheric temperature trends: history of an ongoing controversy
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.80/abstract

United States' Interannual Precipitation Variability Over the Past Century: Is Variability Increasing as Predicted By Models?
http://bellwether.metapress.com/content/n640288x25676g15/

Climate simulations for 1880–2003 with GISS modelE
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_3.pdf

Quantifying the uncertainty in forecasts of anthropogenic climate change
http://climateprediction.net/science/pubs/nature_allen_051000.pdf

Simulation of characteristics of thermal and hydrologic soil regimes in equilibrium numerical experiments with a climate model of intermediate complexity
http://www.springerlink.com/content/4612026818478660/

Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections (Rahmstorf 2007)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5825/709.abstract

Global Warming 2007. An Update to Global Warming: The Balance of Evidence and Its Policy Implications (Keller, 2007)
http://www.thescientificworld.com/tsw/toc/TSWJ_ArticleLanding.asp?ArticleId=2516&jid=

How reliable are climate models?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0870.2006.00211.x/full

Global temperature change (Hansen 2006)
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi?id=ha07110b

Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publications/meehl_additivity.pdf

Natural and anthropogenic climate change: incorporating historical land cover change, vegetation dynamics and the global carbon cycle (Matthews et al. 2004)
http://www.springerlink.com/content/qn35ql061kxwqb7x/

Estimation of natural and anthropogenic contributions to twentieth century temperature change
http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2002/2000JD000028.shtml

Potential climate impact of Mount Pinatubo eruption (Hansen 1992)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1992/91GL02788.shtml

Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies Three-Dimensional Model (Hansen 1988)
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi?id=ha02700w

Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (Hansen 1981)
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi?id=ha04600x

Here is a good analysis of the CMIP3 model which IPCC used as the source for their AR4 models.

LINK

Here is another good analysis of the IPCC Multi-Model Mean looking at land temps, sea surface temps and sea level.

LINK2

snowdog wrote:Wow, all that and you still haven't posted a damn thing that shows the projections are valid. Once again you fall back on the old hindcasting argument. The fact is you can simulate till the cows come home...the proof is in the pudding and it is there for everyone to see. The projections are crap and they are crap for a reason. It is circle jerk science in every sense of the word. Most of the peers that review these works are AGW proponents. I'm sure it is a real tough review process, so long as you dance and sing to the right tune. Sorry you dont like it but it is what is. Just calling a spade a spade.

You know how I know you have no experience with peer review? I work in academia and I've been involved with it directly. You're full of crap. Your "peer" isn't your buddy across the hall. It's often some guy on the other side of the world that is absolutely chomping at the bit to chew your paper up and spit it out. The scrutiny for getting into scientific journals can be downright nasty.

Also, so far we have 3 other posters who have weighed in on the topic. A total of 5 counting you and I. You have yourself as the lone supporter, math/met who seems to be in the middle and Toot/Mundie/myself in the skeptical category.

Because this thread represents the world as whole, yeah right. On your side you have a handful of politicians, the oil companies, and some neck beards on the internet. On my side I have every major scientific organization in the world and a large portion of public opinion, despite the anti-intellectual movement within the U.S. Math/Met is a gentleman and a scholar, he probably doesn't want to get his hands dirty in this thread and I don't blame him. The few things he has posted do not favor your arguments.

Just remember, CO2 is outpacing even the worst case projection scenario yet temps are closely following the best case model projection. The projections obviously have huge errors in how they are resolving CO2 and the positive feedback mechanism. If you think global temps are going to catch the worst case projection (A2) in the next 30 years you need to open your eyes. -PDO and a quiet sun = continued cooling. Also you have not provided one shred of evidence that CO2 is driving the warming cycle.

If these are your opinions, fine. You may even have some legitimate points in there, but the conclusions you are drawing conflict with the latest climate research. The Copenhagen report illustrates that models have been rather successful and even conservative on some of these projections. You can pretend that isn't the case but it doesn't change reality.

Your debate techniques are classic by the way. You can't refute my arguments so instead you have resorted to strawmen and guilt by association. You have repeatedly made conspiracy charges, mentioned Beck and Palin and know you are mentioning truthers and birthers. Yet you want to talk to me about intellectual dishonesty? Come on.

You keep using that word.



Quit being emo. I can't help it if your talking points overlap with Beck and Palin. It wasn't like I was building a case on that, it was a jab in passing. Go watch Al Gore's movie again and cry about it. (There's another jab, try not to pooch your lip out, it was a joke)

We haven't even talked about the real science of warming. So I don't know what science you think you have brought forth or what science I have turned my back on. The only science I know that we have really gotten into was the positive feedback study.

Unfortunately, much of this thread has been a meta discussion. We haven't been able to really talk about much science because you haven't even acknowledged half of the evidence I've brought to the table. I've out cited you, out linked you, and out charted you. It's not a pissing match but to say I've not backed my statements up is a lie. I've not even really shared many opinions in this thread. You on the other hand have spouted plenty, many of which you've provided nothing tangible to back up.

You haven't poked holes in any of my arguments. You tried to with the sea level but in that you just took my words out of context. I've said since you brought that up that there isn't enough data yet but the last 3 years have shown a downward trend (which it has). I also said that it was just a response mechanism to the cooling global temps that have been going on over the last 10 years. Once again intellectual dishonesty from you.

Let's see, I busted you on cherry picking at least once. You got owned by the data on sea level and warming, backpedaling doesn't change that. I called into question the inaccurate green ensemble spread on the Scarfetta chart that you were furiously masturbating to for several pages. No dishonesty here. You trying to discredit the scientific community with baseless claims of fraud is dishonest though.

You say I'm part of a tiny tiny minority. That doesn't bother me and it isn't as tiny as you think. Also people will be jumping in droves from your side over the next 20 years as people realize they have been duped and they see their more and more of their money being sucked down the energy hole in an already rough economy.

Stovepipe wrote:You know how I know you have no experience with peer review? I work in academia and I've been involved with it directly. You're full of crap. Your "peer" isn't your buddy across the hall. It's often some guy on the other side of the world that is absolutely chomping at the bit to chew your paper up and spit it out. The scrutiny for getting into scientific journals can be downright nasty.

Peer review when it comes to global warming studies is not the same harsh process as peer review in other fields. Don't try and act like it is. Well let me rephrase, it isn't harsh as long as your conclusions agree with the AGW agenda. Go ahead and post the conspiracy picture and start yelling at clouds again. The proof is in the pudding here as well and it has been documented. Again the phrase circle jerk society comes to mind when thinking about the peer review process or lack thereof.

You may even have some legitimate points in there, but the conclusions you are drawing conflict with the latest climate research.

What latest climate research? Just look at the damn data vs actual, we aren't reinventing the wheel here.

You keep using that word.

"A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."

You built strawmen of conspiracy, saying I didn't accept we are warming on a larger scale and saying I don't accept that sea levels aren't rising on a larger scale. The 1st may have been a joke the other 2 were just you being intellectually dishonest.

Let's see, I busted you on cherry picking at least once.

Wrong. Picking a certain time period to make a point isn't cherry picking. Especially when I readily admit we are warming on a larger scale.

You got owned by the data on sea level and warming

My assertions are backed by current data. Once again, you created a strawman by misrepresenting my position so you could attack the false position and claim victory. Whatever.

I called into question the inaccurate green ensemble spread on the Scarfetta chart that you were furiously masturbating to for several pages.

You mean the one where I provided the EXACT data you wanted to see only to once again see my assertion proven correctly. A1B scenario data ONLY was provided with ONLY its' ensembles (at your request) and current temp is below even the "coldest" ensemble. I think it was you who got schooled because YOU didn't do your homework. Again, whatever.

The difference between your debate and mine is, I don't create false positions against you and try to attack those false positions. I take a fundamentally flawed projection and show you the flaws. I can do this with the hindcasting models as well. My last post with the 2 links to analysis does a very good job of that and there are plenty more. Both the hindcasting models and the future projections are fundamentally flawed. In what realm of any other area of science is a hypothesis able to go from hypothesis to theory without being able to validate testable results? This only reinforces the circle jerk theory.

You pretty much validated everything I said with that post. It's like we are speaking a different language. The debate is ridiculous and you are being all kinds of irrational. Ignore the evidence, cherry pick your data, make absurd claims about scientific fraud you can't back up. It's a never ending cycle.

This thread has been both awesome and retarded. The good thing is it's been a good excuse to read up on the latest science. The case for AGW has only gotten stronger since the last time I reviewed the literature. That does not make me happy at all. Hopefully we can get some policies in place to combat it before it's too late. Most of the proposed policies (reducing fossil fuel consumption, green power, and curbing deforestation) are great things for the planet regardless of the climate issue. Luckily, most of the governments around the world are taking the science seriously. We'll see what happens.

Personally - I think both of you are doing the same things to one another, and doing the same things of which you accuse the other.

Which is part and parcel of any sort of debate about anything in this country. Its more important to be right, than to learn.

Stove - have you read any scholarly articles written by skeptics? Or do you consider them all "deniers" and therefore their opinion is not valid?

Snowdog - have you read any of the papers written by people detailing the rise in global temperature, and why they believe its related to CO2? or do you believe they are all involved in a conspiracy to enact global governance?

I can empathize with both sides, and I think the truth is probably a conglomeration of the sum of each sides parts. It appears that there is a warming trend. At this point, scientists in general think the best explanation is CO2. Others think that CO2 is part of it, along with cyclical weather patterns such as PDO and AMO phases, and others think the largest influence is the sun.

I think its probably all of those things - and just common sense would say that the sun would be the biggest variable. But I'm not a scientist. The only reason the answers to this question matters to people is because they feel (rightly or wrongly) that the main reason this debate is being furthered is to take away people's freedoms. There is certainly some scaremongering there, but there's also some truth to it as well. I'm not sure we're ready for a carbon free world to be forced upon us, and there's no question that those at the bottom will fare the worst from a gigantic increase in the cost of energy.

Not to mention - the hysterics from the media are certainly driving folks crazy, and assisting to propagate the "conspiracy" notion. Just last night, Brian Williams started his newscast with the Texas tornados, saying in the most incredulous voice I've heard him use, "Just what is going on with our weather". I screamed at the television that its springtime, and the south has tornados in the spring... but he didn't seem to hear me.

jmundie wrote:Stove - have you read any scholarly articles written by skeptics? Or do you consider them all "deniers" and therefore their opinion is not valid?

I will readily admit that there is much more reading that needs to be done on my part. It's a complex subject and it can't easily be summarized with a single chart or a single link to a website. I've attempted to provide some reading material in this thread. Granted to be fair, I should dig into the skeptic claims a little deeper and provide some peer reviewed papers that support that view as well. Having said that, it has been virtually impossible to have any kind of reasonable discussion here with snowdog dismissing the entire field of climate science as circle jerking fraud.

jmundie wrote:Snowdog - have you read any of the papers written by people detailing the rise in global temperature, and why they believe its related to CO2? or do you believe they are all involved in a conspiracy to enact global governance?

I have read papers from both sides. I was probably close to joining the AGW crowd back in the early 2000's. What kept me from it? There just wasn't anything concrete, to me, to prove CO2 was driving the warming. That is why I have asked Stove repeatedly in this thread to prove CO2 is driving the warming. Do I think man is having an impact on the climate? Of course, but the obvious follow up is...how much? To me I don't think it is significant. I don't think there is this scary tipping point out there and if we cross it all hell will break loose in the future. It all comes back to proving that CO2 is driving the warming. Modeling and projections go a long way in either proving that or disproving that. Right now there isn't accurate modeling or projections.

Do I think there is a conspiracy component to it? I think there is to some degree. Much like any idea that gets hijacked and turned into a big government boondoggle. Whether it be War on Drugs, War on Terror, War on Poverty, or the War on Climate. Do I think most of the people involved in the AGW group are bad people with a nefarious agenda? No.

This thread needs more pudding.

Seriously, this is a great thread. And it speaks volumes to the kind of people you are that you can each slam each other and still be friends at the end. That's way cool in my book.