DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years

Quote:

---

Dang and I own a condo right on the Chicago river too. Good thing it's on the 11th floor.

---

Quote:

---

Sorry but I do not believe in all this BS! the weather has went up and down for ever, and now they are saying it is warrming?
Well duh, every so often it does that! Here in Vegas we have had one of the coldest and wete'st winter's in year's ...All this fuss is all about the almighty $$$$$$$$ [please send me some? LMAO! look it up ..for those that doubt me.

---

Quote:

---

Come on ARCH, let's hear it about how I'm a frat boy and believe in global warming/climate change and degrade me for believing in science

---

Quote:

---

TThe thing here is trying to fool people into beleving that man has caused it.

---

Talking heads trying to fool people...there's a new concept.

Quote:

---

I agree.

But all that truth flies in the face of what loki learned in class this year, so since his prof's told him otherwise, he must be right.

---

Why do you assume that people who disagree with you haven't looked at the evidence? It's not like anybody here has actually brought any evidence up, instead you replace actual discussion with smirk comments.

Furthermore, I'm somewhat sick of this mass conspiracy theory talk....man made global warming either IS or IS NOT occuring, and it doesn't really make a damned bit of difference who is getting paid to say what...

So with that in mind, let's look at the evidence:

Starting with this figure from Meehl et al. 2004



A more detailed version of the plot is here: http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~olivier/econ19...ef_august08.pdf (page 5). This plot compares current climate change models based on forcing effects from:

1.) Greenhouse Gas Emissions
2.) Solar variations
3.) Ozone variations
4.) Volcanic Variations
5.) Sulfate variations

The paper then takes both the sum of the individual effects, and the cummulative effects through feedback (only the full model is shown here I believe), and plots it against observation over the past 100 years. A couple interesting things to point out.

1.) The whole is the sum of the parts....not shown in this figure, but feedback proved relatively unimportant, and the full effects were basically equivilent to the sum of the smaller effects. This means that it is in fact sensible (to a first order approximation) to talk about warming due to carbon dioxide, and warming due to solar variation etc.

2.) The full climate change model closely matches observations over the last 150 years, giving credence (though by itself not a ton) to the idea that the model is correctly describing the underlying physics.

3.) The periodicity of climate change effects matches only the variations in carbon dioxide concentration. Even if, for instance, we underestimated the effect of solar variation by an order of magnitude, we would still expect the frequency of solar variations to match the frequency of changes in the measured climate change forcasts.

Another figure to start off with:



What do we learn from this? That the fourier components of temperature change are nothing like what we've seen over the past 2000 years (and though it's harder to see in the figures, such a rapid change has not been seen in the past 300,000 years)...why does this matter?

Specific processes tend to have specific frequencies of change...these frequencies are called the fourier modes of the process. The total signal (in this case the temperature as a function of time), is the sum of all the fourier modes times constants defining the amplitude of each modes effect on the signal. For instance, knowing that there is an 11 year variation in solar cycles, we can break down the temperature data and subtract the component of the data which has an 11 year cycle. Doing so, we know we have eliminated the effect of all 11 year cycles (we hypothesize that the dominant 11 year cycle is, in fact, solar data)...and we can now analyze the temperature data removing this data.

My point is, that the the frequency of change is fundamentally different now, than it has been for the past 300,000 years. Assumably, similar natural processes that are happening now, were happening 300,000 years ago (especially, noting above, that the different variations in temperature forcing are basically independent)...thus we can determine that the processes forcing temperature change now, are different than the processes that have ever caused temperature change in the past. Since we know of no new natural processes (also, note above, known natural processes have been ruled out), the hypothesis would point to human caused factors of climate change. Due to delays (retarded effects) of temperature change, the actual analysis gets a good deal more complicated, however the frequency analysis is still, in fact quite strict.

~Lyuokdea

Quote:

---

So with that in mind, let's look at the evidence:

---

Fine show me a simple little graph with the average temps in my state over the last 500,000 years and I might believe in this globel warming crap. (and I want real temps that were taken and documented by real people, not guesses. )

Quote:

---

i mean...we could easily destroy the earth in 30 min...so the argument that 150 years is really short compared to 4.5 billion years, doesn't really hold a lot of weight on its own

~Lyuokdea

---

Quote:

---

Oh, don't forget about science telling us, back in the mid 70's, about the next ice age. Actually, according to the scientists, the next ice age would've been here by now.

---

That's it!!!

The government, in an attempt to stop a coming ice-age, worked with US automakers to come up with a vehicle that would increase CO2 emissions and help warm the earth to head off the ice-age, and bam, we have the SUV.

Now I bet they are working on a regulation that everyone must leave their doors and windows open while running the A/C for at least 4 hrs per day during warmer months to help stop the global warming.

Quote:

---

Come on ARCH, let's hear it about how I'm a frat boy and believe in global warming/climate change and degrade me for believing in science

---

Scientist at one time:
Said the Earth as flat.
Said the Milky Way Galaxy was half the size of what they now say it is.
Said coffee was bad for you...then good for you...then bad for you...then...
Said there is only one universe...now they say the math proves the existence of parallel universes. Actually multi-verses.
Said there wasn't dark matter....now they say there is dark matter.
Said we would be in an ice age by now...now we're warming.
Said the electron, neutron, and proton were the smallest particles making an atom.
Said they discovered Cold Fusion
Said that Mad Cow disease had jumped from cows to sheep. Turned out the scientist were testing actual calve brains instead of sheep.
Said Pluto was a planet. They changed the "rules". One day you wake up and something you have been taught since being knee high is wrong because someone changed their minds.

I'm not going to rag on science because I love science. The whole idea of science is to try and get a better answer after getting wrong countless times prior. I'm not taking a theory like man made Global Warming that contains all the elements of a religion and buy into it with 100% conviction.

Quote:

---

Fine show me a simple little graph with the average temps in my state over the last 500,000 years and I might believe in this globel warming crap. (and I want real temps that were taken and documented by real people, not guesses. )

---

Quote:

---

I'm impressed that within 7 posts, nobody posted so much as one single argument for why man made global warming is not occuring.

---

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you posted this before the article about the 650 dissenting scientists in the post about yours..

Quote:

---

Like I said before, Global warming either is or isn't happening, so it really doesn't matter who says what. What matters is what the data shows.

---

Quote:

---

I'm impressed that within 7 posts, nobody posted so much as one single argument for why man made global warming is not occuring. Seriously it takes skill to be confident in arguments that are that non-responsive. Instead, people posted that, scientists have been wrong, and that scientists are lying. Like I said before, Global warming either is or isn't happening, so it really doesn't matter who says what. What matters is what the data shows.

There's really no reason to respond to any of that..... so i'm not going to. If somebody actually brings an argument for why global warming is not happening. I'd be pleased to respond. If somebody actually responds to any of my arguments for why global warming is occurring, I'll happily respond to that.

Quote:

---

Fine show me a simple little graph with the average temps in my state over the last 500,000 years and I might believe in this globel warming crap. (and I want real temps that were taken and documented by real people, not guesses. )

---

So basically you're saying "Global Warming cannot be happening unless human beings were around to analyze the entire history of Earth's temperatures"

Brilliant

~Lyuokdea

---

Quote:

---

Another figure to start off with:



What do we learn from this? That the fourier components of temperature change are nothing like what we've seen over the past 2000 years (and though it's harder to see in the figures, such a rapid change has not been seen in the past 300,000 years)...why does this matter?

---

Quote:

---

The claim that Earth is in the grips of runaway Global Warming took off with this chart. It was produced by
Climatologist Michael Mann and colleagues in 1999. His paper portrayed the climate of Earth as stable for
1,000 years before the activities of mankind caused temperatures to skyrocket.

The chart just didn’t ring true with me. I was more used to the chart below.



This chart includes the Medieval Warm period and Little Ice Age, both of which have been documented by historians and widely accepted by climatologists. Remember, it was during the Medieval Warm period that the
Vikings settled Greenland and established successful farms. Strong support for this warm period worldwide can be found on the CO2 Science site. Then came the Little Ice Age during which the Vikings had to abandon
Greenland. Which chart is right? This is very important because Mann’s "hockey stick" chart has been the absolute bedrock of the global warming frenzy. It was a primary exhibit and cornerstone of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports.

A debate about Mann’s work has raged in the scientific community as other climate scientists take strong exception to his claims. I have waded through the research papers and blog exchanges by scientists on both sides. In the end, mathematician Steven McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick have proven to my satisfaction that the Mann Hockey Stick chart is not a valid display of long-term global temperatures.

A congressional group formed a committee of scientists to settle the issue.

Here are excerpts from their report:

COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ GLOBAL CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION

"This committee has reviewed the work of both articles (Mann’s research paper and McIntyre and McKitrick’s counter arguments), as well as a network of journal articles that are related either by authors or subject matter,
and has come to several conclusions and recommendations. Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis. In general, we found Mann’s articles to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of them to be valid and compelling. The controversy surrounding Mann’s methods lies in that the proxies are centered on the mean of the period 1902-1995, rather than on the whole time period. This mean is, thus, actually decentered low, which will cause it to exhibit a larger variance, giving it preference for being selected as the first principal component. The net effect of this decentering using the proxy data in MBH98 and MBH99 is to produce a "hockey stick" shape. The experts on this committee were Edward J. Wegman (George Mason University), David W. Scott (Rice University), and Yasmin H. Said (The Johns Hopkins University)."

My conclusion is that the cornerstone exhibit of the Global Warming proponents is bad science. It is not correct. There has not been an unprecedented rise in global temperatures in the last thirty years.
So, what has been going on with temperatures worldwide? It is a difficult question since the raw data is often unreliable and there are many ways to process the data. The Winter just-ended was the coldest in many
decades in many parts of the Southern Hemisphere. When the Secretary General of the UN recently visited Antarctica, the Associated Press report said the ice was melting under his feet with record high temperatures.
For sure he wasn't at the South Pole station where at that moment the temperature was -47. I am sure there was no melting there.
NASA has recently reprocessed its annual data for US temperatures since 1840. Here is their revised list of the
warmest years:

Year Old New
1934 1.23 1.25
1998 1.24 1.23
1921 1.12 1.15
2006 1.23 1.13
1931 1.08 1.08
1999 0.94 0.93
1953 0.91 0.90
1990 0.88 0.87
1938 0.85 0.86
1939 0.84 0.85

Three years from the 1990's make the list, but only one in this new century. It seems clear to me that we are not in the grips of massive man-made heat wave called global warming.

This brief is just the first of several. There is important research that attempts to tie global warming to carbon dioxide emissions and a long list of supporting research and observations from polar ice melting and polar
bears to strength and number of exceptional storms. I will deal with all of those points in future blog postings.

---

Quote:

---

Take those same graphs, but use a 10 degree axis instead of a 1. Wouldn't be quite as alarming, would it?

---

Quote:

---

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you posted this before the article about the 650 dissenting scientists in the post about yours..

---

Quote:

---

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

---

Quote:

---

True, while water vapor is a primary greenhouse gas....there is a much larger peak of carbon dioxide absorption than for water vapor. Also note that while at a given temperature, the amount of water vapor is held in relative equilibrium by the vast oceans, an increase in temperature tilts this balance and greatly increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, thus increasing the effects of warming.

---

Right ... so if there were something like, increased solar activity ... which has caused noticeable global warming on OTHER planets which don't have a large percentage of industry and combustion engines ... then those effects would be felt at an even greater rate ... due to increased water-vapor being formed and adding to the NATURAL greenhouse effect.

The problem with your counter-argument of, "well they've calculated in the effects of increased solar activity" ... is that you are going on an incredibly brave assumption that the guys doing the calculating of an extremly complex system know what the hell they are doing, and aren't just pulling numbers out of their rears to get numbers to line up to what they would prefer, so they can secure more funding.

At any rate ... the majority of these "graphs" that keep getting thown about seem to be sketchy at best. Some lack data that others have ... some convieniently include only data and years that best fit whatever best suits the agenda.

I submit to you the actual cause of global warming:

Quote:

---

So first off.... http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php

is a nice survey of climatologists showing 97% agreement that humans are causing global warming.

---

Quote:

---

You should read the posts about the article from this blog at the bottom.. as one poster clearly points out, the title of the article says "caused" (evidently written by the same moderate who calls out the 'right-wing' in his article).. but the question asked in the study is "contributing factor".

---

Quote:

---

a survey of 3146 Earth Scientists conducted by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman.
...
The 97% of active climatologists is 75 out of the 77 in the survey.

---

Quote:

---

I submit to you the actual cause of global warming:

---

I submit to you one of the causes of global warming. The below graph is from a temperature recorder that sits next to an air conditioning unit.


It shows a sudden spike. Guess when the A/C was installed?