• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Global Warming: Fact or Farce

yossarian22

yossarian22

Resident Schizophrenic
Jaiket said:
So while you are comfortable that global temperatures are rising, you are hostile to the idea that greenhouse gases (not just CO2 [does anyone know how to get subscript on this?]) are contributing?

In light of the following,

*Human activity is generating a rapid increase in greenhouse gases, CO2 included,

*Atmospheric greenhouse gases absorb infra-red radiation increasing Earth surface temperature (i.e. Greenhouse Effect),

How can you confidently maintain that anthropogenic climate change is not a genuine phenomenon?
Click to expand...
because a rise in CO2 has never preceded a rise in temperature and a decrease is CO2 has never preceded a decrease in temperature. It normally lags by 5 months.
The earth has been warming from the last ice age.
 
yossarian22

yossarian22

Resident Schizophrenic
Zeno said:
And lastly, I've linked to this before but it is a good resource.

26 common climate change misconceptions...
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
Click to expand...
That site says "melting polar ice caps and retreating glaciers" show that the hockey stick graph is correct. I have already shown problems with that arguement.
Furthermore, the arguement against CO2 lagging behind temperatures is - there are other greenhouse gases, and CO2 is still one of them.
So? still doesn't refute the lag, which invalidates the hockeystick graph.
 
Yerda

Yerda

Veteran Member
yossarian22 said:
because a rise in CO2 has never preceded a rise in temperature and a decrease is CO2 has never preceded a decrease in temperature. It normally lags by 5 months.
Click to expand...
While I am aware of regular ice core CO2/temperature lag periods (which is sometimes as much as 800-1000 years) I did not know that a rise in CO2 has never preceded a rise in temperature and a decrease is CO2 has never preceded a decrease in temperature. Where can I verify this statement?

Regardless, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas and I accept that is not the only cause of 'global warming'.

yossarian22 said:
The earth has been warming from the last ice age.
Click to expand...
If the Earth had been warming since the cretaceous it wouldn't make a shred of difference. The inescapable facts remain.

*Humans make greenhouse gases.

*Greenhouse gases make the Earth warmer.
 
Yerda

Yerda

Veteran Member
yossarian22 said:
...invalidates the hockeystick graph.
Click to expand...
Nothing you have cited invalidates the 'hockey stick' graph. Infact, it is supported from lines of evidence from sources other than paleoclimate studies. The only significant contention I have encountered with the graph has been a question of sampling, and never a question of accuracy or methodology.
 
yossarian22

yossarian22

Resident Schizophrenic
Jaiket said:
While I am aware of regular ice core CO2/temperature lag periods (which is sometimes as much as 800-1000 years) I did not know that a rise in CO2 has never preceded a rise in temperature and a decrease is CO2 has never preceded a decrease in temperature. Where can I verify this statement?

Regardless, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas and I accept that is not the only cause of 'global warming'.

Nothing you have cited invalidates the 'hockey stick' graph. Infact, it is supported from lines of evidence from sources other than paleoclimate studies. The only significant contention I have encountered with the graph has been a question of sampling, and never a question of accuracy or methodology.
Click to expand...

That CO2 has always lagged behind temperature historically does not create a fault in the hockey stick graph? The sampling method used for it is wrong and they used faulty statistical methods.
The vostok ice core record shows us two things. 1) CO2 is in higher concentrations now then ever before. and two, CO2 lags behind temperatures for unknown reasons. Some speculate that rising temperatures reduce CO2 solubility in the ocean, which causes it to be released in the air.
Vostoc ice core record for CO2 with temperatures

I would like to point out the temperature highs in the past go up to 2C higher then current tempertures.
400000yearslarge.gif
 
Z

Zeno

Member
yossarian22 said:
That site says "melting polar ice caps and retreating glaciers" show that the hockey stick graph is correct. I have already shown problems with that arguement.
Furthermore, the arguement against CO2 lagging behind temperatures is - there are other greenhouse gases, and CO2 is still one of them.
So? still doesn't refute the lag, which invalidates the hockeystick graph.
Click to expand...

Did you read the link two posts above that one that broke down the myths and facts of the hockey stick graph?

C02 lag?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

Conspiracy?
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11653

Also, I would be much obliged to quote and bold the link to Science Daily which you cited in your OP.
Earlier work by Tulaczyk may explain why the ice streams are slowing down. The ice streams slide over a bed of sediment saturated with liquid water, but an ice stream will grind to a halt if its bed becomes cold enough for the water to freeze. Tulaczyk showed that thinning of the ice sheet allows more heat to escape from the bed, eventually leading to freezing conditions.
The ice sheet has been retreating and thinning since the end of the last ice age more than 10,000 years ago. The changes now being detected by Tulaczyk and Joughin may signal the end of this process.
"It is either some kind of short-term fluctuation that we don't quite understand, or it's a trend and we just happened to come along at the right time to observe an event that only happens once in 10,000 years," Tulaczyk said. "To think that it just happens to be doing this now when we can observe it leaves me feeling a little queasy," he added.
One reason for that queasiness is that no one is quite sure what the long-term implications of these changes may be. Tulaczyk noted that if the ice streams continue to slow and stop, the ice shelf that covers the Ross Sea is likely to break up. The removal of the lid of ice that currently covers the Ross Sea could have significant effects on global ocean circulation and the global climate, he said.
Click to expand...
There you have it. Proof against global warming. Everyone feel free to read the whole thing here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020130074839.htm
 
yossarian22

yossarian22

Resident Schizophrenic
Zeno said:
Did you read the link two posts above that one that broke down the myths and facts of the hockey stick graph?

C02 lag?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

Conspiracy?
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11653

Also, I would be much obliged to quote and bold the link to Science Daily which you cited in your OP.
There you have it. Proof against global warming. Everyone feel free to read the whole thing here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020130074839.htm
Click to expand...

The basic summary of your link about CO2 lag is, it must cause the other parts of the warming. Can't work because for CO2 lags during a decrease too. For a period of 400-800 years CO2 rises and temperature falls. CO2 undoubtably has an effect on the climate, but it probably not as pronounced as some would claim.

I did read that link. That link says M&M's report has been rejected due to poor arguements, but oddly enough it was confirmed by the Wegman Committee when Congress requested they review it.

Any reason you put that quote there? It is the cold that is causing the ice shelf to break
 
Z

Zeno

Member
yossarian22 said:
The basic summary of your link about CO2 lag is, it must cause the other parts of the warming. Can't work because for CO2 lags during a decrease too. For a period of 400-800 years CO2 rises and temperature falls. CO2 undoubtably has an effect on the climate, but it probably as pronounced as some would claim.

I did read that link. That link says M&M's report has been rejected due to poor arguements, but oddly enough it was confirmed by the Wegman Committee when Congress requested they review it.

Any reason you put that quote there? It is the cold that is causing the ice shelf to break
Click to expand...

First point: If you say so, I imagine you are smarter and have deeper statistical knowledge than the climate scientists on that site.

Second point: If climate scientists say a report on climate has poor arguments, I don't care what congress says.
And you still didn't respond to the conspiracy link I posted.

Third point:
Tulaczyk showed that thinning of the ice sheet allows more heat to escape from the bed, eventually leading to freezing conditions.
Click to expand...
The freezing has nothing to do with global cooling. The article is independent of the whole global warming debate. That's what I was pointing out.
 
yossarian22

yossarian22

Resident Schizophrenic
Zeno said:
First point: If you say so, I imagine you are smarter and have deeper statistical knowledge than the climate scientists on that site.

Second point: If climate scientists say a report on climate has poor arguments, I don't care what congress says.
And you still didn't respond to the conspiracy link I posted.

Third point:
The freezing has nothing to do with global cooling. The article is independent of the whole global warming debate. That's what I was pointing out.
Click to expand...

One, I may have a more statistical knowledge then those scientists because I am majored in statistics.

Two. The major problems with the graph are statistical, so I probably couldn't care less what a bunch of climate scientists think. Furthermore, the problems were confirmed by a panel of staticians, at the request of Congress.

Three. Yes it does. Melting glaciers and the melting ice caps are used frequently as evidence in leu of the hockey stick graph. We don't observe enough glaciers for us to say that all are meltin and Antarctica is not melting.

I will respond to the conspiracy link. One- there has been 100 years of scientific research to reach this consensus. 30 years ago these same scientists were yelling that pollution was causing a global cooling and we would be pushed into a new ice age, and now its catastrphic WARMING? If 30 years of evidence can shift the scientific train of thougt so dramatically, how can we claim any knowledge of recent temperature rises.

Two, nowhere do I use cosmic rays as evidence that man does not cause global warming. I use something far more tanglible-ice cores.

Three, fear sells very very well. The media has no interest in challenging
global warming because a headline titled WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE will sell very well.

MY last point is- if any side has been pressured- it would be the skeptics. The pro-global warming side is quick to point out who funded the research. It does not make a difference who funded research. Do not insult the integrity of a group of scientists just because of who they received their funding from.

IF you want an example of this, look at the attacks against Lomborg.
 
Z

Zeno

Member
yossarian22 said:
One, I may have a more statistical knowledge then those scientists because I am majored in statistics.

Two. The major problems with the graph are statistical, so I probably couldn't care less what a bunch of climate scientists think. Furthermore, the problems were confirmed by a panel of staticians, at the request of Congress.

Three. Yes it does. Melting glaciers and the melting ice caps are used frequently as evidence in leu of the hockey stick graph. We don't observe enough glaciers for us to say that all are meltin and Antarctica is not melting.

I will respond to the conspiracy link. One- there has been 100 years of scientific research to reach this consensus. 30 years ago these same scientists were yelling that pollution was causing a global cooling and we would be pushed into a new ice age, and now its catastrphic WARMING? If 30 years of evidence can shift the scientific train of thougt so dramatically, how can we claim any knowledge of recent temperature rises.

Two, nowhere do I use cosmic rays as evidence that man does not cause global warming. I use something far more tanglible-ice cores.

Three, fear sells very very well. The media has no interest in challenging
global warming because a headline titled WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE will sell very well.

MY last point is- if any side has been pressured- it would be the skeptics. The pro-global warming side is quick to point out who funded the research. It does not make a difference who funded research. Do not insult the integrity of a group of scientists just because of who they received their funding from.

IF you want an example of this, look at the attacks against Lomborg.
Click to expand...

1. I'll consider the possibility. But you are in the position with more to prove, these scientist's papers don't get published without a thorough statistical review. Plenty of other scientists and organizations have reviewed it. The probability of them all being in on some conspiracy is virtually zero. And you are citing one panel of statisticians reaching a different conclusion? RealClimate's article on the data presented in the Crichton book explains away a lot of these supposed cooling trends. In short it talks about how other human or natural effects can lead to a cooling that overwhelms the C02 effect and warming. You can read it here. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

2. Scientists have a strong statistical background. I won't argue that their knowledge exceeds that of statisticians, but again the odds are against you. One panel, versus countless people and organizations. Furthermore, the climate scientists who run that site do not discount the medieval warming, and other things you have talked about. The fact is that there are other contributors to the climate besides C02, no one is denying that. Yet you still ignored that they pointed out the argument fallacies and not the statistical fallacies in the M&M's report. Keep in mind, I'm not here to argue that the graph is flawless - I'm here to argue about the human factor in global climate change.

Just so everyone knows, the M&M paper was published in a non-scientific journal. McIntyre works in the mining industry and McKitrick is an economist. And their paper has been examined by independent sources to be shown in error:
The claims of McIntyre and McKitrick have now been further discredited in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, in a paper to appear in the American Meteorological Society journal, "Journal of Climate" by Rutherford and colleagues (2004) [and by yet another paper by an independent set of authors that is currently "under review" and thus cannot yet be cited–more on this soon!]. Rutherford et al (2004) demonstrate nearly identical results to those of MBH98, using the same proxy dataset as Mann et al (1998) but addressing the issues of infilled/missing data raised by Mcintyre and McKitrick, and using an alternative climate field reconstruction (CFR) methodology that does not represent any proxy data networks by PCA at all.​
3. I understand that, but freezing somewhere does not disprove melting somewhere else. There are numerous causes of melting and freezing. Even if some glaciers are growing for various reasons, that is independent of the mean global temperature. The reasons were outlined in the ScienceDaily article that you cited. Specifically, melting in one area allowed the earth's heat to escape - causing an overall freezing effect. This has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

4. As for the supposed ignorant scientists and their global cooling in the 70's? You are kind of shooting yourself in the foot here. The thing is, I agree with you that we have a sensationalist media - and that is exactly what happened in the 70's. Here is a direct quote from one of the main scientists involved in that global cooling research.
However, Schneider soon realised he had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosol pollution and underestimated the effect of CO2, meaning warming was more likely than cooling in the long run. In his review of a 1977 book called The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age, Schneider stated: "We just don't know...at this stage whether we are in for warming or cooling – or when." A 1975 report (pdf format) by the US National Academy of Sciences merely called for more research.
​
It was never definitive. The media still needed to sell newspapers back then too. The "dramatic shift in scientific thought" you speak of never actually happened.

5. In the other thread where you brought this up, I addressed the Lomborg situation. Far more was called into question than who funded him. I can dig all of this up again if you would like.

Now, let me give you a hypothetical situation. Let's say that 30 agencies fund research into the effect of pollution on our planet. 25 of them are made of different scientific academies, governments, and environmental groups, and they all reach the same conclusion. The remaining 5 are funded by 5 different oil companies and garner results that are drastically different from the 25 majority. Are you telling me you see no cause to further investigate this scenario? This situation is merely hypothetical, I'm just trying to understand your perspective.
 
yossarian22

yossarian22

Resident Schizophrenic
Zeno said:
1. I'll consider the possibility. But you are in the position with more to prove, these scientist's papers don't get published without a thorough statistical review. Plenty of other scientists and organizations have reviewed it. The probability of them all being in on some conspiracy is virtually zero. And you are citing one panel of statisticians reaching a different conclusion? RealClimate's article on the data presented in the Crichton book explains away a lot of these supposed cooling trends. In short it talks about how other human or natural effects can lead to a cooling that overwhelms the C02 effect and warming. You can read it here. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

2. Scientists have a strong statistical background. I won't argue that their knowledge exceeds that of statisticians, but again the odds are against you. One panel, versus countless people and organizations. Furthermore, the climate scientists who run that site do not discount the medieval warming, and other things you have talked about. The fact is that there are other contributors to the climate besides C02, no one is denying that. Yet you still ignored that they pointed out the argument fallacies and not the statistical fallacies in the M&M's report. Keep in mind, I'm not here to argue that the graph is flawless - I'm here to argue about the human factor in global climate change.

Just so everyone knows, the M&M paper was published in a non-scientific journal. McIntyre works in the mining industry and McKitrick is an economist. And their paper has been examined by independent sources to be shown in error:
The claims of McIntyre and McKitrick have now been further discredited in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, in a paper to appear in the American Meteorological Society journal, "Journal of Climate" by Rutherford and colleagues (2004) [and by yet another paper by an independent set of authors that is currently "under review" and thus cannot yet be cited–more on this soon!]. Rutherford et al (2004) demonstrate nearly identical results to those of MBH98, using the same proxy dataset as Mann et al (1998) but addressing the issues of infilled/missing data raised by Mcintyre and McKitrick, and using an alternative climate field reconstruction (CFR) methodology that does not represent any proxy data networks by PCA at all.​
3. I understand that, but freezing somewhere does not disprove melting somewhere else. There are numerous causes of melting and freezing. Even if some glaciers are growing for various reasons, that is independent of the mean global temperature. The reasons were outlined in the ScienceDaily article that you cited. Specifically, melting in one area allowed the earth's heat to escape - causing an overall freezing effect. This has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

4. As for the supposed ignorant scientists and their global cooling in the 70's? You are kind of shooting yourself in the foot here. The thing is, I agree with you that we have a sensationalist media - and that is exactly what happened in the 70's. Here is a direct quote from one of the main scientists involved in that global cooling research.
However, Schneider soon realised he had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosol pollution and underestimated the effect of CO2, meaning warming was more likely than cooling in the long run. In his review of a 1977 book called The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age, Schneider stated: "We just don't know...at this stage whether we are in for warming or cooling – or when." A 1975 report (pdf format) by the US National Academy of Sciences merely called for more research.
​
It was never definitive. The media still needed to sell newspapers back then too. The "dramatic shift in scientific thought" you speak of never actually happened.

5. In the other thread where you brought this up, I addressed the Lomborg situation. Far more was called into question than who funded him. I can dig all of this up again if you would like.

Now, let me give you a hypothetical situation. Let's say that 30 agencies fund research into the effect of pollution on our planet. 25 of them are made of different scientific academies, governments, and environmental groups, and they all reach the same conclusion. The remaining 5 are funded by 5 different oil companies and garner results that are drastically different from the 25 majority. Are you telling me you see no cause to further investigate this scenario? This situation is merely hypothetical, I'm just trying to understand your perspective.
Click to expand...

One- I have shown you several statistical faults in the graph.It was confirmed by a panel of statisticians. I do not care what climate scientists think of it. Furthermore, the statistical flaws of the graph is all I need to show fault in methodology. I could care less if their arguments were rejected, the statistical flaws they pointed out are real and confirmed. Second, I have shown the problems of using tree rings as temperature proxies. They cannot be relied on. Furthermore, many temperature stations have issues too. A new parking lot would screw up temperatures. Furthermore, the Volstok ice record shows that CO2 lags behind temperature in both directions, further discrediting the hockey stick graph, and while solar irradiation has a large effect on temperature- it cannot account for such massive lag times. Furthermore- ice cores in Greenland confirm it was at least as warm 1000 years ago compared to today.

I know that freezing in some areas has nothing to do with global means. Melting in some areas also has nothing to do with global means. Parts of Antarctica are melting-other parts are growing.

Tree rings, glacier length, lake and ocean sediments, historical records, corals, ice cores, etc. Are those tangible enough?
Click to expand...


You use glacier length as an argument as proof of the hockey stick graph. The problems with this is that out sample size of glaciers are, at best 0.002%. We only observe 200 glaciers out of 100,000-200,000. Tree rings are poor proxies of data due to corruptibility, and ice cores are revealing that the medieval warm period did exist.
http://find.galegroup.com/ips/infom...urce=gale&userGroupName=cupe17751&version=1.0
I will cede the point that consensus for global cooling was not anywhere near that of global warming today, but the point remains that scientists (more then a few scientists made the argument) declared a state of global cooling, then, practically in the same breath declared that the world is undergoing devastating warming.

There is reason to further investigate this scenario, but you CANNOT make a conclusion either way. That 16% of data collected are outliers means that further investigation is warranted, and the remaining data cannot be used to draw any major conclusions.

The major problem with the global warming scientists train of thought (and the world's train of thought in general) is the idea that more data makes us more knowledgeable. More data can and does make us less knowledgeable.
The infamous black swam problem comes to mind here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top