Global Warming ???

[Kathryn]

I don't buy em either - but then I've had three glasses of wine. If I get loose, there's no telling WHAT I might buy.

 

[Sententia]

That's ridiculous. Science doesn't operate by consensus. It never has and it never will. Nor is the number of scientists who believe this or that theory a measure of it's accuracy. The state of research is and always will be what to look to to gauge any given field. If you can't understand the published research, or don't wish to devote the necessary time to evaluate it, then by all means go with the consensus.

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Global warming is a scientific theory so consensus or not its quite open to criticism.

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion

The consensus may vary... I mean show a group of republicans this video and then get a consensus that Global warming is real.

My point that most people in america disagree with evolution and global warming meshes cleanly with your point that science doesn't operate by consensus which makes me think your missed mine. You all caught up now?

 

[Oberon]

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Global warming is a scientific theory so consensus or not its quite open to criticism.

And it has been criticized.

The numerous studies on the issues I highlighted above: problems with all the temperature records, the problems with the feedback systems in the models, and other factors which could be responsible for the warming.
To quote myself from an earlier discussion (all of the studies below are recent and come from academic, peer-reviewed sources):

The sun as the principal driver of the warming (through a variety of mechanisms, from SW to effects on clouds):

Camp, C. D., & Tunk, Kk. (2007). Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection. Geophysical research Letters 34.

Douglass, DH, Clader, DB, & Knox, RS. (2004). Climate sensitivity to Earth to solar irradiance: update. Paper presented at 2004 Solar Radiation and Climate (SORCE) meeting on Decade Variability in the Sun and the Climate, Meredith, New Hampshire, October 27-29, 2004​

Harrison, R. G., & Sephenson, D. B. (2006). Empirical evidence for a nonlinear effect of galactic cosmic rays on clouds. Proceedings of the Royal Society London, Ser. A, 462, 1221-1233.​

Kirkby, J. (2008). Cosmic rays and climate. Surveys in Geophysics 28 pp. 222-275.​

Scafetta, N. (2009). Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics.​

Scarfetta, N., West B. (2007). Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the northern hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600. Journal of Geophysical Research 112.​

Shaviv, N J. (2005) On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget. Journal of Geophysical Research 110.​

Svensmark, H. (2007). Cosmoclimatology: A new theory emerges. Astronomy & Geophysics 48.​

Svensmark H. et al (2007). Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions. Proc. Roy. Soc. A 463 385-396​

Tinsley, B. A. & Yu, F. Atmospheric Ionization and Clouds as Links Between Solar Activityand Climate. American Geophysical Union monograph, 141, 321-340.​

Usoskin, I. G. et al (2003). Millenium-scale sunspot number reconstruction: Evidence for an unusually active sun since the 1940s. Physical Review Letters 91.21​

Usoskin, I. G., & Kovaltsov, G. A. (2008). Cosmic rays and climate of the earth: Possible connection. C. R. Geoscience 340, 441-450.​

Viezer, Jan. (2005). Celestial Climate Driver: A perspective from four billion years of the carbon cycle. Geoscience Canada 32.​

On problems with the proposed feedback system, the ocean, etc, and models, see in particular​

Compo, G. & Sardeshmukh, P.D. (2008). Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming. Climate Diagnostics Center, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, and Physical Sciences Division, Earth Sytem Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, Co.​

Douglass, DH., et al. (2007). A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology ​

Kininmonth, W. (2004). Climate Change: a natural hazard. Multi-Science Publishing, Brenwood.​

Koutsoyiannis, D. et al. (2008). On the credibility of climate predictions. Hydrological Sciences/Journal des Sciences Hydrologiques, 53 (4), 671-684.​

Lindzen, et al. (2001). Does the earth have an adaptive infrared iris? Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 82, 417-432.​

Lindzen, R. S., & Choi, Y-S. (2009). On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data. Geophysical Research Letters 36.​

Spencer, R. W. & Braswell, W. D. (2008). Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A simple model demonstration. Journal of Climate 21​

On the problems with surface records, see in particular:​

Fall, S., et al. (2009). Impacts of land use cover on temperature trends over the continental United States: assessment using North American Regional Reanalysis. International Journal of Climatology.​

De Laat, A.T.J., & Maurellis, A.N. (2006). Evidence for influence of anthropogenic surface processes on lower tropospheric and surface temperature trends. International Journal of Climatology 26​

McKitrick, R.R., & Michaels, P. J. (2007). Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogenities on gridded global climate data. Journal of Geophysical Research 112.​

Pielke, R. A. et al. (2007). Unresolved issues with the assessment of multidecadal global land surface temperature trends. Journal of Geophysical Research 112.​

On the problems with the satellite data, see, e.g.:

Christy, J. R., Norris, W.B., Spencer, R.W., & Hnilo, J. J. (2007). Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellite measurements. Journal of Geophysical Research 112.


and so on and so on.

There is no major aspect of AGW theory which isn't continually criticized in some way in the peer-reviewed literature, from our ability to detect and differentiate anthropogenic signals in the records from natural cycles (on such cycles, see e.g. Dima, M, & Lohmann, G (2008). Conceptual model for millenial climate variability: a possible solar-thermohaline circulation origin for the ~1,500-year cycle. Climate Dynamics. 32 (2-3)), to the temperature record itself, to the satellite data, to the models, to past climate reconstructions.

The science just isn't "settled" no matter how much you want it to be.

 

[Sententia]

And it has been criticized.

So was the round earth theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

At one point "most scientists" thought the earth was flat. At one point "most scientists" believed we could turn other substances and elements into gold.

I'm not saying they were stupid or even short sighted. What I AM saying is that as more is revealed, science and it's theories adapts, and the picture evolves.

Kathryn, you never answered my question from last week.

So was the round earth theory.

Flat Earth Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But...but...there's evidence that the Earth is as flat as a pancake! I believe it, I have faith in it!

 

[Kathryn]

What question from last week? Please don't make me wade back through all this looking for it.

I'll answer it, because I never intentionally evade an honest question. And let me ask you one as well - does the scientific community at times re evaluate their position based on new evidence?

 

[Oberon]

So was the round earth theory.

Flat Earth Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I cited numerous recent, peer-reviewed studies in academic journals by experts in the field which are critical of various fundamental aspects of AGW theory. In response, you link to wikipedia, as if your group of flat-earthers is comparable to the experts I cited. No wonder you don't think you can evaluate the science and you have to accept consensus.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

What question from last week? Please don't make me wade back through all this looking for it.

The question is this: Do you agree or disagree with the evidence that human activity is the primary source in the rise of atmospheric CO2, and thus the average global temperature?

I'll answer it, because I never intentionally evade an honest question. And let me ask you one as well - does the scientific community at times re evaluate their position based on new evidence?

If climate scientists have reevaluated their stance on climate change, I am all ears. So to answer your question, technically yes, but to leave it at that would not be telling the whole story in context of this issue.

 

[Kathryn]

I've answered this, but I'll answer it again. I believe that human activity contributes to climate change.

 

[Sententia]

I cited numerous recent, peer-reviewed studies in academic journals by experts in the field which are critical of various fundamental aspects of AGW theory.

And? Did they disprove global warming and now we have a new scientific theory for climate change?

In response, you link to wikipedia, as if your group of flat-earthers is comparable to the experts I cited.

LOL, you see what you did there?

No wonder you don't think you can evaluate the science and you have to accept consensus.

Global warming is a scientific theory so consensus or not its quite open to criticism. Ad homs are fun though. You can hate me though. I think that might help your position. Like I quoted peer reviewed **** that totally disproves this scientific theory and the scientists just dont believe it but I totally hate balancefx on RF... Its pretty popular to hate me too... so it might work.

 

[Oberon]

And? Did they disprove global warming and now we have a new scientific theory for climate change?

No, obviously, what is proves is that there are valid criticisms and it isn't as cut and dried as you would have it. If you don't know enough about the theory or don't want to read the research, then by all means accept consensus and make empty statements about scientific theory. For those of us actually interested in the field and in making informed decisions, the state of research is vital and consensus means very little. Eugenics was a widely accepted scientific theory too. And completely baseless.

 

[Sententia]

No, obviously, what is proves is that there are valid criticisms and it isn't as cut and dried as you would have it. If you don't know enough about the theory or don't want to read the research, then by all means accept consensus and make empty statements about scientific theory. For those of us actually interested in the field and in making informed decisions, the state of research is vital and consensus means very little. Eugenics was a widely accepted scientific theory too. And completely baseless.

Also the earth turned out to be round. A scientific consensus does not mean anything in terms of how science is done.

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position

There are valid criticisms of global warming but you will have alarmists on both ends of the spectrum manipulating various studies for various reasons.

People who don't understand the studies, people who confuse weather with climate change and organizations claiming X, Y and Z to push some political agenda, strengthen or rally their political base or support some policy to drive some change which will directly profit them.

Ultimately you are entitled to your opinion but global warming is not subject to opinion or belief. Thats the cool thing about science.

That aside my opinion is Global Warming is happening but happening faster because of anthropogenic causes.

 

[Oberon]

Also the earth turned out to be round. A scientific consensus does not mean anything in terms of how science is done.

Couoldn't agree more. Which is why preaching consensus over actual studies is ludicrous. But that is what you did.

It doesn't matter how many scientists or organizations state "we believe in AGW." What matters is the state of research, i.e. do the published studies show beyond any reasonable doubt that AGW is correct? The answer is: No, not at all. Virtually every aspect of AGW is questioned in the scientific research.

The whole theory of AGW boils down to: given everything we know about the climate, we can't account for the warming from c. 1970 to 2000 without positing a positive feedback parameter. But we also know we don't know plenty about the climate system, and we don't know how much we don't know (and our models continually fail to predict the future). Until our models have predictive power, the dangerous positive feedback parameter remains nothing more than a parameter used to make the models fit the data. And that's without getting into the problems with the data itself.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

I've answered this, but I'll answer it again. I believe that human activity contributes to climate change.

Good! Do you believe that human activity is the primary reason for the projected climate change?

 

[Alceste]

Couoldn't agree more. Which is why preaching consensus over actual studies is ludicrous. But that is what you did.

Citing isolated studies about local temperatures over meta-analysis of climate-related research is even more ludicrous, but that's what you always do.

It doesn't matter how many scientists or organizations state "we believe in AGW." What matters is the state of research, i.e. do the published studies show beyond any reasonable doubt that AGW is correct? The answer is: No, not at all. Virtually every aspect of AGW is questioned in the scientific research.

The whole theory of AGW boils down to: given everything we know about the climate, we can't account for the warming from c. 1970 to 2000 without positing a positive feedback parameter. But we also know we don't know plenty about the climate system, and we don't know how much we don't know (and our models continually fail to predict the future). Until our models have predictive power, the dangerous positive feedback parameter remains nothing more than a parameter used to make the models fit the data. And that's without getting into the problems with the data itself.

You don't seem to understand how science works. The fact that research is continuing on all the minutae of an established theory does not weaken the theory itself, even if some of it seems confusing or contradictory to a layperson such as yourself.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I was watching a show on TV that supported global warming, only they said as the sea water warms the currents might stop moving and Europe would not receive the warm currents it does now. I guess these warm currents go north and cool and head south again constantly moving.

I guess by now you all know I am not a scientist, but the end result of these currents not moving any more because they would not be adequately cooled when they got up north and would stop moving would result in Europe seeing another ice age.

This show supported the science of global warming and they mentioned an ice age for Europe.

 

[outhouse]

global warming is happeneing, i do think it is due to the pollution.

I have seen huge changes all around the world personaly.

glaciers I once stood on thousands of yeasr old are now gone. instead of ice i would now stand on rock in the same exact spot from 7 yeasr ago.

this is not isolated weather changes, this is a global occurence

 

[Kathryn]

Good! Do you believe that human activity is the primary reason for the projected climate change?

I honestly have no opinion on that - maybe we are, and maybe we're not.

I do believe that many scientists with far more impressive credentials than I DO believe that. And I also believe that this is questioned by some of their peers.

I'll let them sort it out and continue to research it. Till then, I'm just observing.

 

[Oberon]

Citing isolated studies about local temperatures

I didn't. Try reading the abstracts at least before making yourself look foolish.

The fact that research is continuing on all the minutae of an established theory

You either don't understand, or didn't read, the studies. They aren't on "minutiae." Some argue that all of the warming is accounted for by solar factors (e.g. GCRs). Others argue that the feedback parameter WHICH IS CENTRAL to AGW theory is incorrect. Still others argue that carbon dioxide can't account for the warming. Again, try actually reading the studies before making yourself look foolish.

 

[Alceste]

I was watching a show on TV that supported global warming, only they said as the sea water warms the currents might stop moving and Europe would not receive the warm currents it does now. I guess these warm currents go north and cool and head south again constantly moving.

I guess by now you all know I am not a scientist, but the end result of these currents not moving any more because they would not be adequately cooled when they got up north and would stop moving would result in Europe seeing another ice age.

This show supported the science of global warming and they mentioned an ice age for Europe.

Yes, this kind of notion does crop up from time to time. That's why "climate change" is the preferred descriptive term. Yes, the global average temperature is increasing, but the regional effects vary. I.e. warming at the poles slowing the Atlantic current could very well cause brutal winters in Europe (although an ice age is stretching things). David Suzuki was saying in the early 90's that "global warming" was a poor description, as the problem we face is rapid climate change. That's true. We are already exploiting the vast majority of the world's arable land for food at maximum capacity. Because regional climates are changing faster than we can adapt our farming practices, there are lean times ahead.