The real climate change catastrophe

[sandy whitelinger]

It's called humor. Sadly, it's lost on some people...

Yes, some people are just inherently not funny.

 

[Perfect Circle]

I can respond in like manner if that is what you are asking.

Do you have anything meaningful to add? For example, does the perception of global warming add to the human error in reading a thermometer? Or do you know anything about studies that show CO2 levels lagging behind temperature changes which indicate CO2 levels being a result of warming temperatures?

Nope. But even if I did, I didn't witness the creation of Earth and each subsequent climate change personally, so you probably wouldn't take my word as credible anyway.

 

[Perfect Circle]

Yes, some people are just inherently not funny.

 

[Alceste]

I can respond in like manner if that is what you are asking.

Do you have anything meaningful to add? For example, does the perception of global warming add to the human error in reading a thermometer? Or do you know anything about studies that show CO2 levels lagging behind temperature changes which indicate CO2 levels being a result of warming temperatures?

Still waiting for your sources, Sandy. Just link me to the Heritage Foundation and have done with it already.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Nope. But even if I did, I didn't witness the creation of Earth and each subsequent climate change personally, so you probably wouldn't take my word as credible anyway.

So, when it is said that the Global Mean Temperature has risen since the late 1800's you have no idea if the global mean temperature was even measured in the late 1800's much less how it was calculated? Do you believe global warming is happening?

 

[Alceste]

SANDY. YOUR SOURCES PLEASE.

I showed you some of mine, now you show me yours.

Thanks.

 

[Perfect Circle]

So, when it is said that the Global Mean Temperature has risen since the late 1800's you have no idea if the global mean temperature was even measured in the late 1800's much less how it was calculated? Do you believe global warming is happening?

I don't know. I never advocated a position for it one way or the other. However, it generally is a good idea to take the opinion of the vast majority of experts on the subject...

 

[sandy whitelinger]

SANDY. YOUR SOURCES PLEASE.

I showed you some of mine, now you show me yours.

Thanks.

You're a tease.


Anyway:
Vostok Ice Cores

If you want studies of expectation vs. outcome bias studies...google it...What am I your nanny?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I don't know.

That about sums it up then.

 

[Perfect Circle]

That about sums it up then.

Sums what up? That a lay-person doesn't understand the intricacies of global climate change and is forced to take the word of those who have dedicated their lives to the subject?

 

[Alceste]

You're a tease.


Anyway:
Vostok Ice Cores

If you want studies of expectation vs. outcome bias studies...google it...What am I your nanny?

Why are you linking to this single study? Are you saying you've interpreted the raw data yourself, and this is the entire basis of your condescending attitude to the rest of the world, the vast majority of whom take climate scientists at their word?

IMO, you haven't done a very good job if you think the Vostock ice core shows there is no correlation between CO2 concentrations and climate. You should either get a degree yourself or allow qualified people to interpret this data for you, as those of us who accept the fact of AGW have done.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Why are you linking to this single study?

You wanted a link, I gave you one.

Are you saying you've interpreted the raw data yourself, and this is the entire basis of your condescending attitude to the rest of the world...

I've condescended no one, just asked the question, "Have you studied it?"

...the vast majority of whom take climate scientists at their word?

And the scientist who disagree? Has the "vast majority" looked at their studies and data?

IMO, you haven't done a very good job if you think the Vostock ice core shows there is no correlation between CO2 concentrations and climate.

I didn't claim that. You should follow more closely.

You should either get a degree yourself or allow qualified people to interpret this data for you, as those of us who accept the fact of AGW have done.

Again, what about the qualified people who disagree? This is why I'm searching both sides. All you seem to want to do is jump up and down about it which is why I have a hard time taking you very seriously.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

You're a tease.


Anyway:
Vostok Ice Cores

If you want studies of expectation vs. outcome bias studies...google it...What am I your nanny?

Per your Vostok Ice Core reference....
The first resulting article from J.R. Petit et al - Nature 399, 429-436 (3 June 1999)

"..... Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane correlate well with Antarctic air-temperature throughout the record. Present-day atmospheric burdens of these two important greenhouse gases seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years." ​

So what's your point Sandy?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Here's a fun link. Check out historical global temperatures for yourself.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Per your Vostok Ice Core reference....
The first resulting article from J.R. Petit et al - Nature 399, 429-436 (3 June 1999)

"..... Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane correlate well with Antarctic air-temperature throughout the record. Present-day atmospheric burdens of these two important greenhouse gases seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years." ​

So what's your point Sandy?

Follow back. Arctic ice cores show that temperature started to rise before CO2 levels rose. This suggested a different cause vs. effect scenario.

 

[Alceste]

You wanted a link, I gave you one.

No, I wanted you to identify the source or sources that inform your personal opinion relating to AGW. You gave me a link to data relating to a random ice core sample, implying that this alone is the basis for your skepticism. I want you to explain why and how.

I've condescended no one, just asked the question, "Have you studied it?"

And I've answered yes. Next question?

And the scientist who disagree?

There are almost no serious climate scientists who disagree with the fact of AGW. If you had studied it yourself you would realize this. Disagreements within the field of climate research hinge on how to interpret the data, flaws in methodology, political pressure (mainly in favour of maintaining the status quo, and mainly from the US) on the IPCC, the effectiveness of different climate modelling programs, etc.

However, despite these internal disagreements, well over 90% of qualified climate professionals agree that not only is global warming occurring, but the activities of man are a significant contributing factor and the consequences of inaction will be disastrous.

Again, if you had ANY idea what you are talking about, you'd know all of this.

Has the "vast majority" looked at their studies and data?

I would say the "vast majority" of thinking people accept the consensus of experts in the field, but without attempting to interpret the raw data themselves (because they are not qualified to do so). There is a significant minority, particularly in the US, who are subjected to so much anti-scientific propaganda that they have been convinced there is some doubt, while there is not.

I didn't claim that. You should follow more closely.
Again, what about the qualified people who disagree? This is why I'm searching both sides. All you seem to want to do is jump up and down about it which is why I have a hard time taking you very seriously.

There are a tiny handful of "qualified" people who disagree, and each of them can easily be shown to be in receipt of funding from free market think tanks (read: libertarian propaganda mills). And yes, I've read their stuff. It is, to say the least, not at all convincing. That "side", like creation "scientists", produces virtually no original peer-reviewed research. Instead they simply attempt to find fault with the research of others and publish it in tabloid editorials (rather than peer-reviewed journals). Then they go cash their fat cheque from the Heritage Foundation, which goes and cashes its even fatter cheque from Exxon-Mobil.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Follow back. Arctic ice cores show that temperature started to rise before CO2 levels rose. This suggested a different cause vs. effect scenario.

Yes, yes. That's very old news, and perhaps all the more worrisome given the "unprecedented" CO2 levels in hundreds of millenia of findings.
Link --> RealClimate: What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?
2nd link --> CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

 

[Alceste]

Here's a fun link. Check out historical global temperatures for yourself.

Please tell me in what way you feel the late ship's officer John Daly is more qualified to offer a professional interpretation of historical climate data than the average bum on the street.

My god, you people never cease to amaze me.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

No, I wanted you to identify the source or sources that inform your personal opinion relating to AGW.

I do not have a personal opinion on the validity of the causes, consequences, or course of action yet, other than to say where I live, five to ten degrees of warming would be nice.

You gave me a link to data relating to a random ice core sample, implying that this alone is the basis for your skepticism. I want you to explain why and how.

I've read reports that state they use these and other arctic core samples to show that temperature rose before CO2 rose, suggesting a different cause vs. effect scenario.

And I've answered yes. Next question?

It was rhetorical in that sense.

There are almost no serious climate scientists who disagree with the fact of AGW. If you had studied it yourself you would realize this.

It's the cause, effect, long term implications, and course of action that is being called into question.

Disagreements within the field of climate research hinge on how to interpret the data, flaws in methodology, political pressure (mainly in favour of maintaining the status quo, and mainly from the US) on the IPCC, the effectiveness of different climate modelling programs, etc.

Precisely!

However, despite these internal disagreements, well over 90% of qualified climate professionals agree that not only is global warming occurring, but the activities of man are a significant contributing factor and the consequences of inaction will be disastrous.

And I'm looking into whether or not this is overstated.

Again, if you had ANY idea what you are talking about, you'd know all of this.

You assume I have no idea what I am talking about because you have made assumptions about my position that are not based on evidence which leads me to doubt your relevance.

I would say the "vast majority" of thinking people accept the consensus of experts in the field, but without attempting to interpret the raw data themselves (because they are not qualified to do so).

I would say that the vast amount of "unthinking" people accept it without any serious attempt to research it. They take the word of what they read in the media and leave it at that. These are the type of situations that lead to things like the Alar scare.

There are a tiny handful of "qualified" people who disagree, and each of them can easily be shown to be in receipt of funding from free market think tanks (read: libertarian propaganda mills). And yes, I've read their stuff. It is, to say the least, not at all convincing. That "side", like creation "scientists", produces virtually no original peer-reviewed research. Instead they simply attempt to find fault with the research of others and publish it in tabloid editorials (rather than peer-reviewed journals). Then they go cash their fat cheque from the Heritage Foundation, which goes and cashes its even fatter cheque from Exxon-Mobil.

This type of mud-slinging is another reason for me to distrust what you present.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Please tell me in what way you feel the late ship's officer John Daly is more qualified to offer a professional interpretation of historical climate data than the average bum on the street.

My god, you people never cease to amaze me.

You imprecations do nothing to increase your relevance. The data presented on long-term temperature readings comes from the Goddard Institute. Do you have a problem with them?