I cant wait for this!

Opinions!

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

On the grand scale of things, our sampling data is somewhat limited in scope I think. Yeah, 650k years is a long time, but not considering the planets age.

Just think, that line will go back down once the human species dies off :D

Neglecting the fact that you're comparing ice core samples to actual atmospheric measurements (which is apples and oranges) that's a great bit whopping change of, drum roll please....

.007% OMG

Any boob with Excel can make a hockey stick looking chart as long as you get to make up a 'y' axis...

What about Arkh's 500 million year graph, showing 3 or 4 different models that all indicate a drastic decline over the last 100 million or so? Does his mean less than yours?

The thing about these boobs is that they send people to the moon and land robots on Mars. I tend to give them some extra credit when they make a statement.

I know you guys are all smarter than the vast majority of scientists so maybe this is a moot point. Jesus is coming soon so what does it matter anyways.

I heard those did too: http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/

Looks pretty settled to me.

Exactly, everybody knows Earth is only 6000 years and Rapture going to happen any day now.

Worth pointing out that exactly none of those categories even add up to 100%, and one even adds up to 101%.

This just in, 101% of scientists can't agree on anything.

I'll go with the lowest of 82% vs the highest of 6% any day!

*self deleted post*

Water absorbes CO2. That's what makes fizzy drinks work. Also, the ice cores have the same atmospheric concentrations as ambiantly sampled air. A nifty thing about the CO2 in the ice cores is that CO2 from combustion is a different isotope than naturally oocuring CO2. Predictablly, the increase in the CO2 is of the combustive variety. I don't know what .007% is referring to.

If any boob can make a chart that accuratly predicted the tempreture increase in the last 15 years, I'll eat my hat.

An excerpt of the caption for Arkh graph: " Towards the left-hand side of the graph the sun gradually approaches modern levels of solar output, while vegetation spreads, removing large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. The last 200 million years includes periods of extreme warmth, and sea levels so high that 200 metre-deep shallow seas formed on continental land masses"


Of course the secrets of planetary science will be locked away in a Geocities website. I did do due diligence, however. Most of the articles are either presentations to, or cite heavily things like "Heartland Conference on Climate Change." I tend to prefer my science of the peer-reviewed variety.


Significant figures and no comment interviewees.

I can kinda see the "debate" on evolution: God said we were made from dirt, not monkeys. I really don't understand why climate change denial is such an article of faith.

Its a matter of not understanding the system. Most of the climate stuff mistakes correlation for causation. Climate system is extraordinarily complex, and not very understood. 20 years ago people thought we were inducing a new Ice Age. Climate science is still in its infancy. Its not that I know what the effects of humans on climate are, I just do not think anyone else does either.

The issue became politicized, and once that happens studies and research tend to seek correlation to justify a policy as opposed to pure objective study.

Plus, even if humans are causing climate change - getting govt involved is simply lengthening the time it takes to develop other energy. The rest of the world , particularly the developing world could care less about the Green sensibilities of left wing US hipsters.

The only way to redress the climate issue, is to develop tech that genuinely creates more BTUs/$ that digging oil out of the ground. If the Govt artificially raises the costs involved for doing that, thinking to make alternative energy more competitive - all that happens is the Chinese and Indians and Brazilians who do not engage in such practices economically destroy us.

Govt financing of such alternative energy initiatives - while in theory workable - have in reality proven to be simple exercises in cronyism. As a practical matter, throwing taxpayer dollars at the problem is just flushing cash down the drain. The political environment fostered by those wishing to get a piece of the Govt dole simply hinders normal energy production, and crowds out non politically connected researchers who might be onto something viable ,to no good purpose.

The sooner people realize that if "carbon" is a problem, that the only workable solution is to make non carbon energy genuinely more productive than carbon energy.. the sooner it will happen. Switching to energy that gives us an actual competitive advantage in BTU/$ over the rest of the world will prompt the rest of the world to also adopt non carbon energy. Otherwise, us ~300M folks in the US can go back to waterwheels and horse-drawn turbines and in the long run it wont make a whit of difference to a planet with several billion people ramping up their coal and oil usage.

Derid,
I applaud you using correlation =/= causation. You'll find this principal to be very effective in combating silly conspiracy theories. But in this particular case, causation has been proven many times over. CO2 has been proven to cause warming in the theoretical, historical, experimental, and, most recently, the observational. There's no denying we create an enormous amount of CO2. This is not contingent on previously debunk theories. Further, researchers are so far removed from policy ( I should know) that there's little incentive for them to push nebulous conclusions.

Developing countries care more about global warming because natural disasters are more likely to be catastrophic there. China is second only to Germany in green energy research.

First, accepting global warming does not necessitate "green" energy policy - see freakonomics. Secondly, if we know carbon emissions create a known quantity of economic damage - we have decent models now - we can sub-divide by tonnage and figure the true cost of carbon energy to society. We does this to many pollutants already. I don't understand why a pollutant that effects the health and livihood of everyone would be excempt from this.

TurkeyJ: everything you say in your first paragraph is right.
The thing which is discussed are the feedbacks: are they positive or negatives? We don't know all of them, we don't have a full grasp of their effects.
Hence why all the 90' models failed to predict the last 15 years of temperature trends.

Another thing which subject to discussion are the temperature sets quality: the major ones are using ground stations and not satellites. And those stations are often badly placed.

Then, about natural disasters: no relation has been found. Better: higher temperatures may mean more water in some desertic lands due to more evaporation.

Researchers may be far away from policy (an I doubt, see who attends all those climate conferences) but when money is granted to study climate change, you get more chances to get some when you can link whatever you're studying with climate change. Little by little this creates a big change in the available litterature.

Even if the worst happened would it cost more to adapt or to try to mitigate it?

First off water absorbs everything.
Your soda water is formed by 70psi co2 forced into water, it doesn't just say hey water mind if I join you, its more like hey water you want to know what prison rape feels like.

I would assume co2 gets into water the same way o2 gets in, very slowly buy way of agitation.

Secondly this list of who says only humans are causing global warming? I don't know who they are so I will not live or die by a random list of "scientist".

There are Nobel Prize scientist who say humans are the least cause of global warming and you would say they are wrong because the hot chick on the local new is considered a scientist says he is wrong.

The fact that we think we can take some ice cores and tell everyone what happened 100k years ago is arrogant.
Did the ice cap layers build up layer by layer for 100k years without melting? Its not like a tree ring they don't go away when it gets hot.

The "scientist" also say the Earth was covered by ice at one point and another it all melted and most of the land was underwater. All this without humans.

You do realize that you're advocating making breathing a regulated behavior right?


From Jet's link, 390parts/million up from 320parts/million. So, (390-320)/1,000,000 = .00007
.00007*100 = .007%

And I'll eat mine if any of the climate experts can do the same. Not a single one of the THOUSANDS of them have been even close to accurate, and you'd think throwing that many darts at the wall you'd eventually get lucky. These are the same people who said we'd run out of oil, gold, aluminum, zinc, etc. by the end of the 1990's and that the population growth would cause world wide famine by the early 80's.

Now, am I naive enough to think that the climate doesn't change? Of course not, but I also don't think the extent of man's contribution, if any, can currently be quantified. Until it can, scientifically not politically, I'll stick to my belief that the vast majority of the warming done on this planet is due to changes in that great big nuclear reactor in the sky.

Derid is exactly right about the politicization of this issue. The desire to appease the talking heads drives the results.

Well, researchers are not immune from funding or ideology.

Sure, China is investing some in alternative energy... but they are also building carbon power plants at breakneck speed.

I do not think any current models regarding "cost to society" could possibly be relevant. For myriad reasons. I would be curious to see some though, it would be fun picking them apart if nothing else.

You are right about "Conspiracy Theories" not being provable. I still maintain my general theme that the official line of the Court Historian is often also false, and the label "Conspiracy Theory" is also quite often misused and abused. People have a tendency to assume they know more than they actually do, and they also have an ingrained tendency to conform to peer pressure. Its hard to articulate points in this area and have them be understood though. So many false continuums and rhetorical baggage is implanted in the perspective of most observers that you have to somehow get people to sit still long enough to explain multiple discrete chains of consequence to even get people to understand what you are actually *trying to say.

http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/02/mikes-agu-trick/
Mann, always here when you need to beat some data.

Yes, but all of them? When skepticism would secure easy grant money?

If you are going after questionable motivation angle, you have to realize that there major money to be made in climate change skepticism, the only reason a bunch of scientific community is not chasing that grant money is because they realize that doing so would lead to guaranteed rebuttal.

That is, there is no way to interpret existing data according to scientific principles that would undermine current interpretation of climate change.

The tendency is to overstate and inflate. Lots of money to be had in the jumping to conclusions, and over asserting them.

I don't see where money could be made being 999th climate scientist supporting overwhelming consensus.

Controversy, if one existed, could enable if not career advances, than at least secure grant money from all proponents. The fact that there is no credible opposition despite all the money poured to oppose it is strong evidence that consensus is right.

There is actually quite a bit of dissent on climate, just no alternative model. Rather, people are arguing over the degree of accuracy of the popular ones.

The consensus is that the planet is in a warming cycle, but there are still considerable differences between the experts regarding the speed, and reasons. Some people put more emphasis on carbon, some more on methane, some solar, etc.

Citations please.



None of them disagree that there is a global warming, and very few argue that there could be a way it is not man-made.

Bottom line - whatever you think about climate science, denying global warming is unscientific.

More practically, even if you think this is God's punishing humanity for sodomy - you better prepare your personal life for increase occurrence of droughts, hurricanes, raising coastlines and inevitable food shortages as some fertile lands stop producing due to these factors.

Yeah as I said the planet is in a warming cycle. The differentiation is on how fast, and why.

Arkhs link would actually be a good place to start, plus all the recent articles about volcanoes that have made headlines recently. This is still an evolving science.

Also, dont buy too much into that doom and gloom - those are worst case scenarios. The doom peddling given the state of the predictive models is basically akin to the Mayan Doomsday prophecy at this point.

The El Nino is thought to have an enormous impact on immediate weather patterns for examples, and afaik it is not linked at all to a postulated man made warming cycle.

Actually we are on track to surpass most worst-case scenarios. I am personally anticipating food shortages in ~10 years due to climate change and have money riding on it.

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles

Dr Ivan Gjaver, Professor Poly Inst and 1973 Nobel Prize winner, resigned from the APS in utter disgust over the continued junkscience claim that man is causing global warming. He told his colleagues that a mere .6 tenths of a temp increse over 150 years shows a very stable earth temperature(not a warming crisis) and that he will no longer partake of this science fraud


All these Scientist say its naturally caused.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[16]
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[17][18]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[19]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[20]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[21]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[22]
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[23]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[24]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[25]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[26]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[27]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[28][29]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[30]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[31][32]
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[33]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[34][35][36]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[37]
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[38]
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[39]


All these Scientist say not enough is known to say what causes it.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks[41]
Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)[42]
Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University[43]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC[44][45]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory[46]
Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology[47]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma[48]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists



I can keep going on, but as we all know Sini will just say they are not proper scientist or some such bullshit because it doesn't fit in his view point.

My point is, yes the the climate of the earth changes, by what sini and the rest of the crazies ssy humans must have been around for 4 billion years to cause the constant cooling and heating of the earth.
I guess I don't get the argument that only humans are changing the climate.
I personally don't believe we are even remotely smart enough to know.

So you are personally are so smart you know that the slight change in temp will cause the starvation of millions,
not only that it will be the doom and gloom, you are so smart you absolutely know that it could not cause good for the planet,
you know for a fact it is death to millions and you are betting on it?

My ability to understand world around me and profit from this knowledge served me well so far. I won't imagine to tell you what to do, but if you are living in coastal or flood zones, taking a page out of preparers book would be a prudent course of action.

Oh, and US won't starve. We will end up paying close to ~20% of income for food by 2040, but we will be OK.