Topic: "Global Warming? No, Natural, Predictable Climate Change"

[SlowModem]

1750 on your radio dial. (Just above the police calls kids!) 

Ummmm.......Radios, clocks and phones don't have dials any more.   

[arrowspace90]

Just showing that nobody knows how future climate will look-like, all statements are just guesses based on some far from complete statistics and graphs.

Well, that is simply not true, and if you ask scientists, most of them will say that they agree that temps are averaging up, and that humans are causing it.

What is absolutely true, is that the amount of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere world wide by humans has risen exponentially.  Or would anyone care to dispute those measurements?  Would anyone like to dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which holds heat?  I have not heard any of the nay-sayers here explain what they think happens to the CO2 going into the air, and what they think it does once it is there.


If you are more comfortable with the reports sent to you via the producers of fossil fuels, then fine.  No one is likely to change your mind.  I refer here to the newest revelations from the Heartland Institute.

[neondesert]

1750 on your radio dial. (Just above the police calls kids!) 

Ummmm.......Radios, clocks and phones don't have dials any more.   

Oh, yeah you're right.  Quick, someone call Weird Willy West and tell him before it's too late! 

[Cienega32]

What is absolutely true, is that the amount of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere world wide by humans has risen exponentially. 

I recently heard some mention of the CO2 levels now affecting the oxygen levels in the oceans which will, in turn, affect the lifespan of the fishes.

[gwwilk]

This may be a long, boring post...I'm sorry about that.

I'll state my conclusion first for those of you who are anxious to move on to another topic:  There is no way to reliably predict global climate change, and there will be no reliable method to do so for at least several centuries, perhaps millenia OR MORE.

In order to understand this, we must examine the assumptions behind the conclusion that global climate change is exclusively man-made and that therefore we represent on this basis alone a real threat to our future.  It is this conclusion that has mobilised the global-warming alarmists into a formidable special interest group bent on demonizing carbon-based energy production.
   Assumption 1:  We understand exactly how CO2 levels affect our biosphere:  patently false when the geological data are examined.  Historically the Earth has thrived while hosting much higher levels of CO2 http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html.
   Assumption 2:  We have reliable global data on temperatures for at least the past several millenia:  we can only guess for the most part based on written records, not of recorded temperatures, but of descriptions of weather trends and patterns.  These trends and patterns include fluctuations that aren't accounted for by global-warming alarmists(see the article referenced at the beginning of this thread).
   Assumption 3:  There are 'experts' in this field who have somehow been able to overcome these deficiencies in science and data to be able to conclude with certainty that we must act now at all costs in order to prevent their predicted apocalypse.
   Assumption 4:  The war being waged by the global-warming alarmists is based on science and data.  In reality it is based on a shared delusion which demonstrates once again how frighteningly powerful and erroneous our collective focus can be even in the face of scientific and factual reality when 'science' serves political ends.  Start with half-truths, sprinkle in some unwarranted assumptions, stir with zealous fervor, and you end up with a propaganda machine that plays on humanity's primal fear of an apocalypse in order to herd the masses into compliance with the global-warming alarmists' agenda.

Uncertainty is not something with which most of us are comfortable.  Our educational systems generally dispense 'facts', bits of data that students are to swallow whole and then regurgitate upon demand.  Only in math and basic science can these facts derive from observable, repeatable phenomena.  Even then, the frontiers of these basic sciences are generally left unexplored.  Such rubbish as the assumption that we have completely catalogued the Earth's flora and fauna aren't broached. Instead students are given the impression that 'knowledge' is a whole and complete edifice that with proper attention to rote memorization may be mastered.  Even physics and chemistry are also presented as completed disciplines, nearly whole with only a few corners to be filled in.  Tain't so!  The physics of music reproduction, having been studied for the past several centuries, should now be completely understood and agreed upon by all of the experts in the field, correct?  Wrong.  The experts can't even agree on how to construct a musical scale.  Here is a current discussion of this subject in another forum to which I belong:  http://forums.chisham.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=48519.

Living with uncertainty is something we all do, albeit mostly without any awareness of this uncomfortable predicament. One of the greatest mistakes we can make in the face of uncertainty is premature closure, i.e. thinking we have sufficient information to render an opinion and then acting upon our opinion prematurely.  I practiced medicine for over 40 years, and was guilty of this mistake more often than I would care to admit.  If we think we know the answer to a problem, we'll stop looking for any other answers and proceed to gather more information that supports our conclusion while ignoring information that does not fit into our schema(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schema_(psychology).

For reasons of their own, and selfish ones at that, global-warming alarmists prey upon our learned aversion to uncertainty by providing us with their schema in which we, the masses of ignorant humanity, are going to carbonize ourselves and everything else out of our carbon-based biosphere unless our behavior is modified to their liking.  The most dangerous of these alarmists are the politicians who have adopted the global-warming alarmists' agenda and subsequently propagandize it while lending it false legitimacy.  Their specialty is, after all, influencing and mobilizing these masses in order to gain positions of power and prestige.

In the end, I don't have certain knowledge regarding past and future global climate change. But I can guarantee you that neither do the global-warming alarmists.  All we can do is precisely observe and document around our globe our ever changing weather conditions, be it minute by minute, hour by hour, day by day, year by year, century by century, or millenium by millenium.  And that as I see it is our agreed-upon task here.

[Garth Bock]

The problem with global warming is that people are led to believe that our environment is totally static and does not dynamically react to stimuli. Therefore they see man as the total culprit for causing what is perceived to be a "massive" shift in conditions. The equation has been so simplified that it only provides the misleading conclusion that Man = Global Warming/Environmental Change. There are so many other variables that are left out that have occurred in the past that play a much greater factor than we do. What about the "Year Without Summer" in 1816? Global temperatures were down about 1 degree F due to the eruption of Mt. Tambora and a deep solar minimum. Here is a natural global event that caused a massive environment change which could have raised the alarm of global cooling or a coming ice age (had it not been back in the 1800's). So we need to add into the equation, solar and volcanic activity. We are heading toward solar maximum which is affecting our environment. What I am trying to say is there are more variables to this than the media and the government provide us. I don't see it as a one sided event labelled Global Warming, I see it as Global Environment Change Cycle. It can go positive or negative. We do have a hand in affecting it but we are not the sole major cause. I hate to inject a pacifist perspective here but while we inject CO2 into the atmosphere more and more the Earth responds dynamically as it has been doing for all time with seawater absorbing CO2, algal blooms absorbing the CO2, formation of calcium carbonite in rocks, etc. We are not totally guiltless and can assert controls but cycles happen and we are pretty much along for the ride. The problem is the political and media hype the serves no purpose and only clouds the issue.  Pogo said it best....."We have met the enemy and he is us."

[arrowspace90]

Again, no one will be convinced who does not wish to be.

You can be reassured by the people at the Heartland Institute, who are funded by fossil fuel producers.
Or, you can at least consider what scientists have to say.
Like, the ones at NASA.  You know, the folks that put men on the moon.  Those guys are concerned, and if they, and the big majority of scientists are concerned, then so am I.

[Weather Display]

Garth, all those others factors that change the climate, and will do again, have been taken into account

[Garth Bock]

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-02/earths-clouds-are-sinking-and-could-help-cool-planet

[weatherc]

Some days ago readed on Norwegian newspaper what in IPCC-report few years ago said that snowcover on Mount Everest will melt before 2035 as you maybe remember? New measures shows that the snowcover last 10 years or so has been totally constant, new snow snow has came in same amount as old has melted. Also, was mentonied in that news that in that iPCC-report was a typo even in the first place, it should had been year 2350 not 2035....

1 cold snowy winter does not mean the end of global warming though

Actaully here have been 3 more normal, not extremely cold, winters, but yes, i agree with you. And what do those fiddling statements even more funny they are said by "official meterologists" aka our local Meteo Institute and such...

Garth, all those others factors that change the climate, and will do again, have been taken into account

Shouldn't be so sure about that regarding been taking in account...
Reason, nobody knows how much and how big volcano eruptions will appear in the future just as one example, they may do guesses yes, but nobody knows exactly...Another Nordic meteo-firm's statement some time ago should fit quite well, "We are like in a really big expreiment and nobody knows the result of it".

You would think that, on a weather-related forum, that people would understand the difference between climate and weather.  Not to mention the difference between global and local.  Just saying... 

Sorry, but if you meant me, they was not my statements, they was official ones from ones not active on this forum.

[gwwilk]

Again, no one will be convinced who does not wish to be.

You can be reassured by the people at the Heartland Institute, who are funded by fossil fuel producers.
Or, you can at least consider what scientists have to say.
Like, the ones at NASA.  You know, the folks that put men on the moon.  Those guys are concerned, and if they, and the big majority of scientists are concerned, then so am I.

Another molecule, dihydrogen monoxide, plays a much greater role in producing the so-called greenhouse effect:  http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html.  There is an organization devoted to calling attention to the dangers of this volatile, ubiquitous compound:  http://www.dhmo.org/.  Misuse and abuse abound amid misinformation!

BTW, the graph of CO₂ levels suggests a transition to a new steady state, not an apocalypse.  It has yet to even approach historical highs of an estimated 3000 to 7000+ ppm millions of years ago.  We aren't exactly in a position to do much about it, either:  http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor2108263.

If you'll assist me in understanding the cause(s) of the ice ages, maybe we can find a common ground here.  Some possibilities:  http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/iceage.html.  While NASA can't seem to find room for an alternate theory of climate change, NOAA can:  http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html.

[gwwilk]

Some days ago readed on Norwegian newspaper what in IPCC-report few years ago said that snowcover on Mount Everest will melt before 2035 as you maybe remember? New measures shows that the snowcover last 10 years or so has been totally constant, new snow snow has came in same amount as old has melted. Also, was mentonied in that news that in that iPCC-report was a typo even in the first place, it should had been year 2350 not 2035....

1 cold snowy winter does not mean the end of global warming though

Actaully here have been 3 more normal, not extremely cold, winters, but yes, i agree with you. And what do those fiddling statements even more funny they are said by "official meterologists" aka our local Meteo Institute and such...

Garth, all those others factors that change the climate, and will do again, have been taken into account

Shouldn't be so sure about that regarding been taking in account...
Reason, nobody knows how much and how big volcano eruptions will appear in the future just as one example, they may do guesses yes, but nobody knows exactly...Another Nordic meteo-firm's statement some time ago should fit quite well, "We are like in a really big expreiment and nobody knows the result of it".

The factors aren't known, just theorized, and variably so at that.  The experiment is afoot, and time will tell...but not for many, many, many years.

[Weather Display]

you cant compare CO2 levels millions of years ago exactly though
because the continents were in different positions back then
and so there was different ocean currents
and different climate zones around the world (places that are now arid were once wet, etc)

[KeithBC]

In order to understand this, we must examine the assumptions behind the conclusion that global climate change is exclusively man-made and that therefore we represent on this basis alone a real threat to our future.  It is this conclusion that has mobilised the global-warming alarmists into a formidable special interest group bent on demonizing carbon-based energy production.

How much does Exxon pay you to say that?

[IMADreamer]

Can someone post a pear reviewed scientific study that says global warming does not exists led by an atmospheric scientist, meteorologist, or climatologist?  Just wondering.  There are literally hundreds saying it is indeed very real, but I haven't come across any that say it isn't.  I did manage to find a list of "50 PhDs signing that global warming does not exists."  Interestingly enough not one of those 50 where atmospheric scientists.  In fact several were dentists.  Who knew dentists where climate experts. 

Again, science overwhelmingly points to AGW.  Overwhelmingly.  I believe in science.

[gwwilk]

Can someone post a pear reviewed scientific study that says global warming does not exists led by an atmospheric scientist, meteorologist, or climatologist?  Just wondering.  There are literally hundreds saying it is indeed very real, but I haven't come across any that say it isn't.  I did manage to find a list of "50 PhDs signing that global warming does not exists."  Interestingly enough not one of those 50 where atmospheric scientists.  In fact several were dentists.  Who knew dentists where climate experts. 

Again, science overwhelmingly points to AGW.  Overwhelmingly.  I believe in science.

There is no science that can definitively prove that fluctuations in global temperatures are overwhelmingly driven by human activities.  Science functions by comparing observations with predictions thereby adjusting hypotheses to accommodate the data.  There aren't enough observations to provide a definitive proof, but the only theories with predictive value, i.e. that accommodate the data at hand, don't support the thesis that global climate changes are driven primarily by human activity.  Other far more important factors are at work.  Please see the references in my previous posts.  An isolated statistical correlation by itself means nothing with regard to causality.  Does the crowing cock cause the sunrise?  The media are constantly reporting associations between factors and outcomes, thereby implying causality.  Because one event follows another, e.g. sleeping in a draft and awakening with a cold, doesn't prove the draft caused the cold.  Logicians call this the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy, and it's extremely common, especially in the media.  http://www.fallacyfiles.org/posthocf.html

[Weather Display]

for myself I welcome more energy efficiency and less  pollution of the atmosphere
that has been a postive spin off from the raised awareness

[neondesert]

Who knew dentists where climate experts. 

Well this isn't very shocking, as we already have plenty of politicians that think they are. 
--
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.  -Mark Twain

[xykotik]

Another molecule, dihydrogen monoxide, plays a much greater role in producing the so-called greenhouse effect:

Absolutely!  It is the primary compound in acid-rain, and kills people every day through inhalation.  It accelerates corrosion of metals on contact and is highly explosive when separated into it's constituent components.  I'll bet that most people don't even know that factories dump millions of gallons every day.  This stuff needs to be banned from the planet immediately.  CALL YOUR SENATOR!

[gwwilk]

for myself I welcome more energy efficiency and less  pollution of the atmosphere
that has been a postive spin off from the raised awareness

I'm also always for doing more with less.

[weatherc]

for myself I welcome more energy efficiency and less  pollution of the atmosphere
that has been a postive spin off from the raised awareness

I agree there too. Its allways nice to do more using less energy.

There was a post about Arcitic Sea Ice Extent same pages ago (can't quote as its so far ago).
Its actually not any less ice this winter than 2006-2007, or actaully any of the last winters what i have followed those stats, so that argument as reason for deep freezing Europe this winter will not hold
http://www.nordicweather.net/napajaa.php?en

[Weather Display]

one thing the models predicted way back was more climate extremes
I think that has certainly occured over the last 30 years
(there always has been climate extremes, but they seem to have got more extreme and more often extreme (i.e every year there are extremes instead of worse in 50 years (even taken into account that we know about them more than we used to due to being the information age))

[arrowspace90]

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

This is what wikipedia says regarding the "Scientific Opinion on Climate Change"
This just is NOT a political issue.  Either there is warming or there is not.  Either humans are causing it, or they are not.  Below is exerpt.

Scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[5]
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

[saratogaWX]

There's an editorial and a related article for subscribers to the UK magazine New Scientist that has a nice summary of the "debate".

Don't cloud young minds

Teaching climate controversies where none exist is plain wrong

THERE is a strong sense of déjà vu about what is emerging over leaked emails from the Heartland Institute. The US libertarian think tank, which argues that global warming is not primarily caused by humans, intends to develop teaching material that would cast doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change. Its approach is sadly reminiscent of fogging tactics employed by the tobacco industry and creationists.

Children should be taught honestly what we know about climate change, as well as what we don't know and where the uncertainties lie. Yet a plan outlined in documents allegedly from Heartland would build a curriculum around statements such as “whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy” (see “Climate sceptics target US classrooms”). This is to create controversy where none exists.

There simply is no credible scientific alternative to the theory that humans are warming the atmosphere. In 2010, a survey of 1372 climate scientists found that 97 per cent of those who publish most frequently in the field were in no doubt. They agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that human activity had caused most of Earth's warming over the second half of the 20th century. By comparison with these scientists, the climate expertise of the small group of contrarians was substantially lower (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107).

In the face of such broad agreement, the leaked strategy smacks of tactics used by tobacco companies as the evidence linking smoking to fatal diseases continued to grow. They employed accusations of scientific conspiracy, selective use of evidence and dissenting scientists to contradict public health experts and confuse the public. Oil companies have already used such tactics in the climate change debate.

The approach is also strikingly similar to the “teach the controversy” campaign mounted by the Seattle-based think tank the Discovery Institute. A decade ago, it designed lesson plans for teachers that focused on weaknesses in evolutionary theory and presented “intelligent design” as a scientific alternative. ID proposes that facets of the living world were created by a supernatural “intelligent cause”.

An attempt to introduce ID by the district school board in Dover, Pennsylvania, was thwarted in 2005 when a judge ruled that ID is not science but the “progeny of creationism”. As an offshoot of religion, its teaching in public schools is unconstitutional.

The judge ruled that focusing on a supposed controversy rather than being straight about science was “at best disingenuous and at worst a canard”. There can be no excuse for such deceit in schools, no matter what the agenda.

It is easy to see that libertarians will never be best friends with scientists who tell them their lifestyle is leading the world into danger. But their real beef is with the political response to the science, which is likely to constrain their freedoms. Let's keep that debate where it belongs, in civics or politics classes. To seek to present distorted science to those who will have to deal with the consequences of worsening climate change is deeply cynical.

To present distorted science to those who will have to deal with climate change is deeply cynical.

[gwwilk]

There's an editorial and a related article for subscribers to the UK magazine New Scientist that has a nice summary of the "debate".

Don't cloud young minds

Teaching climate controversies where none exist is plain wrong

THERE is a strong sense of déjà vu about what is emerging over leaked emails from the Heartland Institute. The US libertarian think tank, which argues that global warming is not primarily caused by humans, intends to develop teaching material that would cast doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change. Its approach is sadly reminiscent of fogging tactics employed by the tobacco industry and creationists.

Children should be taught honestly what we know about climate change, as well as what we don't know and where the uncertainties lie. Yet a plan outlined in documents allegedly from Heartland would build a curriculum around statements such as “whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy” (see “Climate sceptics target US classrooms”). This is to create controversy where none exists.

There simply is no credible scientific alternative to the theory that humans are warming the atmosphere. In 2010, a survey of 1372 climate scientists found that 97 per cent of those who publish most frequently in the field were in no doubt. They agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that human activity had caused most of Earth's warming over the second half of the 20th century. By comparison with these scientists, the climate expertise of the small group of contrarians was substantially lower (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107).

In the face of such broad agreement, the leaked strategy smacks of tactics used by tobacco companies as the evidence linking smoking to fatal diseases continued to grow. They employed accusations of scientific conspiracy, selective use of evidence and dissenting scientists to contradict public health experts and confuse the public. Oil companies have already used such tactics in the climate change debate.

The approach is also strikingly similar to the “teach the controversy” campaign mounted by the Seattle-based think tank the Discovery Institute. A decade ago, it designed lesson plans for teachers that focused on weaknesses in evolutionary theory and presented “intelligent design” as a scientific alternative. ID proposes that facets of the living world were created by a supernatural “intelligent cause”.

An attempt to introduce ID by the district school board in Dover, Pennsylvania, was thwarted in 2005 when a judge ruled that ID is not science but the “progeny of creationism”. As an offshoot of religion, its teaching in public schools is unconstitutional.

The judge ruled that focusing on a supposed controversy rather than being straight about science was “at best disingenuous and at worst a canard”. There can be no excuse for such deceit in schools, no matter what the agenda.

It is easy to see that libertarians will never be best friends with scientists who tell them their lifestyle is leading the world into danger. But their real beef is with the political response to the science, which is likely to constrain their freedoms. Let's keep that debate where it belongs, in civics or politics classes. To seek to present distorted science to those who will have to deal with the consequences of worsening climate change is deeply cynical.

To present distorted science to those who will have to deal with climate change is deeply cynical.

Nice bait, Ken.   The New Scientist isn't peer reviewed, so it's not even as reliable as Wickipedia, which can be edited.  They are known organ grinders for carbon-based climate change.  The quote summarizes only the astigmatic views of those who feel that science is done like politics, by taking votes.  It can't happen that way, as Copernicus would attest were he around to query on the matter.  Nobody questions that there is ongoing climate change, as has always been the case even before humans were around to experience it.  The cause isn't clear, and won't be for a long, long time.  Meanwhile conserve, be green, but don't demonize carbon energy sources as the primary cause of the changes.  Clearly there has to be room for alternative viewpoints, but the apocalyptics have obviously written the quoted passage because they feel they have identified the cause of climate change a la Pogo, and our self-destruction by asymptotically terminal climate change is imminent.  To compare using carbon-based energy sources to inhaling tobacco smoke is perniciously fallacious.  The propagandist smoke they're blowing is just as foul and it, like tobacco smoke, harbors deleterious consequences.  (BTW, when Pogo discovered the enemy, it was us!)

We should all treat our planet like the precious lifeboat it is.  Just don't be persuaded by false prophets into spreading their delusions about proper planetary husbandry.  Skepticism regarding the prophecies of men is healthy and proper.  Were this a different age, these 'scientists' would have been theologians, and to question their word would have meant penitence--real penitence in an institution of such.  Now we just have to deal with 'educators' who only wish they had such power.  (See...I too can wield the language of disparagement and aspersion while jousting for my cause.)