The global warming thread. Is it for real?

[Trakar]

I disagree. When two different measurements or measurement methodologies give different results, the discrepancies need to be resolved. It is the essence of scientific debate. Further debate arises when said empirical data is used, in one for or another, as a basis for mathematical modeling of non-linear physical systems, like the thermal properties of the atmosphere.

Largely irrelevant to the nearly 200 year old basics of AGW, which are built upon fundamental atmospheric radiative transfer physics and identification and sourcing of atmospheric carbon.

More to your point, however, I am not aware of any debatable, significant discrepancy in measurement methodology for any major AGW finding or proposal, at the least, nothing that would rise to the level of calling any of the basic precepts of AGW or climate science in general into question. If you believe that you have compelling evidence of such, please cite and reference that evidence.

Climate Audit

Linking to a conspiratorial political advocacy pseudoscience blog offers no compelling support for your apparently fringe beliefs and perspective.

 

[Oddball]

Largely irrelevant to the nearly 200 year old basics of AGW, which are built upon fundamental atmospheric radiative transfer physics and identification and sourcing of atmospheric carbon.

More to your point, however, I am not aware of any debatable, significant discrepancy in measurement methodology for any major AGW finding or proposal, at the least, nothing that would rise to the level of calling any of the basic precepts of AGW or climate science in general into question. If you believe that you have compelling evidence of such, please cite and reference that evidence.

Climate Audit

Linking to a conspiratorial political advocacy pseudoscience blog offers no compelling support for your apparently fringe beliefs and perspective.

Funny...Conspiratorial political advocacy pseudoscience blogs seem good enough for you warmerists, when they favor your story.

 

[percysunshine]

Largely irrelevant to the nearly 200 year old basics of AGW, which are built upon fundamental atmospheric radiative transfer physics and identification and sourcing of atmospheric carbon.

More to your point, however, I am not aware of any debatable, significant discrepancy in measurement methodology for any major AGW finding or proposal, at the least, nothing that would rise to the level of calling any of the basic precepts of AGW or climate science in general into question. If you believe that you have compelling evidence of such, please cite and reference that evidence.

Climate Audit

Linking to a conspiratorial political advocacy pseudoscience blog offers no compelling support for your apparently fringe beliefs and perspective.

Climate audit busted the hockey stick fraud, and you warminist cult members have never gotten over it eh?

 

[Trakar]

Climate Audit

Linking to a conspiratorial political advocacy pseudoscience blog offers no compelling support for your apparently fringe beliefs and perspective.

Funny...Conspiratorial political advocacy pseudoscience blogs seem good enough for you warmerists, when they favor your story.

I have never sent anyone to a blog to learn science, nor have I ever offered blog postings as support of science understandings. I do not consider blogs to be reliable sources of information. Not that everything on a blog is false, but in general they are unreliable, and bloggers are unaccountable for their mistakes, errors and misstatements.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Another link providing further evidence of global warming :

Greenland Ice Sheet | Surface Melt Data

Though we'll have to wait until august to see if the melting was greater than 2012.

 

[Oddball]

BFD.

The Greenland ice sheet melted northward far enough so that Scandihoovian settlers populated its southern regions a few centuries ago.

Whoopee.

Hide the decline.

 

[CultureCitizen]

BFD.

The Greenland ice sheet melted northward far enough so that Scandihoovian settlers populated its southern regions a few centuries ago.

Whoopee.

Hide the decline.

That part has been inhabited since then , but then each year mor land is available due to melting. Now perhaps if you could quote an article describing the extent of ice-free land in greenland during the scandinavian colonisation I would consider your post as a serious argument and not just a rant.

 

[Old Rocks]

If one is serious about knowing what the conditions were during the time the Vikings inhabited Greenland, Jared Diamond has a very well researched book, "Collapse" that covers the subject well.

 

[Old Rocks]

correlation ≠ causation

From Tydall to the present the causation for the warming has been known. Mere reptition of nonsense will not change the statement from being nonsense.

 

[CultureCitizen]

If one is serious about knowing what the conditions were during the time the Vikings inhabited Greenland, Jared Diamond has a very well researched book, "Collapse" that covers the subject well.

I've read the book , a very interesting one, but he doesn't go so far as telling the extent of the melt during that time.

What he does is talk about how their lack of ability to adapt to the changing weather conditions coupled with their unfriendly attitude towards the Inuit caused the colony to disappear.

Hence my interest in this thread . My position is that we are having a weather change ( I'm not getting into the debate of whether it is antropogenic or not ) and we must take some measures to adapt to such change.

 

[percysunshine]

If one is serious about knowing what the conditions were during the time the Vikings inhabited Greenland, Jared Diamond has a very well researched book, "Collapse" that covers the subject well.

I've read the book , a very interesting one, but he doesn't go so far as telling the extent of the melt during that time.

What he does is talk about how their lack of ability to adapt to the changing weather conditions coupled with their unfriendly attitude towards the Inuit caused the colony to disappear.

Hence my interest in this thread . My position is that we are having a weather change ( I'm not getting into the debate of whether it is antropogenic or not ) and we must take some measures to adapt to such change.

We can't afford to. We borrowed the next generations paycheck already.

 

[Trakar]

If one is serious about knowing what the conditions were during the time the Vikings inhabited Greenland, Jared Diamond has a very well researched book, "Collapse" that covers the subject well.

I've read the book , a very interesting one, but he doesn't go so far as telling the extent of the melt during that time.

What he does is talk about how their lack of ability to adapt to the changing weather conditions coupled with their unfriendly attitude towards the Inuit caused the colony to disappear.

Hence my interest in this thread . My position is that we are having a weather change ( I'm not getting into the debate of whether it is antropogenic or not ) and we must take some measures to adapt to such change.

You don't have to understand the intricacies of planetary orbits and revolutions to observe that the sun makes its daily passage through the sky and seasons seem to shift with some regularity. It isn't necessary to understand what is forcing climate change to understand that if the trends of the last several decades continue over the next several centuries, there are a lot of changes that will need to be made to deal with the changes that are happening and yet to come.

Understanding does help one to make choices that do not make a bad situation worse, but, for the time being, merely taking the actions that help to deal with the situation at hand and the consequences of accelerating trends is much better than sticking your head in the sand and denying that there is any problem to deal with.

 

[Trakar]

If one is serious about knowing what the conditions were during the time the Vikings inhabited Greenland, Jared Diamond has a very well researched book, "Collapse" that covers the subject well.

I've read the book , a very interesting one, but he doesn't go so far as telling the extent of the melt during that time.

What he does is talk about how their lack of ability to adapt to the changing weather conditions coupled with their unfriendly attitude towards the Inuit caused the colony to disappear.

Hence my interest in this thread . My position is that we are having a weather change ( I'm not getting into the debate of whether it is antropogenic or not ) and we must take some measures to adapt to such change.

We can't afford to. We borrowed the next generations paycheck already.

Too bad we used that paycheck to give record profits to the same corporations that are buying politicians and political favors instead of investing it in education, social/physical infrastructure and technology that would have actually earned a return on that investment for those future generations. Simultaneously, we are saddling those generations with increasing carbon burdens and environmental disasters that they will have to pay to deal with so that we can further increase the profits of those same corporations.

But this is all public policy and would be more appropriately discussed on the public policy (politics) board.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Apparently, the concept of an infinitely diverse, flexible and dynamic ecosystem eludes you.

No worries, mate...Malthus, Galbraith and Ehrlich proved out to be dead wrong too...You won't be without company.

Sory , but Malthus was not wrong ... you can clearly see what happens when you outgrow your resources is a civilizational collapse. It happened in Easter Island, it happend to the Vikings in Greenland and it happened to the Mayans.

Right...Maulthus wasn't wrong.

What date was it that the world population outstripped its ability to feed itself again?...I forget.

If there was perfect commerce between all nations on the world we could talk about outgrowing global resouces.

Even with trade agreements this is not the case. Even more the examples I quoted are notable by the fact that three different civilisations outgrowed their "local" resources.

Perhaps there is something called alimentary poverty

2013 World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics by World Hunger Education Service

What do you think is causing it ? Resource bonanza? Lazy people ? Duh

Now wer are not talking just about the ability to feed ourselfes but to obtain other natural resources : water , wood , energy.

 

[IanC]

Linking to a conspiratorial political advocacy pseudoscience blog offers no compelling support for your apparently fringe beliefs and perspective.

Funny...Conspiratorial political advocacy pseudoscience blogs seem good enough for you warmerists, when they favor your story.

I have never sent anyone to a blog to learn science, nor have I ever offered blog postings as support of science understandings. I do not consider blogs to be reliable sources of information. Not that everything on a blog is false, but in general they are unreliable, and bloggers are unaccountable for their mistakes, errors and misstatements.

CA has done afine job of pointing out mistakes and weaknesses that should have been caught in peer review. Anyone who has not learned more about science by reading CA has an issue with comprehension.

 

[Wroberson]

I finally have my position. Not going to include all the references, but the facts are easy to find.

Global warming was caused by Maurice Strong back in 1972.

Beyond that, I have some facts that the physical acts of man of warming the globe does not exist.

1. Maurice Strong

2. Data was altered to produce a number that show the planet is getting warmer to spread fear of an eroding and warming environment

3. All the fuels we burn, tree we turn into paper we've releases into the air throughout the history of man does not equal the amount of heat that we get from 1 minute of Sunlight

4. All of the CO2 we put into the air since the dawn of man does not add up to the total amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere by decaying trees.

5. Oil wells in the Arctic do not collect oil, but instead are burnt to create electricity for the people up there. The black soot from the burning oil falls onto the ice. The Sun heats the dark soot causing it to heat up. The heating melts the arctic ice.

All this was done to make a few people money by selling green energy credits to industries so they can pollute as much as they want and claim to have a green or reduced carbon footprint and avoid fines for pollution.

By 2015, your house will be audited. Home with high energy uses will see higher taxes.

I really suggest that you find some way of creating your own electricity and produce green tax credit to pay for your natural gas usage.

 

[flacaltenn]

Linking to a conspiratorial political advocacy pseudoscience blog offers no compelling support for your apparently fringe beliefs and perspective.

Funny...Conspiratorial political advocacy pseudoscience blogs seem good enough for you warmerists, when they favor your story.

I have never sent anyone to a blog to learn science, nor have I ever offered blog postings as support of science understandings. I do not consider blogs to be reliable sources of information. Not that everything on a blog is false, but in general they are unreliable, and bloggers are unaccountable for their mistakes, errors and misstatements.

Except when they are used by competent scientists to direct the general public to ORIGINAL sources and ORIGINAL material or to encourage general understanding of the topic by summarizing the news.. Elitist snobs on the other hands, want US to believe that you are REALLY REALLY reading each and every paper with full understanding without 20 years of sweat or the coaching of others..

 

[Saigon]

Global warming was caused by Maurice Strong back in 1972.

How? Did he exhale about a billion cubic metres of CO2?

Very funny posting, Wroberson!

btw. We'd known about global warming for about a century prior to your guy causing it.

 

[Trakar]

Except when they are used by competent scientists to direct the general public to ORIGINAL sources and ORIGINAL material or to encourage general understanding of the topic by summarizing the news..

I wouldn't even make that distinction, it matters not who the author of a blog is, or claims to be. Blogs and blog posts are unreliable, unreviewed and not vetted by qualified and objective field professionals, and those who make them are not accountable to anyone for their claims, assertions and speculations. Scientists are most generally human, and can be prone to the same subjectivity, bizarre beliefs and confirmational biases that plagues virtually all humans. This is what peer-review is for (both pre-publication vetting and the true peer-review which occurs post publication), as others in your field review your work, data and findings. Blogs lack this compulsory reliability and verifiability.

Elitist snobs on the other hands, want US to believe that you are REALLY REALLY reading each and every paper with full understanding without 20 years of sweat or the coaching of others..

I'll leave that little anecdotal assertion for you to prove, I apparently don't have enough interest or experience with "Elitist snobs" to be able to confirm or reject your analysis.

I've been reading and building my understanding of published journal science since HS back in the early 1960s. I read and used published science papers across many disciplines throughout undergrad, graduate and post-graduate schools. I read journal papers because I enjoy learning of others discoveries and findings, and reading of their findings in their own words is the best way to understand what the researchers were looking for, how they were looking, and what they figured out from their investigations. If I don't understand what they are trying to say, I usually contact them and ask for their help in understanding what they are saying, and they usually respond. They aren't going to teach you calculus through email responses, but as long as you have all the basic tools of education and experience in place and properly ask your questions, they are almost always happy to have someone interested in their work and more than willing to help you understand what they have discovered.

 

[Trakar]

Funny...Conspiratorial political advocacy pseudoscience blogs seem good enough for you warmerists, when they favor your story.

I have never sent anyone to a blog to learn science, nor have I ever offered blog postings as support of science understandings. I do not consider blogs to be reliable sources of information. Not that everything on a blog is false, but in general they are unreliable, and bloggers are unaccountable for their mistakes, errors and misstatements.

CA has done afine job of pointing out mistakes and weaknesses that should have been caught in peer review. Anyone who has not learned more about science by reading CA has an issue with comprehension.

Even experimental failures yield valuable scientific data, I've stated the issues I have with Blog science. It isn't that everything said is in error, it is that all of the information is unreliable.