Why we should listen to the 97%

[Abraham3]

You are rejecting material without cause and are accepting material without cause. You are making choices based on prejudicial opinions you hold going into this matter. You tell us that you believe the evidence supports the deniers. That tells me that either you have not seen the evidence, you do not know how to judge evidence or that you had made up your mind beforehand and have actually made few observations on which to form an objective conclusion.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The age of the Earth is irrelevent?

To any discussion of contemporary climate, yes.

Really?

Yes, really.



Yes, it is irrelevant.



Yes, that is honestly what I'm saying here. But I suspect you're misunderstanding me. I am not saying that 15-30 years is sufficient to show the entire span of AGW. I am saying that 15-30 years is sufficient to show a change in climate trends.



I have a large collection of graphics and just grabbed the first one that showed temperatures. The graph is actually temperature anomalies color coded to indicate La Nina / El Nino status. The values of the bars ARE mean temperatures, they just aren't using 0C as a baseline.



You need to slow down and try to get a better handle on this stuff before you try to jump anyone. The graph I presented far, far more clearly shows mean temperature than does a graph that indicates the number of days in a year that gets over 100F.



Yes.

Now the following quoted paragraphs are from the Wiki link you provided. It includes a brief discussion on ENSO that includes the obligatory tribute to global warming that Wiki writers will insert every time in these articles. But it does appear to be adequately referenced. (I will not take the time to check the references cited.) But at least it was honest enough to admit that there is insufficient data to know much for certain, the computer models are all over the place, and there is a possibility that the Earth's climate will stabilize itself over time as it has done for the entire history of the Earth.

That all needs to be part of the debate too, don't you think?

During the last several decades, the number of El Niño events increased, and the number of La Niña events decreased,[47] although observation of ENSO for much longer is needed to detect robust changes.[48] The question is whether this is a random fluctuation or a normal instance of variation for that phenomenon or the result of global climate changes toward global warming.

The studies of historical data show the recent El Niño variation is most likely linked to global warming. For example, one of the most recent results, even after subtracting the positive influence of decadal variation, is shown to be possibly present in the ENSO trend,[49] the amplitude of the ENSO variability in the observed data still increases, by as much as 60% in the last 50 years.[50]

The exact changes happening to ENSO in the future is uncertain:[51] Different models make different predictions.[52] It may be that the observed phenomenon of more frequent and stronger El Niño events occurs only in the initial phase of the global warming, and then (e.g., after the lower layers of the ocean get warmer, as well), El Niño will become weaker than it was.[53] It may also be that the stabilizing and destabilizing forces influencing the phenomenon will eventually compensate

Whatever you may think, this does not show you to be open minded.

Due to recent research, it is now believed that global warming has altered the historical behavior of the ENSO (El Nino, Southern Oscillation) pseudo cycle. It is this change that has caused warm surface waters to be driven into the deep ocean. It is suggested that this is what has stopped atmospheric and land warming and caused the ocean's temperatures - particularly the deep ocean's - to rise precipitously.

Did you see the graph of global heat content recently posted? It was produced by Nuccitelli and the rest of the gang at Skeptical Science. I think it was PMZ that posted it. I'll try to find it. I thought it resembled the graphs produced by Foster and Rahmstorff showing the global warming signal devoid of aerosol, vulcanism, TSI and ENSO effects.

Until you can identify what caused the temperature trends of the last 150 years, you can't say it's stopped. Do you understand? Westwall and FCT and the rest keep crowing that global warming has stopped, but since they reject AGW, they don't have a cause for the warming in the first place and can only guess that whatever it might have been, it now has stopped. Do you see their problem?

It is suggested that this is what has stopped atmospheric and land warming and caused the ocean's temperatures - particularly the deep ocean's - to rise precipitously.

Precipitously? How much is that?

 

[Abraham3]

Precipitously? How much is that?

This much

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why are there no lab experiments with 200ppm of CO2?

 

[westwall]

The age of the Earth is irrelevent?

To any discussion of contemporary climate, yes.

Really?

Yes, really.



Yes, it is irrelevant.



Yes, that is honestly what I'm saying here. But I suspect you're misunderstanding me. I am not saying that 15-30 years is sufficient to show the entire span of AGW. I am saying that 15-30 years is sufficient to show a change in climate trends.



I have a large collection of graphics and just grabbed the first one that showed temperatures. The graph is actually temperature anomalies color coded to indicate La Nina / El Nino status. The values of the bars ARE mean temperatures, they just aren't using 0C as a baseline.



You need to slow down and try to get a better handle on this stuff before you try to jump anyone. The graph I presented far, far more clearly shows mean temperature than does a graph that indicates the number of days in a year that gets over 100F.



Yes.

Now the following quoted paragraphs are from the Wiki link you provided. It includes a brief discussion on ENSO that includes the obligatory tribute to global warming that Wiki writers will insert every time in these articles. But it does appear to be adequately referenced. (I will not take the time to check the references cited.) But at least it was honest enough to admit that there is insufficient data to know much for certain, the computer models are all over the place, and there is a possibility that the Earth's climate will stabilize itself over time as it has done for the entire history of the Earth.

That all needs to be part of the debate too, don't you think?

During the last several decades, the number of El Niño events increased, and the number of La Niña events decreased,[47] although observation of ENSO for much longer is needed to detect robust changes.[48] The question is whether this is a random fluctuation or a normal instance of variation for that phenomenon or the result of global climate changes toward global warming.

The studies of historical data show the recent El Niño variation is most likely linked to global warming. For example, one of the most recent results, even after subtracting the positive influence of decadal variation, is shown to be possibly present in the ENSO trend,[49] the amplitude of the ENSO variability in the observed data still increases, by as much as 60% in the last 50 years.[50]

The exact changes happening to ENSO in the future is uncertain:[51] Different models make different predictions.[52] It may be that the observed phenomenon of more frequent and stronger El Niño events occurs only in the initial phase of the global warming, and then (e.g., after the lower layers of the ocean get warmer, as well), El Niño will become weaker than it was.[53] It may also be that the stabilizing and destabilizing forces influencing the phenomenon will eventually compensate

Whatever you may think, this does not show you to be open minded.

Due to recent research, it is now believed that global warming has altered the historical behavior of the ENSO (El Nino, Southern Oscillation) pseudo cycle. It is this change that has caused warm surface waters to be driven into the deep ocean. It is suggested that this is what has stopped atmospheric and land warming and caused the ocean's temperatures - particularly the deep ocean's - to rise precipitously.

Did you see the graph of global heat content recently posted? It was produced by Nuccitelli and the rest of the gang at Skeptical Science. I think it was PMZ that posted it. I'll try to find it. I thought it resembled the graphs produced by Foster and Rahmstorff showing the global warming signal devoid of aerosol, vulcanism, TSI and ENSO effects.

Until you can identify what caused the temperature trends of the last 150 years, you can't say it's stopped. Do you understand? Westwall and FCT and the rest keep crowing that global warming has stopped, but since they reject AGW, they don't have a cause for the warming in the first place and can only guess that whatever it might have been, it now has stopped. Do you see their problem?

Soooooo, logically................ if 10 to 15 years is enough to show a trend then the 16 years we have had most recently which show no trend to a slight cooling refutes what you say......

GOT IT!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Precipitously? How much is that?

This much

Wow, they're measuring ocean temperature in Joules now?
So what did that translate into, 0.1 degrees? Less?

 

[daveman]

What do we need to do to prepare for a one foot increase in sea level over the next 100 years?

Per the IPCC, we need to adopt world socialism.

UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy' | NewsBusters

Obviously, it's the only thing that can save us.

 

[daveman]

These AGW "Scientists" see how well the scam paid off for Al Groe and they want some too.

It's human nature

Dr. James Hansen?s growing financial scandal, now over a million dollars of outside income | Watts Up With That?

Hansen's doing pretty good. Too bad he has to break Federal ethics rules to do it.

Oh, well, it's not like Holder's going to prosecute him.

 

[daveman]

Todd -

If you are willing to discuss this topic honestly, read responses and respond sensibly, I'd be delighted to explain.

But I think we both realise you don't have those kind of balls, and we both know why.

Well, that's an arrogant way of saying "I have no idea, and I'm afraid to look it up".

 

[daveman]

Be careful of placing complete faith in consensus.

Everyone has "consensus" with their own side, but we've also got all the science and all the data, while you've just got handwaving and conspiracy theories. A consensus is the only thing you have, but only a tiny part of what we have.

You don't have ALL the science and ALL the data.

You've left out an awful lot of data...and not coincidentally, it's data that don't fit your agenda.

http://www.climategate.com/climatologists-drop-806-cold-weather-stations-in-a-single-year

Russian IEA claims CRU tampered with climate data ? cherrypicked warmest stations | Watts Up With That?

NASA and NOAA cherry-picking Canadian weather stations (but it could have been much worse!)

Now, dismiss the sources! Quick! And don't click the links -- you might be exposed to heresy!

 

[daveman]

Hey, I'm not the one rambling out cult conspiracy theories and hatin' on the actual data. It's not my fault that the only thing you have is a consensus of kookery. You really need to put less emphasis on your precious consensus.

It must kind of suck to have the real world always contradicting you, but fortunately for you, you rarely dwell there.

More projection than a ten-screen multiplex.

 

[daveman]

Hey, I'm not the one rambling out cult conspiracy theories and hatin' on the actual data. It's not my fault that the only thing you have is a consensus of kookery. You really need to put less emphasis on your precious consensus.

It must kind of suck to have the real world always contradicting you, but fortunately for you, you rarely dwell there.

Really? You ignore actual data...that kind of implies to me that you hate it. It certainly disagrees with your propaganda... case in point is the graph below...it uses data from NOAA and as you can see this year is the lowest on record for number of days with a reading of 100 degrees or more.

The lowest in a century in point of fact. That refutes quite handily the assertion that there has been no pause in the warming.

July was cooler than normal in my neck of the woods:

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/climate/getclimate.php?wfo=pah

And August has finally gotten hot. It felt like fall the first three weeks.

 

[daveman]

Daveman -

Your research confirms that the great majority of scientists and engineers confirm AGW.

I'm sorry you couldn't bring yourself to admit that.

Why should I admit something that's not true?

Next time - read the material before you post it!!

I did. Obviously, you didn't.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”​

36% believe in AGW.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”​

24% do NOT believe in AGW.

Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”​

17% believe man may have a part in climate change, but believe there's little or no risk.

The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”​

10% believe man may have a part in climate change, but believe the real cause is unknown and there's little or no risk.

The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”​

5% believe man may have a part in climate change, but believe there's only a moderate risk.


So...it looks like there are only 36% that firmly believe man's activites are causing the climate to change. The others believe it's a mixture of man and nature, but don't believe there will be any catastrophic impacts. Further, they don't believe the debate is settled, and some don't believe the IPCC's modeling is accurate.

From the study, the remaining 8% "did not provide enough information regarding their framing of climate change to be categorized."

So, your claim that "the great majority of scientists and engineers confirm AGW" is utterly false. You should stop making that claim, because it's nowhere near accurate.

But that's how AGW believers do science, isn't it?

Saigon, have you addressed this post yet?

 

[Saigon]

Dave -

Yes, I did - YOUR SOUURCE confirms that 64% of those polled believes humans play some role in climate change.

Whether you were being dishonest or are simply illiterate, I have no idea.

 

[Saigon]

Todd -

If you are willing to discuss this topic honestly, read responses and respond sensibly, I'd be delighted to explain.

But I think we both realise you don't have those kind of balls, and we both know why.

Well, that's an arrogant way of saying "I have no idea, and I'm afraid to look it up".

It's a way of saying that neither Todd nor Frank have any interest in this topic at all, and will NEVER make the mistake of being sucked into a serious discussion about it.

I don't see a great deal of value in answering a question for someone who is praying he doesn't get one.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd -

If you are willing to discuss this topic honestly, read responses and respond sensibly, I'd be delighted to explain.

But I think we both realise you don't have those kind of balls, and we both know why.

Well, that's an arrogant way of saying "I have no idea, and I'm afraid to look it up".

It's a way of saying that neither Todd nor Frank have any interest in this topic at all, and will NEVER make the mistake of being sucked into a serious discussion about it.

I don't see a great deal of value in answering a question for someone who is praying he doesn't get one.

I'm praying you don't tell me how much Solyndra paid in taxes?

 

[Saigon]

Todd -

Really...what a silly little child you are.

When Ford and GM needed bailouts - did it mean that cars weren't viable?

Were you posting here that cars should be abandoned as a pointless technology?

Try and post with a little honesty and a little common sense.

 

[westwall]

Todd -

Really...what a silly little child you are.

When Ford and GM needed bailouts - did it mean that cars weren't viable?

Try and post with a little honesty and a little common sense.

Sanctimonious twerp acting all sanctimonious again! Solyndra was given a low rating under Bush. But it got over half a billion under the big O....why? Well looky here George Kaiser (a BIG Obummer bundler, i.e. huge donation machine) and just minor (read BIG investor) in Solyndra asked him to.

And as we all know Obummer takes care of his friends....


Why Solyndra? Top Obama bundler George Kaiser made multiple visits to the White House in the months before the company was granted a $535 million loan from the government. And top Solyndra officials also made numerous visits — 20 — to the White House, according to logs and reporting by The Daily Caller. Solyndra officials in the logs included chairman and founder Christian Gronet and board members Thomas Baruch and David Prend. The company secured the $535 million loan despite the fact that it was widely known Solyndra was in deep economic trouble and had negative cash flows since its inception. - See more at: Top Obama Bundler & Solyndra Investor George Kaiser Boasts of Cashing in On Stimulus Funds (Video) | The Gateway Pundit

 

[bripat9643]

Todd -

Really...what a silly little child you are.

When Ford and GM needed bailouts - did it mean that cars weren't viable?

Ford didn't get a bailout, and yes, the fact that GM needed on means that including the cost of union pensions, their cars weren't economically viable.

Were you posting here that cars should be abandoned as a pointless technology?

No, only government subsidized cars.

Try and post with a little honesty and a little common sense.

Indeed. So tell us: how much did Solyndra pay in taxes?

 

[Saigon]

their cars weren't economically viable.

EXACTLY!!

When GM got a bailout it meant THEIR cars were not viable - not cars in general.

So when Solyndra went belly-up,it meant their solar panels were not viable - not solar panels in general.

So that's what Todd needs to figure out. Let's hope he will.