Climate skeptics hold scientific review, unexpectedly find global warming is real

[matt0611]

It's not a question. You can test in a lab how much a certain increase in greenhouse gases change the energy balance and how much heating that causes.

Arguing that we don't know how much man is contributing to global warming is like turning up your thermostat to 78 from 72, and then saying "I don't know how much of the warming was caused by me".

And if the sun rose and radiated heat in through the giant windows during that time wouldn't throw your calculations off?

Look, I'm not a climate scientist so I don't even bother to say I know for sure, all I'm saying is that I've heard it was still an open issue about how much we are contributing last time I checked. If there is a consensus now than fine, my other point still stands though about what to do about it and how to go about it. And like I said before, even if global warming didn't exist I'd still want government to set limits on pollution etc

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

But doing something about preventing them is not worth our time right>?

Shall we wait till it actually affects your life before we care?

WTF...and who said we shouldn't do our best to prevent famines?

Let's start over. Correct me if I'm wrong...it appears that you think AGW is proven beyond a doubt, that AGW will cause famines without a doubt, that we can actually lower carbon dioxide to point that we can actually prevent "CO2 induced" famines without a doubt...and lastly, that if we don't do something to reduce our CO2...we, in fact, don't really care. Is this an accurate depiction of how a true 'man of science' perceives the issue?

 

[Tom]

How else do you fight the church of global warming?

You may want to reconsider your sig. The net affect of reading your posts in correlation with your sig would lead the casual observer to believe that "Craig" must be a genius.

 

[manimal]

WTF...and who said we shouldn't do our best to prevent famines?

Let's start over. Correct me if I'm wrong...it appears that you think AGW is proven beyond a doubt, that AGW will cause famines without a doubt, that we can actually lower carbon dioxide to point that we can actually prevent "CO2 induced" famines without a doubt...and lastly, that if we don't do something to reduce our CO2...we, in fact, don't really care. Is this an accurate depiction of how a true 'man of science' perceives the issue?

To be fair I did not characterize my response fairly. For this I do apologize. My greater point is the overall trend to wait till we get more data...when the data is staring us in the face...


This always reminds me of the characterization of evolution.


Regarding your point I do believe since I have small kids that inaction is failure. To put off a responsible response and kicking it down the road only makes it worse and the steps we will need to make more draconian..

 

[DrPizza]

What's scary is you take 2% of the data, with concerns to whether the temperature record is a fabrication, they realize that the 2% holds true to other findings, and you think that means anything significant at all. My skepticism is based on the assumption that the temperature record IS accurate. 0.7C is nothing, half of which is easily within the margin of error.

Oh, and we all know Berkeley is a bastion of conservatism. Clearly it's run by skeptics.

I'll try to keep this statistics explanation simple, so as to not be beyond the level of education of some of the people posting in this thread.

Suppose group A says that a coin comes up heads 60% of the time, and tails 40% of the time. The coin has been flipped 1.6 BILLION times and the data was recorded. Group A says the data confirms the 60/40 split.

Group B says that Group A is full of shit. Group B randomly selects 32 MILLION pieces of the data. Group B says "Holy Cow, they're right!" Not everyone understands that their sample size is sufficient for extremely high statistical significance, even though it only represents 2% of the total flips. But, hopefully now, you have some understanding of this.

Your next objection, "but the data wasn't selected at random..." is correct. It wasn't. The data that was selected to look at appears to be the data that group B thought would be most likely to disprove group A, which makes it even less likely that the other 98% will make a difference. So, as it stood from the first half of my explanation, based on 2% of the data, group A is correct with 99.999% certainty (that's not the actual exact probability; someone else can determine it if they wish.) But after the second revelation - their choice of data - it's not 99.9999% certain.

 

[jonks]

I'll try to keep this statistics explanation simple, so as to not be beyond the level of education of some of the people posting in this thread.

Suppose group A says that a coin comes up heads 60% of the time, and tails 40% of the time. The coin has been flipped 1.6 BILLION times and the data was recorded. Group A says the data confirms the 60/40 split.

Group B says that Group A is full of shit. Group B randomly selects 32 MILLION pieces of the data. Group B says "Holy Cow, they're right!" Not everyone understands that their sample size is sufficient for extremely high statistical significance, even though it only represents 2% of the total flips. But, hopefully now, you have some understanding of this.

Your next objection, "but the data wasn't selected at random..." is correct. It wasn't. The data that was selected to look at appears to be the data that group B thought would be most likely to disprove group A, which makes it even less likely that the other 98% will make a difference. So, as it stood from the first half of my explanation, based on 2% of the data, group A is correct with 99.999% certainty (that's not the actual exact probability; someone else can determine it if they wish.) But after the second revelation - their choice of data - it's not 99.9999% certain.

I ♥ you i do

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

To be fair I did not characterize my response fairly. For this I do apologize. My greater point is the overall trend to wait till we get more data...when the data is staring us in the face...

This always reminds me of the characterization of evolution.

Apples and oranges.

Regarding your point I do believe since I have small kids that inaction is failure. To put off a responsible response and kicking it down the road only makes it worse and the steps we will need to make more draconian..

I'm not sure what constitues a "rational response" in your mind...but I definitely think we need to take 'reasonable and prudent' measures to reduce CO2 emissions on the ocean acidification issue alone.

I think you presume too much in assuming we can control our climate change trend and "fix it" so to speak....but I'm sure somebody, somewhere has a model that says we can...is this the kind of science you and your children can believe in?

 

[piasabird]

If you want to help out the world and prevent global warming eat cold food, turn off all your electronics, replace your car with a bicycle, and turn off your air conditioner, heater, and refrigerator and freezer. Without all the extra heat the earth will cool off.

If you dont believe that, then you dont believe in global warming.

Also smash up all the roads, parking lots, and driveways, and then plant some trees, so the earth can absorb more heat.

 

[Throckmorton]

And if the sun rose and radiated heat in through the giant windows during that time wouldn't throw your calculations off?

Look, I'm not a climate scientist so I don't even bother to say I know for sure, all I'm saying is that I've heard it was still an open issue about how much we are contributing last time I checked. If there is a consensus now than fine, my other point still stands though about what to do about it and how to go about it. And like I said before, even if global warming didn't exist I'd still want government to set limits on pollution etc

You're missing the point. We know how much of the warming is caused by humans' emission of greenhouse gases, because we know how much warming a set amount of greenhouse gas creates.

Here's a better analogy... you light a fire in your living room. How much warming was caused by the fire? As much as the heat put out by a fire causes, which is a known amount. Just do some chemistry calculations. Yes, maybe the sun went up, but that doesn't change the reality that 99% of the warming was caused by the heat output of that fire.

 

[monovillage]

You're missing the point. We know how much of the warming is caused by humans' emission of greenhouse gases, because we know how much warming a set amount of greenhouse gas creates.

Here's a better analogy... you light a fire in your living room. How much warming was caused by the fire? As much as the heat put out by a fire causes, which is a known amount. Just do some chemistry calculations. Yes, maybe the sun went up, but that doesn't change the reality that 99% of the warming was caused by the heat output of that fire.

You are not including negative feedbacks which are present and we know about. You are assuming a zero-dimensional model. Here for a peer reviewed study.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...-in-some-simple-conceptual-models-by-j-bates/

 

[artikk]

If you want to help out the world and prevent global warming eat cold food, turn off all your electronics, replace your car with a bicycle, and turn off your air conditioner, heater, and refrigerator and freezer. Without all the extra heat the earth will cool off.

If you dont believe that, then you dont believe in global warming.

Also smash up all the roads, parking lots, and driveways, and then plant some trees, so the earth can absorb more heat.

One of the most obvious solutions (or part of a multi-step solution) is to reduce the total population on the planet. No, it doesn't mean genocide, but it means focused population control through birth control and other methods. The goal is to reduce the population gradually. This would drive down the effect of humanity using fossil fuels as less people would be using them. At the same time, incentives for renewable energy research could be instituted. A lower population would allow for a larger timeline to find a better energy source while trying to find a method to counteract the effect of the greenhouse gases already released on the Earth.

 

[ShawnD1]

One of the most obvious solutions (or part of a multi-step solution) is to reduce the total population on the planet.

good luck with that! ^_^

 

[theeedude]

Something tells me they won't be getting any more Koch Brothers' money, unless some "adjustments" are made to study results

 

[bfdd]

Berkeley isn't exactly know for their conservatism so is this article in jest? BTW I with the others who thought we had agreed shit was changing awhile ago, whether we are responsible or not for it or if it's even a bad thing is what was up for debate?

Throckmorton, just because they can prove CO2 acts a certain way in a lab doesn't mean really shit. You cannot reproduce the Earth in a lab. It's not possible and we can't even come close.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, greenhouse gasses warm the athmosphere no matter in what athmosphere they are released... We release more CO2 than ever before....

Nah, this climate change thing has nothing to do with that...

Sometimes i wonder if people are just fucking retarded or hiding their intelligence from them when they realise that it will cost them money.

It's one or the other, it can't be both or neither because it's KNOWN, TESTABLE and REPRODUCABLE in a lab setting each and every fucking time, you can even test it at home.

 

[Jaskalas]

If you want to help out the world and prevent global warming eat cold food, turn off all your electronics, replace your car with a bicycle, and turn off your air conditioner, heater, and refrigerator and freezer. Without all the extra heat the earth will cool off.

If you dont believe that, then you dont believe in global warming.

Also smash up all the roads, parking lots, and driveways, and then plant some trees, so the earth can absorb more heat.

Reduce the human population, simple solution.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Berkeley isn't exactly know for their conservatism so is this article in jest? BTW I with the others who thought we had agreed shit was changing awhile ago, whether we are responsible or not for it or if it's even a bad thing is what was up for debate?

Throckmorton, just because they can prove CO2 acts a certain way in a lab doesn't mean really shit. You cannot reproduce the Earth in a lab. It's not possible and we can't even come close.

The man who conducted the research was in favor of NO climate change, the study was funded by anti-CC people, but yeah, obviously they were all liberal CC believers.

There is little doubt if any among scientists that CC is happening, is measurable and real, hell you don't need more than a laser to measure and a boat to take you to the spot to check if it's real these days.

CO2 acts in any atmosphere, it's a proven fact, it's proven in a lab, it's proven on all kinds of bigger scales and it is a well known fact that you'd find ANY scientist hard pressed to deny, at least if he is working in the field.

There is no doubt that CO2 does raise tempereratures in earths athmosphere, no one who knows anything will EVER deny that, the question is if our emissions are large enough to make any real change.

The answer by measuring it is yes.

All things measured and all things proven do point to the same thing, notice how people have stopped denying the truth and are now arguing that it's no big thing?

It is, because the effect is exponential, the warmer it gets, the more greenhouse gasses are released.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Reduce the human population, simple solution.

Nuke China... i kinda like that idea...

 

[bfdd]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, greenhouse gasses warm the athmosphere no matter in what athmosphere they are released... We release more CO2 than ever before....

Nah, this climate change thing has nothing to do with that...

Sometimes i wonder if people are just fucking retarded or hiding their intelligence from them when they realise that it will cost them money.

It's one or the other, it can't be both or neither because it's KNOWN, TESTABLE and REPRODUCABLE in a lab setting each and every fucking time, you can even test it at home.

They cannot and do not take into consideration every possible source, locally(on our planet) and remotely(things that exist outside our planet), of warming so to say these "tests" in a lab prove anything is asinine. They don't prove shit.

 

[jonks]

BTW I with the others who thought we had agreed shit was changing awhile ago, whether we are responsible or not for it or if it's even a bad thing is what was up for debate?

No, we pretty much know we're responsible as well. Even the EPA under W reported that, though after he got a tongue lashing from his base he distanced himself from the report.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

They cannot and do not take into consideration every possible source, locally(on our planet) and remotely(things that exist outside our planet), of warming so to say these "tests" in a lab prove anything is asinine. They don't prove shit.

The "lab setting" is general eath atmosphere you daft twat.

I do know the complaint of not considering "factors" which is the laymans approach to deny verifiable science.

Just know that you have no support what so ever, not even from one in the field when you say that it's not certain if CO2 does affect the earths temperature as a greenhouse gass, even the deniars are fully aware on that and try to show charts of volcanic release of CO2 and it's effects on tempertatures fully forgetting that ash works in the opposite way so when nature does it, even if the release of CO2 is greater, it blocks out most of the effects.

But sure, you can be the only retard in the crowd if you want to and deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

 

[Jaskalas]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, greenhouse gasses warm the athmosphere no matter in what athmosphere they are released... We release more CO2 than ever before....

CO2 is a trace gas, the current rise is irrelevant. You complain about a needle in a haystack of greenhouse gases. Our contribution is a fraction of a percent of the atmosphere. It is nothing that natural variance does not completely overwrite.

Nah, this climate change thing has nothing to do with that...

Sometimes i wonder if people are just fucking retarded or hiding their intelligence from them when they realise that it will cost them money.

You don't just want money. The Church of Global Warming demands an end to our very way of life to 'save the planet' from their fairy tale. It is no more reasonable than demanding the entire planet convert to Catholicism and banning birth control.

It's one or the other, it can't be both or neither because it's KNOWN, TESTABLE and REPRODUCABLE in a lab setting each and every fucking time, you can even test it at home.

The plant is not a lab. There are physics and natural variables involved we don't even begin to understand, but don't worry. I'm sure political proponents of your Church, hiding under the guise of science, have written computer models where the numbers go up.

How's that working out for Antarctic sea ice? Yeah... it's near record extent. Okay... in 2000 it meant LESS snow. Now after tons of snow they say it means MORE snow. After Katrina in 2005, they said it meant MORE hurricanes. Now we have a record low.

The science is only settled in your faith. A planet is not a small box. You want to be concerned about the environment? You should worry about the increase in human population. Oh, that's right your Church has a plan for that, where you get to dictate to us how to live our lives. Your tyranny against human civilization will not be allowed to rule us.

*Edit to clean up

 

[Jaskalas]

They cannot and do not take into consideration every possible source, locally(on our planet) and remotely(things that exist outside our planet), of warming so to say these "tests" in a lab prove anything is asinine. They don't prove shit.

They prove the gas works wonders in a box.

The "lab setting" is general eath atmosphere you daft twat.

Your lab does not have an ocean, or an upper atmosphere. It also doesn't have creatures living in it who heat their houses and burn incredible amounts of electricity.

 

[monovillage]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, greenhouse gasses warm the athmosphere no matter in what athmosphere they are released... We release more CO2 than ever before....

Nah, this climate change thing has nothing to do with that...

Sometimes i wonder if people are just fucking retarded or hiding their intelligence from them when they realise that it will cost them money.

It's one or the other, it can't be both or neither because it's KNOWN, TESTABLE and REPRODUCABLE in a lab setting each and every fucking time, you can even test it at home.

You're ignoring the science, while skeptics usually get charged with being anti-science you are pretty much a poster child of it. You need to look at the scientific peer reviewed studies which show negative feedbacks to increased CO2. Here's a few more studies and or articles with peer reviewed links that show what science is saying about it. i won't include the previous link.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...egetation-feedback-within-the-climate-system/

http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/09/decadal-variability-of-clouds/

http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/29/climate-feedbacks-part-i/

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...he-assessement-of-climate-beyond-co2-effects/

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...drometeorological-events-by-dr-millan-millan/

 

[Jaskalas]

By the way, regarding the OP.

Over the years, Muller has praised Watts' efforts to show that weather station data in official studies are untrustworthy because of the urban heat island effect, which boosts temperature readings in areas that have been encroached on by cities and suburbs.

But leading climatologists said the previous studies accounted for the effect, and the Berkeley analysis is confirming that, Muller acknowledged. "Did such poor station quality exaggerate the estimates of global warming?" he asked in his written testimony. "We've studied this issue, and our preliminary answer is no."

That's it. All they're doing is looking at the raw data and ensuring 0.7 IS in fact 0.7. None of this has ANYTHING to do with where that 0.7 increase in temperature came from. None of it confirms or denies anything with regards to CO2. They are simply double checking the raw temperature data.