Global Warming/Climate Change: Is it only a concern in caused by humans?

[Juddog]

Thats my point a scientist, probably with an agenda says CO2 is a green house gas, where is the proof?

This was sarcasm or a joke, right? This is on the level of Insane Clown Posse asking how magnets work.

 

[Jaskalas]

And when you finally get around to that, it'll be with peer-reviewed scientific evidence, not rhetoric, right?

No. If I'm right it would become self evident in the observed temperature data remaining below the expectations of the IPCC. Others can write their peer-reviewed reasons for why Climate Sensitivity is not what the IPCC claimed it was.

Observation trumps peer-reviewed fantasy any day.

 

[GreenMeters]

Observation trumps ... fantasy any day.

And observed global temperatures have tracked IPCC extremely well, so you'll be admitting that the climate change denier's position is fantasy?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

And observed global temperatures have tracked IPCC extremely well, so you'll be admitting that the climate change denier's position is fantasy?

Are you serious? IPCC 1990 FAR projections are shown in light orange.

 

[GreenMeters]

Are you serious? IPCC 1990 FAR projections are shown in light orange.

And you're referencing predictions made without the benefits of the last 25 years of research why? The predictions based on more recent assessments look pretty good.

Oh, and before anyone blathers on about predictions from 25 years ago being somewhat off, who's to say what it'll look like in another 25, Isaac Asimov presents the Relativity of Wrong:

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

 

[fskimospy]

And you're referencing predictions made without the benefits of the last 25 years of research why? The predictions based on more recent assessments look pretty good.

Oh, and before anyone blathers on about predictions from 25 years ago being somewhat off, who's to say what it'll look like in another 25, Isaac Asimov presents the Relativity of Wrong:

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

Yeah, I would have to say that the second assessment on look pretty good to me.

 

[GreenMeters]

Yeah, I would have to say that the second assessment on look pretty good to me.

And actually complains about FAR are overstated:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

And you're referencing predictions made without the benefits of the last 25 years of research why? The predictions based on more recent assessments look pretty good.

Oh, and before anyone blathers on about predictions from 25 years ago being somewhat off, who's to say what it'll look like in another 25, Isaac Asimov presents the Relativity of Wrong:

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

The FAR predictions have significantly deviated from observed over the past 25 years. Even AR4 (2007) is too high and it benefits for an additional 20 years of research. IPCC's ability to credibly predict global temperature increases is highly suspect in my opinion.

 

[smackababy]

And observed global temperatures have tracked IPCC extremely well, so you'll be admitting that the climate change denier's position is fantasy?

I don't think anyone is denying climate change. The thing people are denying is that humans have a real impact on it. Even if humans are causing some of the climate change, we are technically still in an ice age. Climate change has gone on for millions of years and at best we have 250 years of "accurate" data temperature data. So, we are observing such a microscopic slice of time on Earth, couldn't the temperature flux be entirely natural?

 

[GreenMeters]

I don't think anyone is denying climate change.

There absolutely are people denying that any climate change is occurring. If you're willing to admit that that segment of the denialist population is intentionally lying about the state of climate science, great. Otherwise, I don't think there's any reason to continue engaging with you on the topic.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

There absolutely are people denying that any climate change is occurring. If you're willing to admit that that segment of the denialist population is intentionally lying about the state of climate science, great. Otherwise, I don't think there's any reason to continue engaging with you on the topic.

If I am convinced that the sky is green; and refuse to look up (or accept that some demon is tricking my old lying eyes) then I am not a liar: i'm an idiot.

 

[smackababy]

There absolutely are people denying that any climate change is occurring. If you're willing to admit that that segment of the denialist population is intentionally lying about the state of climate science, great. Otherwise, I don't think there's any reason to continue engaging with you on the topic.

So, okay, a section of morons actually are denying climate change. No rational person is, however. If you want to argue about them, go right ahead without me. You conveniently ignored the rest of what I wrote though, so good job. If that is what it takes to fit your beliefs, go right ahead.

 

[GreenMeters]

No rational person is, however.

No, there are very rational people that claim that. Of course, it's an organized effort by those industries that profit the most from our exploitation of fossil fuels to corrupt the national and international dialogue on how to deal with climate change. It's the constant carousel of denialism:

1. Climate change doesn't exist

2. OK, climate change exists, but it's not anthropogenic.

3. OK, climate change exists and is anthropogenic, but it's actually a good thing.

4. OK, anthropogenic climate change exists and is bad, but not that bad.

5. OK, anthropogenic climate change exists and is pretty bad, but there's nothing we can do about it.

6. OK, anthropogenic climate change exists and is bad and can be addressed, but it's too expensive.

7. Climate change doesn't exist.

So in this thread we're back around to #2. Here's how we know that the current episode of climate change is anthropogenic:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm

 

[smackababy]

No, there are very rational people that claim that. Of course, it's an organized effort by those industries that profit the most from our exploitation of fossil fuels to corrupt the national and international dialogue on how to deal with climate change. It's the constant carousel of denialism:

1. Climate change doesn't exist

2. OK, climate change exists, but it's not anthropogenic.

3. OK, climate change exists and is anthropogenic, but it's actually a good thing.

4. OK, anthropogenic climate change exists and is bad, but not that bad.

5. OK, anthropogenic climate change exists and is pretty bad, but there's nothing we can do about it.

6. OK, anthropogenic climate change exists and is bad and can be addressed, but it's too expensive.

7. Climate change doesn't exist.

So in this thread we're back around to #2. Here's how we know that the current episode of climate change is anthropogenic:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm

Again, you are missing the point of us having, at best, 400 years of any temperature readings. The first scaled thermometer was in 1611, and it wasn't until 1724 we got a temperature scale we can compare to today. Not to mention, we didn't get the first registering thermometer in 1782.

And you continue to claim people are rationally denying climate change exists. Please do name one of these people. I highly doubt they are being rational in this claim, unless we define rational as to accept money to ignore data.

 

[Brainonska511]

Again, you are missing the point of us having, at best, 400 years of any temperature readings. The first scaled thermometer was in 1611, and it wasn't until 1724 we got a temperature scale we can compare to today. Not to mention, we didn't get the first registering thermometer in 1782.

Is there something wrong with extracting temperature information from ice cores?

 

[smackababy]

Is there something wrong with extracting temperature information from ice cores?

The current ice age (where we measure the ice cores) is estimated to have started about 1.2 million years ago. That is still a very small portion of the estimated life (4.5 billion years old).

And, from what I gather about extracting temperature, and I will admit I don't know a lot, it doesn't give exact temperatures, just fluctuations due to the isotopes of Oxygen and Hydrogen being different.

 

[GreenMeters]

Again, you are missing the point of us having, at best, 400 years of any temperature readings. The first scaled thermometer was in 1611, and it wasn't until 1724 we got a temperature scale we can compare to today. Not to mention, we didn't get the first registering thermometer in 1782.

What does the date of the first scaled thermometer have to do with the fact that we've seen a consistent climb in global average temperature over the last 100 years, the fact that all known climate forcing variables (excluding anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions) have proven insufficient to explain the change, the fact that the mechanism of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions is a plausible candidate to explain the change, and that the incorporation of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions into the climate model perfectly accounts for the observed climate change?

 

[Jaskalas]

And observed global temperatures have tracked IPCC extremely well, so you'll be admitting that the climate change denier's position is fantasy?

When the day comes that they actually have accurate models, then I will more readily accept the Climate Sensitivity they used for them.

 

[GreenMeters]

When the day comes that they actually have accurate models, then I will more readily accept the Climate Sensitivity they used for them.

That day is now.

 

[monovillage]

That day is now.

No it's not, in fact the Global Climate Models have been found to be wildly inaccurate.

http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/09/climate-model-tuning/

JC comment: This paper is indeed a very welcome addition to the climate modeling literature. The existence of this paper highlights the failure of climate modeling groups to adequately document their tuning/calibration and to adequately confront the issues of introducing subjective bias into the models through the tuning process.

And btw you continue to cite Skeptical Science. The host of that blog is John Cook, a high school teacher and the most prolific member of his staff is Dana(1981)Nuccitelli an environmental consultant for an energy company..............neither of which is a climate scientist.

 

[GreenMeters]

And btw you continue to cite Skeptical Science. The host of that blog is John Cook, a high school teacher and the most prolific member of his staff is Dana(1981)Nuccitelli an environmental consultant for an energy company..............neither of which is a climate scientist.

And that's why everything they post gets well referenced to the actual literature. Including the literature that's already debunked Judith Curry's nonsense.

 

[monovillage]

And that's why everything they post gets well referenced to the actual literature. Including the literature that's already debunked Judith Curry's nonsense.

Can you give me Cook's curriculum vitae then? I've linked Dr. Curry's in this thread, we can all look and see who has credibility on this issue.

 

[Brainonska511]

Can you give me Cook's curriculum vitae then? I've linked Dr. Curry's in this thread, we can all look and see who has credibility on this issue.

How does that determine someone's scientific credibility? His or her curriculum vitae is really just a stats sheet. A more true measure is how often his or her papers are cited in the literature, how often those citations are because other people's work agrees well with it.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

How does that determine someone's scientific credibility? His or her curriculum vitae is really just a stats sheet. A more true measure is how often his or her papers are cited in the literature, how often those citations are because other people's work agrees well with it.

If you are incapable of publishing then you are VERY bad at being a scientist. If he's got 10k citations from the 1980s then maybe he was cutting edge 3 decades ago: but if he can't still publish then he doesn't know his shit today.

 

[GreenMeters]

Can you give me Cook's curriculum vitae then? I've linked Dr. Curry's in this thread, we can all look and see who has credibility on this issue.

Credibility doesn't matter. Cook is summarizing the climate science literature, and backs up every claim with a link to the primary source. The climate science literature is what matters, not who's assembling it for a lay audience. But nice try with the appeals to authority.