Global Warming Scientists Trapped in Antarctic Ice

[ralfy]

How about you name a couple of those "exceptionally well funded climate change denier organizations" ?

Even better, why not look at the results of an independent study funded by skeptics?

"Bombshell: Koch-Funded Study Finds ‘Global Warming Is Real’, ‘On The High End’ And ‘Essentially All’ Due To Carbon Pollution"

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...-and-essentially-all-due-to-carbon-pollution/

 

[ralfy]

By moving this argument to the ocean you hide behind a set of data that is spotty and short term at best, absolute trash at worst. Argo floats only began... in 2003 2007?
We'll need decades before arriving at ANY conclusions.

Also, data gaps in satellite measurements:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...al-warming-since-1997-underestimated-by-half/

 

[ralfy]

Are you implying that the global warming sciences are poorly funded?

Interestingly enough, one argument given by skeptics (i.e., the science is complex and thus more funding is needed) leads to more funding, but another argument contradicts that by insisting that more funding isn't needed.

That reminds of other points, such as the claim that there is no increasing warmth vs. the claim that it's a good thing that there's warmth to avoid the effects of an ice age vs. the claim that there's warmth, but it's natural.

 

[ralfy]

Then why are they now claiming that the ocean is absorbing more than they thought it would, and using that as an excuse for how the models are so far off?

I think it might be both, i.e., increased ocean heat content plus underestimated higher surface temp as data gaps from satellite info are filled.

 

[ralfy]

Hmm..I think 95% of global warming scientists would want to support the notion that there is global warming.
That might keep the funding flowing. :whiste:

Actually, it's the other way round: more studies needed lead to more funding.

But the need for more studies is one of the arguments given by skeptics.

 

[ralfy]

Regarding the Science of global warming.... it is really tottering at the moment. The purveyors of it are perplexed. Wait another 5 years and their models will be completely discredited. Surely that isn't too long to wait.

Notice that this dimwit who says global warming will destroy humanity thinks it is "unpleasant" that the measured warming is falling far short of expected warming. The sick bastard wants the world to suffer.

But when skeptics funded an independent study on the same matter (BEST), the results supported mainstream views.

 

[bshole]

AGW doesn't necessarily lead to warmer winters but to extremes on both sides.

The point to consider is ave. global temperature anomaly.

BULL FUCKING SHIT! Wisconsin was once covered under a mile of ice. Global warming melted them. Global warming most certainly does lead to WARMER winters, summers, falls and springs! Are you really going to argue that extreme weather caused the glaciers to evaporate? Jesus Christ man, are you for real?

How do explain that the worst droughts in American history were in the 30s and the 50s? We have never even gotten close to those drought levels since. Shouldn't the extreme weather be getting WORSE (according to you)?

How do you explain this? Way the hell worse than anything we have seen since.... 50 foot snow drifts!!!

March 11-14, 1888
More than 120 winters have come and gone since the so-called “Great White Hurricane,” but this whopper of a storm still lives in infamy. After a stretch of rainy but unseasonably mild weather, temperatures plunged and vicious winds kicked up, blanketing the East Coast in snow and creating drifts up to 50 feet high. The storm immobilized New York, Boston and other major cities, blocking roads and wiping out telephone, telegraph and rail service for several days. When the skies finally cleared, fires and flooding inflicted millions of dollars of damage. The disaster resulted in more than 400 deaths, including 200 in New York City alone. In the decade that followed, partly in response to the 1888 storm and the massive gridlock it wrought, New York and Boston broke ground on the country’s first underground subway systems.

If what you are saying is correct, why were are hurricanes strikes decreasing in direct opposition to your contention?!!!

 

[fskimospy]

BULL FUCKING SHIT! Wisconsin was once covered under a mile of ice. Global warming melted them. Global warming most certainly does lead to WARMER winters, summers, falls and springs! Are you really going to argue that extreme weather caused the glaciers to evaporate? Jesus Christ man, are you for real?

How do you explain this? Way the hell worse than anything we have seen since.... 50 foot snow drifts!!!






If what you are saying is correct, why were are hurricanes strikes decreasing in direct opposition to your contention?!!!

Wait, why did you specifically choose a chart of US hurricane strikes when talking about global warming?

Wait, I already know the answer.

 

[bshole]

Wait, why did you specifically choose a chart of US hurricane strikes when talking about global warming?

Wait, I already know the answer.

Dude, I went back and looked at all catastrophic events, droughts, floods, blizzards, tornadoes, hurricanes, every single one of these metrics are DECREASING in direct contradiction to your SCIENTIFIC contention that they will go up with AGW.

Please provide your data to backup your "scientific" contention. Or do you get to make up stuff and not have to prove it? You do realize that this is the kind of shit that turned me off of AGW? All the unbacked fucking bullshit. How EVERY single thing that occurred due to AGW had to be catastrophically bad. How every BAD weather event was due to AGW and every nice weather event was just weather.

 

[ralfy]

BULL FUCKING SHIT! Wisconsin was once covered under a mile of ice. Global warming melted them. Global warming most certainly does lead to WARMER winters, summers, falls and springs! Are you really going to argue that extreme weather caused the glaciers to evaporate? Jesus Christ man, are you for real?

What I mean is that it doesn't take place right away, such that one ends up confusing weather with climate:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/weather-forecasts-vs-climate-models-predictions.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-cold-weather.htm

The only way to study this is to look at long-term trends, and that means changes in global temperature anomaly. Read the NAS reports on this for details.

How do explain that the worst droughts in American history were in the 30s and the 50s? We have never even gotten close to those drought levels since. Shouldn't the extreme weather be getting WORSE (according to you)?

You need to look at global data, not just U.S. For example,

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7424/full/nature11575.html

Thus, better means to estimate the effect of global warming on drought conditions must be employed.

How do you explain this? Way the hell worse than anything we have seen since.... 50 foot snow drifts!!!

Probably the polar vortex, as mentioned earlier.

If what you are saying is correct, why were are hurricanes strikes decreasing in direct opposition to your contention?!!!

These might help:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming-intermediate.htm

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes

That is, not just occurrences but "extreme" referring to wind speed, intensity, etc.

Also, one may consider global data.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

But when skeptics funded an independent study on the same matter (BEST), the results supported mainstream views.

Which main stream views were supported by the results? That global temperatures have risen 1C since 1950? I think you may be reading more into this than is actually there.

 

[ralfy]

Dude, I went back and looked at all catastrophic events, droughts, floods, blizzards, tornadoes, hurricanes, every single one of these metrics are DECREASING in direct contradiction to your SCIENTIFIC contention that they will go up with AGW.

Please provide your data to backup your "scientific" contention. Or do you get to make up stuff and not have to prove it? You do realize that this is the kind of shit that turned me off of AGW? All the unbacked fucking bullshit. How EVERY single thing that occurred due to AGW had to be catastrophically bad. How every BAD weather event was due to AGW and every nice weather event was just weather.

I am not sure if the metrics refer to occurrences, intensity, or both, but some regional data shows increases for both while others do not.

Given that, aggregate information must be assessed. There are several studies mentioned here that refer to such:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/extreme-weather-global-warming-intermediate.htm

 

[ralfy]

Which main stream views were supported by the results? That global temperatures have risen 1C since 1950? I think you may be reading more into this than is actually there.

Several are mentioned here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Several are mentioned here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071

Please specifically name the main stream views that were supported by this study other than confirming that global temperatures have indeed increased.

 

[fskimospy]

Which main stream views were supported by the results? That global temperatures have risen 1C since 1950? I think you may be reading more into this than is actually there.

Well the lead author of the BEST study says his findings indicated not only that the mainstream view of warming was correct, but that humans were almost entirely the cause. It's hard to get a more unequivocal endorsement of mainstream science on the issue than that.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Well the lead author of the BEST study says his findings indicated not only that the mainstream view of warming was correct, but that humans were almost entirely the cause. It's hard to get a more unequivocal endorsement of mainstream science on the issue than that.

Beyond setting the dataset straight, their analysis of it was basically a curve fitting exercise where they found that the temperature record best correlates to volcanic forcing and a logarithm for CO2 forcing. The study in no way proves AGW.

 

[fskimospy]

Beyond setting the dataset straight, their analysis of it was basically a curve fitting exercise where they found that the temperature record best correlates to volcanic forcing and a logarithm for CO2 forcing. The study in no way proves AGW.

Take it up with the author of the study; he seems to think otherwise.

It isn't a question of 'proving' AGW, it's just yet another paper on the pile of supporting evidence. Interestingly, this also adds another paper to the pile of those dismissing the impact of solar forcing on temperature fluctuations over the last few decades.

 

[Jaskalas]

Well the lead author of the BEST study says his findings indicated not only that the mainstream view of warming was correct, but that humans were almost entirely the cause. It's hard to get a more unequivocal endorsement of mainstream science on the issue than that.

Richard Muller has been saying that for 30+ years. Nothing new from you or him.

WaPo Punked by Berkeley Warmist Posing as Skeptic

"back in the early ’80s, I resigned from the Sierra Club over the issue of global warming. At that time, they were opposing nuclear power. What I wrote them in my letter of resignation was that, if you oppose nuclear power, the U.S. will become much more heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and that this is a pollutant to the atmosphere that is very likely to lead to global warming.

 

[fskimospy]

Richard Muller has been saying that for 20+ years. Nothing new from you or him.

There's no need for there to be anything new. The science has indicated the same thing for quite awhile, it's just a question of how much larger the mountain of evidence needs to grow. I personally feel that it is unlikely that climate change deniers will change their position. If you aren't convinced at this point I doubt further science will change that fact.

The main focus of climate change efforts in the political sphere should be finding ways to go around the denier community and mitigate the damage that they can do. We've tried convincing people for decades with the science but it seems more like an emotional rejection at this point. There's no arguing with that.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Take it up with the author of the study; he seems to think otherwise.

Wrong....he agrees with what I stated. Muller himself said the BEST study doesn't prove CO2 is responsible for the warming.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120730142509.htm

Richard Muller, Founder and Scientific Director of Berkeley Earth, notes "Much to my surprise, by far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice." He emphasizes that the match between the data and the theory doesn't prove that carbon dioxide is responsible for the warming, but the good fit makes it the strongest contender. "To be considered seriously, any alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as does carbon dioxide."

 

[fskimospy]

Wrong....he agrees with what I stated. Muller himself said the BEST study doesn't prove CO2 is responsible for the warming.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120730142509.htm

Wrong. He is just making a simple statement about how science works. What he said is true for all science ever, but particularly for complex systems. He wrote a whole op-ed about his findings, btw.

 

[Jaskalas]

There's no need for there to be anything new.

Sure there does, you need propaganda like the BEST "study". Headed by a "skeptic" that has been an alarmist for 30+ years. You need this propaganda because ALL you have is a correlation. We warmed for some 20 years, 20-30 years go. During the 80s and 90s. That short term trend looks like a disaster when linearly extrapolated, ignoring all natural factors.

If you ignore science, Global Warming can be made to appear a disaster. You NEED to pound the news stories, repeatedly and frequently. Nothing else will sell your hollow fears. That is why things like the hockey stick are fabricated.

The science has indicated the same thing for quite awhile,

Yeah, since the 80s and 90s. Prior to that it was an ice age scare. Gee, I wonder why that is. You alarmists take a short 20 year trend and foretell the end of the world. Lucky for us you cannot sweep the news stories from the 70s under the rug. Nor can you deny the more truthful IPCC reports of that past which CLEARLY show a greater Medieval Warm Period, or that the Northern Hemisphere had been cooling before the 80s.

it's just a question of how much larger the mountain of evidence needs to grow.

I agree. As CO2 continues to rise faster than expected, business as usual, the mountain of evidence that temperature of not trending with it at even half the rate you expect becomes crystal clear. With a natural warming once every 50 or 60 years your days are numbered. By the time the 2040s roll around the real implication of CO2 will be well known, and no one in their right mind will care about its minimal effect on temperature.

I personally feel that it is unlikely that climate change deniers will change their position. If you aren't convinced at this point I doubt further science will change that fact.

Which of us is the denier, I wonder. There is much about science you deftly ignore.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Wrong. He is just making a simple statement about how science works. What he said is true for all science ever, but particularly for complex systems. He wrote a whole op-ed about his findings, btw.

Your ability to spin is amazing.

 

[monovillage]

Wait, why did you specifically choose a chart of US hurricane strikes when talking about global warming?

Wait, I already know the answer.

Probably because the mistaken claim made earlier by some other alarmist in this thread (ivwshane) that extreme weather is attributable to global warming and increasing when every scientific study disagrees with the claim, including the IPCC ARM report itself.

http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/

 

[fskimospy]

Your ability to spin is amazing.

Don't mistake the dismissal of your spin for spin of my own. Direct quote from Mueller:

Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.