Scientists study the scientific standing of pro and con global warmists and find:

[DanDaManJC]

Also, a 30-40 years ago scientists were equally certain that we were about to enter a cooling period possibly leading to another ice age. They were apparently wrong on that one, but what makes everyone so certain that they are right now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

According to those sources... the global cooling idea got a lot of media attention -- but never got the same style of scientific consensus that the current global warming theory has.

As a side note, it's too bad this entire discussion has become so political. Gives ammo to all the fundies who think evolution's a big conspiracy since they see a conspiracy here.

 

[William Gaatjes]

funny after reading some post about 9/11... I thought I'd post this... If this doesn't convince you that we are fucking up the planet then I don't know what won't.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3310_sun.html

That is interesting indeed. There are many supportive theories that fine grained materials are also needed to create mists or clouds. One of those theories is that it is normally microbes, pollens, and dust from the desert that is responsible to create a proper environment for water vapour to appear.
If now the fine grain particles from man made pollution stimulating the process of creation of water vapour, that is interesting. It would also explain what happens when vulcanoes start erupting massively.

 

[Throckmorton]

Do you have sources to verify those claims?

Common sense verifies those "claims". You know every barrel of oil and every lump of coal is recorded right? This is a major part of the economy and has been since the industrial revolution.

Here's a graph from Washington University

A graph from NOAA showing oil

Graph from Wikipedia

^data from here http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.html

 

[ericlp]

The Global Warming Religion faithful are all people who have something to gain from promoting their religion, either personally or financially... See how that works? They just keep pushing their religion on the rest of us, hoping that if they scream loud enough that the sky will fall that the idiots will hand over all their earthly goods to the Gorons to save us.

Well, I'd rather believe in a "REAL" scientist then get my information out of a man made book older then the hills full of BullShit...

What does the bible babble on about ??? Oh yeah, the earth was put here for man to do with what he wanted, well, I'd rather save it then destroy it over your crappy ass religion... Thanks, But NO thanks.

 

[William Gaatjes]

There is one thing i find strange in the article from ericlp :

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3310_sun.html

Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas there is. Yet it seems that it is only cooling the earth because of global dimming according to the article and does nothing to warm the earth because of that same capability of reflection, but then pointed downwards towards the earth. I find that strange. Because clouds themselves have an cooling effect, drawing energy away during formation and when raining, the rain when fallen on the earth's surface, needs to evaporate again. This evaporation can only happen when the ground or surface heats up, feeds energy to the water to vaporize again. But at the same time, water vapor high above absorbs infrared energy, and retransmits that IR again but in all directions. Some IR coming from space , back into space. If i understand correctly, that is what is the covering effect or mirror effect what is mentioned when writers of articles mention the IR light is reflected back into space.

But there is also an enormous amount of IR transmitted from the earth, gets absorbed up in the sky by that same water vapor and is partially absorbed and transmitted down towards the earth again.

Now i think i can assume that the same thing is happening to CO2.
It reflects IR back into space and it reflects IR back to the earth.

An optimistic calculation based on the not entirely accurate idea that IR (infrared) radiation is absorbed from one direction and retransmitted in any direction. :

If 50 percent of the IR radiated from the earth surface is coming back to the earth. And 50 percent of the radiation from the sun is reflected back to outer space, The sun would still be responsible for the heating of the earth.
If the earth is not loosing all the acquired energy at the same level it is receiving, that heat energy is accumulated in the earth surface and atmosphere.
What i would like to know is what is that energy normally used for ? I would think cloud formation.
What has man done to create a situation that all that heat energy is not used in a natural cycle ? Is it large scale agriculture ? Global deforestation ?
Cities that heat up because of man made heat and store heat energy, thereby increasing the amount of heat energy stored in the earth surface ? Before i get accused of being a tree hugger who wants everybody to live in caves. That is not the case. I just want to have a clear picture.

 

[Throckmorton]

There is one thing i find strange in the article from ericlp :

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3310_sun.html

Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas there is. Yet it seems that it is only cooling the earth because of global dimming according to the article and does nothing to warm the earth because of that same capability of reflection, but then pointed downwards towards the earth. I find that strange. Because clouds themselves have an cooling effect, drawing energy away during formation and when raining, the rain when fallen on the earth's surface, needs to evaporate again. This evaporation can only happen when the ground or surface heats up, feeds energy to the water to vaporize again. But at the same time, water vapor high above absorbs infrared energy, and retransmits that IR again but in all directions. Some IR coming from space , back into space. If i understand correctly, that is what is the covering effect or mirror effect what is mentioned when writers of articles mention the IR light is reflected back into space.

But there is also an enormous amount of IR transmitted from the earth, gets absorbed up in the sky by that same water vapor and is partially absorbed and transmitted down towards the earth again.

Now i think i can assume that the same thing is happening to CO2.
It reflects IR back into space and it reflects IR back to the earth.

An optimistic calculation based on the not entirely accurate idea that IR (infrared) radiation is absorbed from one direction and retransmitted in any direction. :

If 50 percent of the IR radiated from the earth surface is coming back to the earth. And 50 percent of the radiation from the sun is reflected back to outer space, The sun would still be responsible for the heating of the earth.
If the earth is not loosing all the acquired energy at the same level it is receiving, that heat energy is accumulated in the earth surface and atmosphere.
What i would like to know is what is that energy normally used for ? I would think cloud formation.
What has man done to create a situation that all that heat energy is not used in a natural cycle ? Is it large scale agriculture ? Global deforestation ?
Cities that heat up because of man made heat and store heat energy, thereby increasing the amount of heat energy stored in the earth surface ? Before i get accused of being a tree hugger who wants everybody to live in caves. That is not the case. I just want to have a clear picture.

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange1/02_1.shtml

The earth is always emitting as much radiation as it's recieving, +- the amounts that go into changing temperature. More greenhouse gas just changes the equilibrium.

Your body is always radiating 100% of the heat it generates, even if you put on a jacket which makes you warmer. The only thing that changes is the equilibrium point

 

[Throckmorton]

BTW, water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Condensed water vapor (clouds) can reflect energy back into space, or reflect it back to the earth. That's why an overcast sky at night reduces heat loss and makes it warmer on the surface than a clear sky.

 

[sandorski]

Which model predicted the decrease over the first decade of the 21st century? Nobody's asking for "X at Y" type data, but someone should be able to get a trend for the entire planet over a ten year period correct. Unless their assumptions are bunk, of course.

Incorrect, sorry, you Fail.

 

[PokerGuy]

Incorrect, sorry, you Fail.

No, as usual you fail, he is 100% correct. Lets see even a single model that correctly predicts the temp trends over the past 20 years based on the info from the prior 80 years. There isn't one. And yet, the GW religious followers want to rely on those models to destroy our economy.

 

[Throckmorton]

No, as usual you fail, he is 100% correct. Lets see even a single model that correctly predicts the temp trends over the past 20 years based on the info from the prior 80 years. There isn't one. And yet, the GW religious followers want to rely on those models to destroy our economy.

/facepalm

In the last 20 years we haven't seen a change in the warming trend.

 

[sandorski]

No, as usual you fail, he is 100% correct. Lets see even a single model that correctly predicts the temp trends over the past 20 years based on the info from the prior 80 years. There isn't one. And yet, the GW religious followers want to rely on those models to destroy our economy.

/facepalm

 

[chucky2]

/facepalm

In the last 20 years we haven't seen a change in the warming trend.

He didn't ask to see model results of a warming trends. He asked to see what I asked if we had:

Take all the raw data from a set time period, put it into the fully disclosed model, and then chart the actual temps from after the raw data used, plus another line on the same chart that the model put out.

How close is that model?

Has that been done (and I'm asking, as I don't know)?

Chuck

 

[bfdd]

We don't have a Model that will tell you what the Temp will be at Location X at Date/Time Y. We do have Models that very accurately show the general Trend though. That is, Global Temps will continue to Increase.

What more do you need to be convinced?

No they don't. You are full of fucking shit and you know it. There hasn't been a single projection pushed forward as 'ZOMG THIS WILL HAEPPN' that has been right. Not a single one. No one has predicted this decade properly and no one will have predicted the next decade properly. If you can't do that then you are missing something. That means they're leaving shit out and there's to much we don't know. So since there's WAY to much shit going on that they can't account for or even know about, why the fuck would you believe it? Same people who bitch about fundamentalist Christians bible thumping saying the world is a few thousand years old are following the same logic to come to their conclusions.

 

[monovillage]

The only one that i know of that has graphed raw temperature data is E.M. Smith. He's not a climate scientist and is firmly in the skeptic camp, but he gathered the raw data (getting it is harder than it sounds since so much data is "adjusted" or in the case of GHCN "raw adjusted data") and then graphed almost every country in the world. Here's a link to his results for North America, you'll have to look through his blog at about the same time period to find the rest. Be aware it's peppered with political opinions so discount it as you see fit.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/03/25/north-america-canonical-graphs/

Asia
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/asia-a-gaggle-of-graphs/

South America
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/south-america-hockey-in-the-jungle/

 

[sandorski]

No they don't. You are full of fucking shit and you know it. There hasn't been a single projection pushed forward as 'ZOMG THIS WILL HAEPPN' that has been right. Not a single one. No one has predicted this decade properly and no one will have predicted the next decade properly. If you can't do that then you are missing something. That means they're leaving shit out and there's to much we don't know. So since there's WAY to much shit going on that they can't account for or even know about, why the fuck would you believe it? Same people who bitch about fundamentalist Christians bible thumping saying the world is a few thousand years old are following the same logic to come to their conclusions.

Oy vey, the Fail is strong.

 

[Throckmorton]

He didn't ask to see model results of a warming trends. He asked to see what I asked if we had:

Take all the raw data from a set time period, put it into the fully disclosed model, and then chart the actual temps from after the raw data used, plus another line on the same chart that the model put out.

How close is that model?

Has that been done (and I'm asking, as I don't know)?

Chuck

Here's a FAQ on climate modeling http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/

Any type of model is only an approximation of reality. To me they're a red herring. What matters is the basic physics. There is always going to be yearly and even decadal variation that can't be precisely modeled, and no one should expect that. But every model predicts that if you add CO2 to the atmosphere, the earth will warm. That's exactly what has happened.


Car crash safety is modeled by computers, and then tested in the real world. Every crash test model you make will tell you that the bigger your crumple zone and the stronger the passenger compartment, the safer the car is. Yet you can never predict the exact performance of a car in a crash test. Does that mean you stop designing cars using those models? No.

The only model I've dealt with personally was for my Advanced GIS final project. I created a model relating deforestation in Ecuador to a bunch of factors-- distance from roads, distance from markets, and some other stuff. I can tell you that the closer to a market a patch of land is, the more deforestation there will be. That's just common sense right? Same goes for a climate model that says more GG = more heat. If someone said "Well you couldn't predict exactly how much deforestation there is per distance from markets and it's not exactly the same everywhere, therefore there is no reason to believe that there is a relationship" you'd think that person was a dumbass with no common sense.

 

[bfdd]

Oy vey, the Fail is strong.

Prove me wrong then. All you do is say "fail" but you won't even prove me wrong. So how about this.

The fail is strong with this one.

 

[sandorski]

Prove me wrong then. All you do is say "fail" but you won't even prove me wrong. So how about this.

The fail is strong with this one.

Prove yourself Right first. All you say is Fail, so I'm just laying out the Facts for you.

Sorry.

 

[Throckmorton]

Of course my favorite model is more insulation = you are warmer. You can argue about the precision of that model all you want, but on a cold day you are going to wear a jacket.

 

[Fern]

Here's a FAQ on climate modeling http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/

Any type of model is only an approximation of reality. To me they're a red herring. What matters is the basic physics. There is always going to be yearly and even decadal variation that can't be precisely modeled, and no one should expect that. But every model predicts that if you add CO2 to the atmosphere, the earth will warm. That's exactly what has happened.


Car crash safety is modeled by computers, and then tested in the real world. Every crash test model you make will tell you that the bigger your crumple zone and the stronger the passenger compartment, the safer the car is. Yet you can never predict the exact performance of a car in a crash test. Does that mean you stop designing cars using those models? No.

The only model I've dealt with personally was for my Advanced GIS final project. I created a model relating deforestation in Ecuador to a bunch of factors-- distance from roads, distance from markets, and some other stuff. I can tell you that the closer to a market a patch of land is, the more deforestation there will be. That's just common sense right? Same goes for a climate model that says more GG = more heat. If someone said "Well you couldn't predict exactly how much deforestation there is per distance from markets and it's not exactly the same everywhere, therefore there is no reason to believe that there is a relationship" you'd think that person was a dumbass with no common sense.

If I understand your approach, the problem I see is that basic physics doesn't help with knowing the extent or gravity of the problem.

If it's minor (and thus of little concern) should we throw huge resources at it? I don't think so.

To employ your anology, we could make cars even safer by adding titanium plating. But it's not worth the costs.

So I think the development of an accurate forcasting model is important in formulating our approach to address the matter.

One of my concerns about the inflamed rhetoric and intense focus on CO2 is that it's taking away much attention on other forms of pollution. Heavy metals, sulfur emmissions, that giant patch of floating plastic garbage in the Pacific, the huge 'dead spot' in the Gulf from fertilizer run-off by corn/ethonol farms. We also have huge water, and water management issues. These are getting the short-shrift IMO.

What does it profit us if we die from toxins polluted into our enviroment while we have a nice climate?

Fern

 

[Throckmorton]

If I understand your approach, the problem I see is that basic physics doesn't help with knowing the extent or gravity of the problem.

If it's minor (and thus of little concern) should we throw huge resources at it? I don't think so.

To employ your anology, we could make cars even safer by adding titanium plating. But it's not worth the costs.

So I think the development of an accurate forcasting model is important in formulating our approach to address the matter.

One of my concerns about the inflamed rhetoric and intense focus on CO2 is that it's taking away much attention on other forms of pollution. Heavy metals, sulfur emmissions, that giant patch of floating plastic garbage in the Pacific, the huge 'dead spot' in the Gulf from fertilizer run-off by corn/ethonol farms. We also have huge water, and water management issues. These are getting the short-shrift IMO.

What does it profit us if we die from toxins polluted into our enviroment while we have a nice climate?

Fern

I'm not talking about the costs of dealing with greenhouse gases at all, so your titanium analogy doesn't apply to my post. Predicting that a car is safer if it's plated with titanium is just like predicting that the earth warms with more greenhouse gas. You can predict how much stronger the car will be for a given amount of titanium plating, and you can predict how much the earth will warm for a given increase in greenhouse gases. Conservatives shouldn't be arguing against either of those things, but what you can argue is whether the costs are worth it.

Considering that any decrease we make is probably going to be outweighed by future increases in China and India, the titanium cost analogy might make sense. The reason we'd reduce greenhouse gas emission would be to set an example for the third world.

Global warming does "suck the air out of the room" and a lot of environmentalists have complained about that. Back in 2004 when biofuel became an electoral issue, I got pissed. It was really clear and simple to me that using plants to make fuel would be an environmental and food disaster. At the time most politicians (left AND right) and non-expert environmentalists were willing to latch on to a supposed solution with no critical thinking.

Guess what, now people are starting to see how stupid the biofuel revolution was as rainforests have been destroyed to grow biofuel crops and people have died due to food price increases.

Now, most people think paper bags are more green than plastic bags, because they're biodegradable and aren't made from oil. Well the impact of using a little oil to make a plastic bag is nothing compared to the deforestation for paper products, or for that matter the fertilizer and water usage of tree farms.

 

[Fern]

I'm not talking about the costs of dealing with greenhouse gases at all, so your titanium analogy doesn't apply to my post.
-snip-

I'm just try to say that I believe models are important. Cost is going to come into play, and you can't correctly evaluate or justify a cost until you can quantify the extent of the problem, and the effectiveness of any solution purchased/proposed. E.g., is it worth a $trillion to our economy to reduce co2 by 10%? What if that means Florida is only under 90 feet of water instead of 100'?

Paper or plastic? I just take a cloth bag to the grocery store so I need neither.

Fern

 

[chucky2]

I'm just try to say that I believe models are important. Cost is going to come into play, and you can't correctly evaluate or justify a cost until you can quantify the extent of the problem, and the effectiveness of any solution purchased/proposed. E.g., is it worth a $trillion to our economy to reduce co2 by 10%? What if that means Florida is only under 90 feet of water instead of 100'?

Paper or plastic? I just take a cloth bag to the grocery store so I need neither.

Fern

Exactly, that is exactly my point in asking for a model that at least correllates closely with the raw data (raw data that's truly raw, and collected properly i.e. not next to an air conditioner vent).

Where the rubber meets the road is going to be cost, and without a model to show how serious the problem we are causing really is, no one is going to take it seriously enough (or, should not take it seriously enough if they're at all responsible) to dedicate money that could be spent elsewhere.

That's Reality.

So, where's that model?

Chuck

 

[bfdd]

Of course my favorite model is more insulation = you are warmer. You can argue about the precision of that model all you want, but on a cold day you are going to wear a jacket.

Insulation isn't just used to heat things up you know. Your stupid house insulation analogy was terrible because the only thing you took into account was the lack of insulation and the insulation being in place. You didn't take into account the fact that one would have to rip down whatever type of walling they had to put it up, you didn't take into account the many different kinds of insulation, you didn't take into account what kind of paint they were using, if they went to a new type of walling or not, did they paint it or wallpaper it this time? ALL OF THOSE THINGS MATTER. In order to make an observation you must first know everything there is to know, then when something changes you can observe the change. If you do not know everything then your observation may and probably is flawed because you aren't accounting for things.

 

[bfdd]

Prove yourself Right first. All you say is Fail, so I'm just laying out the Facts for you.

Sorry.

I'm not the one using the projections to justify something I believe in. You and others are. I'm saying not a single one of the projections you use to justify what you believe in has predicted the last decade correctly. Not a single one from someone pushing the MMGW agenda. If you can find otherwise prove me wrong, but as far as I've researched there's not a single one.