World may not be warming, say scientists

[chucky2]

No, you scream "the end of the world is near!", because everyone knows ice isn't supposed to melt.

Actually, you have a bet with someone that you'll give them huge sums of money if the ice in the glass melts faster than it normally would just sitting out on the table in normal air. If they're wrong, they lose their job and aren't famous.

They are the only ones that can monitor if the ice melted faster than ambient (what they're betting on), or the same time (what you're betting on).

They report back to you that it indeed melted faster than ambient. You ask how that's possible, and they explain it's because the neighbor farted in his house, and the dog outside crapped closer to the house, thereby increasing the temperature.

You call BS, and ask for his raw data.

He doesn't give it to you, and tells his buddies who also are going to get a bunch of money if he wins the bet to 'check his data'. They amazingly proclaim him right.

Now the analogy's accurate.

Chuck

 

[Amused]

Actually, you have a bet with someone that you'll give them huge sums of money if the ice in the glass melts faster than it normally would just sitting out on the table in normal air. If they're wrong, they lose their job and aren't famous.

They are the only ones that can monitor if the ice melted faster than ambient (what they're betting on), or the same time (what you're betting on).

They report back to you that it indeed melted faster than ambient. You ask how that's possible, and they explain it's because the neighbor farted in his house, and the dog outside crapped closer to the house, thereby increasing the temperature.

You call BS, and ask for his raw data.

He doesn't give it to you, and tells his buddies who also are going to get a bunch of money if he wins the bet to 'check his data'. They amazingly proclaim him right.

Now the analogy's accurate.

Chuck

Brilliant!!!

 

[NeoV]

I get it - a few remotely questionable phrases among thousands of documents - and all the scientific data supporting global warming theories is out the window

I get it now

pick and choose poorly understood phrases/comments, distort - show as proof - then start namecalling

funny how the anti-global warming crowd uses the same tactics the GOP uses to distort real issues....coincidence?

I think not

 

[Amused]

I get it - a few remotely questionable phrases among thousands of documents - and all the scientific data supporting global warming theories is out the window

I get it now

pick and choose poorly understood phrases/comments, distort - show as proof - then start namecalling

funny how the anti-global warming crowd uses the same tactics the GOP uses to distort real issues....coincidence?

I think not

Um, when the comments in the documents show manipulation of the very data the MMGW theory is based on, vows to destroy said data instead of release it for critical review and concerted efforts to silence any and all dissent???

Yes. Throw it all away and start over.

 

[Ozoned]

Please note that the graph is almost entirely composed of spikes (up and down). Sudden variation is the norm not the exception. The fact of the matter is that we don't understand all the variables involved and to say with 100% certainty that CO2 emissions over the past 100 years is solely responsible for the current spike is a real stretch...especially when observations tell us that these spikes were not uncommon when manmade CO2 was not a factor.

Our climate models are a direct reflection of what we know about our climate and how it works. From the graph I previously posted you can see that the models are failing to properly predict current climate variations. And to add insult to injury...they cannot even remotely replicate past climate changes as clearly seen in the ice core data. Climate science is young and there's so much we don't know. Unfortunately it's been politicized to the point of being qualified for a religious tax exemption.

You say this is your field...what's your take on Climategate and all the related fallout?

Has anybody bothered putting historical co2 and historical temperature records together on a graph?

 

[werepossum]

Actually, you have a bet with someone that you'll give them huge sums of money if the ice in the glass melts faster than it normally would just sitting out on the table in normal air. If they're wrong, they lose their job and aren't famous.

They are the only ones that can monitor if the ice melted faster than ambient (what they're betting on), or the same time (what you're betting on).

They report back to you that it indeed melted faster than ambient. You ask how that's possible, and they explain it's because the neighbor farted in his house, and the dog outside crapped closer to the house, thereby increasing the temperature.

You call BS, and ask for his raw data.

He doesn't give it to you, and tells his buddies who also are going to get a bunch of money if he wins the bet to 'check his data'. They amazingly proclaim him right.

Now the analogy's accurate.

Chuck

That's an excellent analogy.

Say you're a scientist doing research on tiny fossilized worms. A dozen people in the world care about your research - maybe - and you're constantly in fear of losing your funding. BUT - produce a peer reviewed paper stating that your tiny fossilized worms prove CAGW and suddenly you're a rock star. You move up the ladder for grants to pursue your suddenly important tiny fossilized worms, your boss is happy, his boss is happy, you get interviews from main stream magazines and other media, and suddenly you're saving the Earth. Best of all, numerous science outlets will guarantee that your "peer review" process is performed by friendly scientists, your data and formulas can remain secret, and if you're ever forced to disclose the data our tax money funded you can simply "lose" them with no consequences. Just blame it on poor record keeping.

Conversely, produce a paper claiming that past temperatures were higher and you're suddenly a pariah who'd better have a trust fund or an uncle at BP. Your funding will dry up and you'll likely find yourself unemployed because your work actually discourages funding to your university/government bureau/organization. You'll be criticized in print by people you've never even met as a tool of Big Oil, no matter how well documented your data and methodology. And to the Cultists this is all well and good because any evidence that doesn't fit is proof of a conspiracy to obstruct "real science" and thereby destroy the planet to benefit Big Oil.

 

[commondreamer]

Greenland GISP2 ice core sample showing proxie temperature ranges for 10,000 years.

http://ncwatch.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451e28a69e201310f43617b970c-pi

Not unprecedented temp change is it?

Good find, I was looking for this one for a while. Yes, when 10,000 years ago our temperatures where higher, it makes less of a case that any warming or cooling is due to man. We can actually go back over 100k years in fact.

Solar maximus was in the Middle ages, not sure exactly how many cars were around then but I would think it was one or less.

 

[sandorski]

Good find, I was looking for this one for a while. Yes, when 10,000 years ago our temperatures where higher, it makes less of a case that any warming or cooling is due to man. We can actually go back over 100k years in fact.

Solar maximus was in the Middle ages, not sure exactly how many cars were around then but I would think it was one or less.

Complete Logic Fail.

 

[commondreamer]

Complete Logic Fail.

well now that explains it all.

Hmm, reminds me of a magic show I watched as a kid 20 years ago.

You cannot have the highest temperatures of the modern world happen in 1055 and still say that driving cars now is causing global warming and that you must pay more money to somebody, we are not sure who yet, will help.

Sorry, but derailing science to get money from the populace on this subject is absolutely an unprovable issue is no different from those that asked for money as a tribute so that they are able to go to heaven.

It fact it speaks volumes that those such as your self can get little sheep into a furry over death and destruction. Sorry, we see nothing as such, in fact, a warming of the globe might be a great thing as we go into a protracted cooling event, admitted by the head of the EPA since 1995......

Ohhh but she says that although it has been almost 20 years "ya never know when global warming might begin" LOL

Sorry CO2 is not a pollutant, can you understand that, or is it that beyond your understanding, that 99.9% comes from the evaporation of the oceans?

The oceans are many things, one thing they are not is a pollutant,

Try to not be either a sheep or a shill, think for yourself, that may be too much to hope for but I remain hopeful.

You cannot take money from the populace to treat the atmosphere. Does that make sense? When 78% of the pollutants come from emerging countries, I am talking about, lead, mercury etc not the air we exhale, we can see that this is in fact less about the environment and more about the taxing and the further destruction of the US middle class, that is those that have some money, but not for long. The US economy is going down fast and faster.

You will not bring us into more bondage with ignorant laws and very ignorant people that know anything about science.

13 trillion in debt can never be repaid ever and 90% of it happened in the last 3 years, including both parties. This is something much larger.

Protect your families now.

Good luck

 

[sandorski]

well now that explains it all.

Hmm, reminds me of a magic show I watched as a kid 20 years ago.

You cannot have the highest temperatures of the modern world happen in 1055 and still say that driving cars now is causing global warming and that you must pay more money to somebody, we are not sure who yet, will help.

Sorry, but derailing science to get money from the populace on this subject is absolutely an unprovable issue is no different from those that asked for money as a tribute so that they are able to go to heaven.

It fact it speaks volumes that those such as your self can get little sheep into a furry over death and destruction. Sorry, we see nothing as such, in fact, a warming of the globe might be a great thing as we go into a protracted cooling event, admitted by the head of the EPA since 1995......

Ohhh but she says that although it has been almost 20 years "ya never know when global warming might begin" LOL

Sorry CO2 is not a pollutant, can you understand that, or is it that beyond your understanding, that 99.9% comes from the evaporation of the oceans?

The oceans are many things, one thing they are not is a pollutant,

Try to not be either a sheep or a shill, think for yourself, that may be too much to hope for but I remain hopeful.

You cannot take money from the populace to treat the atmosphere. Does that make sense? When 78% of the pollutants come from emerging countries, I am talking about, lead, mercury etc not the air we exhale, we can see that this is in fact less about the environment and more about the taxing and the further destruction of the US middle class, that is those that have some money, but not for long. The US economy is going down fast and faster.

You will not bring us into more bondage with ignorant laws and very ignorant people that know anything about science.

13 trillion in debt can never be repaid ever and 90% of it happened in the last 3 years, including both parties. This is something much larger.

Protect your families now.

Good luck

Stop Failing.

 

[commondreamer]

Stop Failing.

That is a very concise, erudite, intelligent and amazing response.

That explains not anything. But it does seem to say that those that have no science can do nothing.

I am a scientist, and can take you to the hilt, just try me. Lets go my friend.

CO2 is what comes out of our mouth and other living things that in fact make it very positive for plants to grow, do you wish to challenge me on this?

If so lets go, I will go on national TV or on anything to do with the internet I will, you will not as your information is based on information that is completely false, challenge me I dare you, I dare you.

Edit, I will come to your place anywhere you choose, LOL you cannot, I suppose and you are a fraud

 

[monovillage]

Has anybody bothered putting historical co2 and historical temperature records together on a graph?

Here's an article that may show what you want.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/

 

[sandorski]

That is a very concise, erudite, intelligent and amazing response.

That explains not anything. But it does seem to say that those that have no science can do nothing.

I am a scientist, and can take you to the hilt, just try me. Lets go my friend.

CO2 is what comes out of our mouth and other living things that in fact make it very positive for plants to grow, do you wish to challenge me on this?

If so lets go, I will go on national TV or on anything to do with the internet I will, you will not as your information is based on information that is completely false, challenge me I dare you, I dare you.

Edit, I will come to your place anywhere you choose, LOL you cannot, I suppose and you are a fraud

Give me a break. Scientist of what? I'm calling shens as your arguments are stupid.

 

[commondreamer]

Give me a break. Scientist of what? I'm calling shens as your arguments are stupid.

I am a Geophysicist, If you would like to go there then thets get to know eahc other better. We all wish to know about you.

 

[commondreamer]

Give me a break. Scientist of what? I'm calling shens as your arguments are stupid.

In fact I will meet you in person and you will do the same, lets us go, are you game?

A 47 story building falling at free fall speed, lets get it on.

I will do an interview with all persons 1400 persons, now at this time

Are you ready to go there, I am, lets us go, lets go now, right now, come on young man, lets go

call me now, I am ready with 1000 archetichs and engineers.

 

[sandorski]

In fact I will meet you in person and you will do the same, lets us go, are you game?

A 47 story building falling at free fall speed, lets get it on.

I will do an interview with all persons 1400 persons, now at this time

Are you ready to go there, I am, lets us go, lets go now, right now, come on young man, lets go

Put down the bong and quit with the E-Toughy act. Which Blog of Fail is yours? You got the nuttiness of a Limbaugh about you.

 

[NeoV]

umm...

"Sorry CO2 is not a pollutant, can you understand that, or is it that beyond your understanding, that 99.9% comes from the evaporation of the oceans?

The oceans are many things, one thing they are not is a pollutant, "

99.9 percent of CO2 comes from the evaporation of the oceans?

You are kidding, right?

Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 gigatonnes. The ocean releases about 332 gigatonnes. In contrast, when you combine the effect of fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, human CO2 emissions are only around 29 gigatonnes per year. However, natural CO2 emissions (from the ocean and vegetation) are balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Land plants absorb about 450 gigatonnes of CO2 per year and the ocean absorbs about 338 gigatonnes. This keeps atmospheric CO2 levels in rough balance. Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance.

is that basic enough for you to understand? Do I need to show you how wrong your math is too?

 

[Throckmorton]

commondreamer, if you're really a geophysicist, why do you lack any understanding of the carbon cycle? Did you skip those classes or something?

 

[Munky]

umm...

"Sorry CO2 is not a pollutant, can you understand that, or is it that beyond your understanding, that 99.9% comes from the evaporation of the oceans?

The oceans are many things, one thing they are not is a pollutant, "

99.9 percent of CO2 comes from the evaporation of the oceans?

You are kidding, right?

Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 gigatonnes. The ocean releases about 332 gigatonnes. In contrast, when you combine the effect of fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, human CO2 emissions are only around 29 gigatonnes per year. However, natural CO2 emissions (from the ocean and vegetation) are balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Land plants absorb about 450 gigatonnes of CO2 per year and the ocean absorbs about 338 gigatonnes. This keeps atmospheric CO2 levels in rough balance. Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance.

is that basic enough for you to understand? Do I need to show you how wrong your math is too?

Complete logic fail. You're taking 2 independent bits of information - that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that humans contribute a fraction of it - and jump to a ridiculous conclusion that any trend in warming must be caused by the human contribution. That's a gross simplifications of the climate system, and anyone trying to justify AGW claims with such simpleton math shouldn't be allowed anywhere near policy making procedures.

This is exactly why such claims must be verified and cross-verified based on data, more data, and every step must be scrutinized and debated. Ironically, it's also exactly what the so-called "climatology scientists" have fought against with tooth and nail.

 

[Throckmorton]

Please note that the graph is almost entirely composed of spikes (up and down). Sudden variation is the norm not the exception. The fact of the matter is that we don't understand all the variables involved and to say with 100% certainty that CO2 emissions over the past 100 years is solely responsible for the current spike is a real stretch...especially when observations tell us that these spikes were not uncommon when manmade CO2 was not a factor.

Our climate models are a direct reflection of what we know about our climate and how it works. From the graph I previously posted you can see that the models are failing to properly predict current climate variations. And to add insult to injury...they cannot even remotely replicate past climate changes as clearly seen in the ice core data. Climate science is young and there's so much we don't know. Unfortunately it's been politicized to the point of being qualified for a religious tax exemption.

You say this is your field...what's your take on Climategate and all the related fallout?

The rate we are experiencing now is way higher than usual. Just because you see a spike on a graph doesn't mean it's the same rate.

CO2 and other GGs are the only things that would cause the current spike. The sun hasn't gotten brighter. The earth isn't at a point in its orbit that would cause this warming.

Meanwhile, the GG increase we have caused DOES explain the current warming. In fact it would be physically impossible for it NOT to cause this warming.

I don't know how many times I have to explain it.

 

[Throckmorton]

Complete logic fail. You're taking 2 independent bits of information - that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that humans contribute a fraction of it - and jump to a ridiculous conclusion that any trend in warming must be caused by the human contribution. That's a gross simplifications of the climate system, and anyone trying to justify AGW claims with such simpleton math shouldn't be allowed anywhere near policy making procedures.

This is exactly why such claims must be verified and cross-verified based on data, more data, and every step must be scrutinized and debated. Ironically, it's also exactly what the so-called "climatology scientists" have fought against with tooth and nail.

What he's telling you is that humans burning fossil fuels is what has caused the current increase in greenhouse gas.

Come on, this is really simple. Fossil fuels have been in the ground for millions of years. We are burning them and releasing carbon dioxide. We're also releasing some by burning rainforests, disturbing soil, and making concrete. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing by that amount, minus what the oceans have stepped up and absorbed. Every other "source" of CO2 that exists, like vegetation rotting and animals breathing, is only releasing carbon that was recently absorbed from the atmosphere.

 

[Munky]

What he's telling you is that humans burning fossil fuels is what has caused the current increase in greenhouse gas.

Come on, this is really simple. Fossil fuels have been in the ground for millions of years. We are burning them and releasing carbon dioxide. We're also releasing some by burning rainforests, disturbing soil, and making concrete. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing by that amount, minus what the oceans have stepped up and absorbed. Every other "source" of CO2 that exists, like vegetation rotting and animals breathing, is only releasing carbon that was recently absorbed from the atmosphere.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. Historically we've had much higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere long before anyone burned fossil fuels. That automatically disqualifies the assumption that just because the CO2 is increasing that it must be caused by burning fossil fuels. Not to mention all the other unproven assumptions, like that the CO2 changes are causing temperature swings, that the temperatures will continue to rise, that the rise in temperatures will result in catastrophic consequences, and that there's a damn thing we can do to stop it.

 

[Throckmorton]

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. Historically we've had much higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere long before anyone burned fossil fuels. That automatically disqualifies the assumption that just because the CO2 is increasing that it must be caused by burning fossil fuels. Not to mention all the other unproven assumptions, like that the CO2 changes are causing temperature swings, that the temperatures will continue to rise, that the rise in temperatures will result in catastrophic consequences, and that there's a damn thing we can do to stop it.

That's right, there was more CO2 in the atmosphere, and the world was much much warmer. Dinosaurs liked it. Then it was sequestered. A lot of it got turned into CaCO3 (limestone) and other rocks, and locked away forever (except for concrete manufacturing). Some was turned into fossil fuels. Seriously. That's what fossil fuel is--- sequestered carbon that was taken out of the atmosphere during a much warmer time. That's why we have had such a nice climate for the past few million years. Now we're releasing a big chunk of that carbon.

You can test the heat retention properties of CO2 in a jar in a lab. It's not disputable.

 

[sandorski]

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. Historically we've had much higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere long before anyone burned fossil fuels. That automatically disqualifies the assumption that just because the CO2 is increasing that it must be caused by burning fossil fuels. Not to mention all the other unproven assumptions, like that the CO2 changes are causing temperature swings, that the temperatures will continue to rise, that the rise in temperatures will result in catastrophic consequences, and that there's a damn thing we can do to stop it.

WTF? Think about what you're typing.

 

[Munky]

That's right, there was more CO2 in the atmosphere, and the world was much much warmer. Dinosaurs liked it. Then it was sequestered. A lot of it got turned into CaCO3 (limestone) and other rocks, and locked away forever. Some was turned into fossil fuels. That's why we have had such a nice climate for the past few million years. Now we're releasing a big chunk of that carbon.

That still doesn't prove that the CO2 caused the warming, or the destruction of dinosaurs. Also, there were higher CO2 levels during the last few thousand years, long after the dinosaurs went extinct, and we survived just fine.