Global Warming - Fact or fiction?

[xavier]

you are showing here that your opinions aren't based on your logic, but your interests.

You mean my interests in not paying extortion to the third-world? My interests in not dealing another huge blow to a weak global economy on a basis that is, at best dubious, and at worst, entirely fraudulent? Color me guilty if that's what you meant...

Let me repeat, since you seem to have forgotten already: no one is saying we should just pollute away -- we like breathing clean air and drinking clean abundant water. But the hysteria has *got* to wind down among the doomsayers.

[jheld]

Hi Syd,

The problem with the graph you showed us is that the scale is too poor to conclude anything. On the surface it looks convincing, but you have to get into the details more. Example, CO2 could be trailing temperature (some graphs show 800 years). I.e., Earth can get warmer for a completely different reason (Sun spots, periodic changes in rotation, etc), then a few years later more CO2 is released as temperature rises. Meanwhile, here we are, 400,000 years later, looking at a graph saying "Oh Sh*t".

Scientists don't have a convincing model for climate change. The only thing we *do* know is that there are many variables: its complex, and its dynamic, so everything interacts. This means that we can't just look at CO2 and say, "that's the culprit".

-Jason

[VictorMoran]

Forget it syd, You will never be able to reason with an Ideologue by showing the science or the facts. When the evidence and the Science from all disciplines conquer,
a Conservative Ideologue just dismisses it by appealing to populism and discrediting the reputation of the source.
You presented data produced by different independent sources, but that does not matter, they will attack you with arguments from authority.

I didn't answer it because (a) it's a strawman in the context you presented it. You clearly don't understand the paper as a whole, so there's not much point in responding to your comment.

I must confess that my public education does not prepare me to understand the science of climate changes.
It looks like Xavier education not only empowers him to understand it, but it also empowers him to decide who is qualify to interpreted the data.

You see Syd, you and I will probably see videos from Xavier sources showing stuff like this:
http://www.cato.org/mediahighlights/ind ... ght_id=480
And we will conclude that doctor Patrick J. Michaels from the Cato Institute is a crack-pot scientist that is making stuff up for his corporate clients.
But I can guarantee you that Xavier sees something very different, he sees how the same data shows global cooling because it comes from the Cato Institute.
if you listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, and Glen Beck you will see where they the idea that the planet is cooling comes from.
In fact the say so in their shows: The Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation are the Intellectual Fire Power of Conservative talk.


When you have one guy saying: he does not give a **** to the environments and another rewriting Americans history by blaming the extinction of the Buffalo and the Bison in part on the Native American.

Species come and go entirely without human intervention. It's happened since the dawn of life on this planet, and will continue long after we're gone. I'm not talking about introducing non-indigenous species or killing all the bison in North America (a favorite pastime of the "native Americans" over the span of their time on this continent) --

You know you are fighting a losing battle.

[syd]

I didn't answer it because (a) it's a strawman in the context you presented it. You clearly don't understand the paper as a whole, so there's not much point in responding to your comment.

I did comment this article, point per point, debunking everything. that el nino story is just the funniest part (pretty localised isn't it?)

What sort of content are you expecting? It's a paper explaining why and how the actual observations do not match the models used to argue for anthropogenic climate change. That seems pretty clear to me...

I expect Data. Do you have articles that provides data? even Steven Spielberg is able to produce these papers.

First, you continue to make the mistake of extrapolating localized data to long-term trends -- not only is this incorrect, it's been debunked many times over. On that basis, I could just as easily claim that the fact that it's snowing in Houston, TX this week means that global warming is over, and we're entering a cooling down period now. If I did so, you would call that ludicrous, and you would be right to do so. The same goes for claiming temperature measurements over a ten-year period as "proof" of a trend in climate change.

which localized data?? the ice core from antartica?? you talk about the 387 ppm in Hawaii?? do you know why they chose hawai for measurements? because it's an island and doesn't suffer the influences of the emissions from the continent. these 387ppm is a result found everywhere else. antartica is pretty much neutral as well.

Second, the facts demonstrate your ignorance in this matter -- indeed, the scientists at the center of this email controversy state that they cannot explain why temperatures over the last ten years have not risen (and by all accounts have expressed great frustration at their inability to correlate CO2 and temperature on that basis).

one of the emails wrote:From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... uotes.html

yeah you're right... taken out of context. it's like if a programmer wrote "this may introduce a memory leak". it doesn't mean anything if you don't know the whole story. however, why the hell do you care about IPCC?? there are many other scientists out there.

Then you should be disappointed in your news media. On the other hand, Europeans seem to be more accepting and unquestioning of government control over their lives, so I am not surprised to hear a European say that they are satisfied with whatever the government tells them.

I've rarely seen strikes in the US. in europe, this is the way to question governments, we make huge strikes, and I can tell you they get pretty scared. in the US, nobody questioned the war in Irak, right? the french were questionning it if you remember.
however, you seem to think governements are broadcasting these stuff. this is completely wrong... governements don't want to hear about that. but organisations are putting them under pressure. look at this video, it happened this week, at the french nationnal assembly. It happenedin UK also.
Are governements happy with global warming?? certainly not.
In america, the only thing that concerns people is tax rates, am I right??

Is this just a mistake in translation, or did you contradict your statement from above? Do you live in Europe or America?

I big part of my family on my mother side is american. I've been living in Orange county, California, from 2004 to 2007.
Today i'm in Paris.

I like how you people think that this is something cooked up by the auto or energy industries. The fact is, auto manufacturers will make what people want to buy, regardless where it gets its energy. Energy producers will produce what people want to use, regardless of the source. If the world went solar tomorrow, BP (to name one) would simply shift resources to their solar division from their oil and gas divisions and continue as if nothing changed. The fact is, coal, oil and gas right now are by far the cheapest sources of energy on the planet, and even with all of the exploration costs, the cheapest to harvest and deliver. This is what people demand, this is what they deliver. It's called a "market-driven economy". We could go on about the resistance *from the environmentalists* to actual alternative energy initiatives within the private sector, but that's a different topic.

you're right, oil is a much more interesting business isn't it? they'll make the shift when this fact won't be true anymore.
what's interesting to point out is "market-driven economy" often implies also "market driven politics". each time I read you, you seem to believe europe is communism. Hey have you ever been there??

. The traditionnal Christian point of view (thinking about creationists) may not help too.

What has that got to do with anything, other than exposing more of your apparent bias?

Christians may not be ready to believe mankind is able to modify the planet in such way. If they don't believe in evolution, how could they do?

As tommo points out, rather than denying it, isn't it time for a paradigm shift ?

To what? Wrecking the global economy to make you and your friends feel better about yourselves, with no guarantee (and even evidence to the contrary) that such an action will have any significant effect? Man, talk about arrogance...

well... I truly wish a new era is about to come. but I simply don't believe it, that humans won't make it.
In the way you see things, economy is the bottom line, that's cultural, you've been leaned to think that way. Not me.
So no xavier, I don't care about the economy, and I don't care I'm not able to convince you, I just think it's already over, and there's nothing I can do

[syd]

Hi Syd,

The problem with the graph you showed us is that the scale is too poor to conclude anything. On the surface it looks convincing, but you have to get into the details more. Example, CO2 could be trailing temperature (some graphs show 800 years). I.e., Earth can get warmer for a completely different reason (Sun spots, periodic changes in rotation, etc), then a few years later more CO2 is released as temperature rises. Meanwhile, here we are, 400,000 years later, looking at a graph saying "Oh Sh*t".

Scientists don't have a convincing model for climate change. The only thing we *do* know is that there are many variables: its complex, and its dynamic, so everything interacts. This means that we can't just look at CO2 and say, "that's the culprit".

-Jason

Jason, this graph is the most reliable thing we can have about the past. whatever rotation or sunspot, these are averages.
if these data where not valid, scientists would have noticed it...

You know you are fighting a losing battle.

I know victor
I don't care, I'm just having fun pressing xavier's buttons
but I'm also debating, to allow the readers to make their own conclusions.
I'm happy to have you here, have lot of respect for you man =)


I'm going to bed now it's 3:30 am already!

[xavier]

I expect Data. Do you have articles that provides data? even Steven Spielberg is able to produce these papers.

If you cannot see the citations at the bottom of the paper, there's not much I can do to help you. On the other hand -- you do realize that the three paragraphs at the top of that web page are not the article, correct? That you can either get the PDF of it (linked on the page) or actually read it in the page itself (at the bottom of the page).

which localized data??

The data is localized around a 10-year period.

Second, the facts demonstrate your ignorance in this matter -- indeed, the scientists at the center of this email controversy state that they cannot explain why temperatures over the last ten years have not risen (and by all accounts have expressed great frustration at their inability to correlate CO2 and temperature on that basis).

one of the emails wrote:From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... uotes.html

yeah you're right... taken out of context. it's like if a programmer wrote "this may introduce a memory leak". it doesn't mean anything if you don't know the whole story. however, why the hell do you care about IPCC?? there are many other scientists out there.

Actually, it's nothing like ' if a programmer wrote "this may introduce a memory leak"'.

First, that statement doesn't need context -- it stands well on its own. Second, the emails in their entirety are readily available if you care to look; the context won't change the statement.

Why IPCC? Erm, because their reports and findings are the basis for action and treaties consummated at meetings such as the one in Copenhagen this month?

Really, syd, you need to pay more attention to the world around you.

As for other "scientists out there", I've given you one, but you keep wanting to call him a "lobbyist" because his opinion doesn't match yours.

Then you should be disappointed in your news media. On the other hand, Europeans seem to be more accepting and unquestioning of government control over their lives, so I am not surprised to hear a European say that they are satisfied with whatever the government tells them.

I've rarely seen strikes in the US. in europe, this is the way to question governments, we make huge strikes, and I can tell you they get pretty scared.

That's because in America, we have this notion that the government works for us, not the other way around. We question our government, and if we don't like the answer we get, we replace them.

Strikes in the US happen all the time -- it's just that they happen against private employers; the government employees in this country make way too much on average to bother with striking.

in the US, nobody questioned the war in Irak

Again, if you were paying attention, you would know just how much opposition there was to that action; trust me, it was more than half opposed, and it was out in the wide open.

however, you seem to think governements are broadcasting these stuff. this is completely wrong... governements don't want to hear about that. but organisations are putting them under pressure. look at this video, it happened this week, at the french nationnal assembly. It happenedin UK also.
Are governements happy with global warming?? certainly not.

I am entirely confused by what you are trying to say here..."these stuff"...what stuff? "about that"...about what? What do you mean "happy with global warming"?

In america, the only thing that concerns people is tax rates, am I right??

Hardly.

Is this just a mistake in translation, or did you contradict your statement from above? Do you live in Europe or America?

I big part of my family on my mother side is american. I've been living in Orange county, California, from 2004 to 2007.
Today i'm in Paris.

Gotcha -- thanks for the clarification. It certainly explains your somewhat skewed perspective on America if you were exposed mainly to Los Angeles for three years.

I like how you people think that this is something cooked up by the auto or energy industries. The fact is, auto manufacturers will make what people want to buy, regardless where it gets its energy. Energy producers will produce what people want to use, regardless of the source. If the world went solar tomorrow, BP (to name one) would simply shift resources to their solar division from their oil and gas divisions and continue as if nothing changed. The fact is, coal, oil and gas right now are by far the cheapest sources of energy on the planet, and even with all of the exploration costs, the cheapest to harvest and deliver. This is what people demand, this is what they deliver. It's called a "market-driven economy". We could go on about the resistance *from the environmentalists* to actual alternative energy initiatives within the private sector, but that's a different topic.

you're right, oil is a much more interesting business isn't it? they'll make the shift when this fact won't be true anymore.
what's interesting to point out is "market-driven economy" often implies also "market driven politics". each time I read you, you seem to believe europe is communism. Hey have you ever been there??

Not communist -- socialist. Some nations more than others.

As for "market driven poliitics" -- please clarify.

. The traditionnal Christian point of view (thinking about creationists) may not help too.

What has that got to do with anything, other than exposing more of your apparent bias?

Christians may not be ready to believe mankind is able to modify the planet in such way. If they don't believe in evolution, how could they do?

I would classify that as a failure in logic -- first, to assume that "all Christians don't believe in evolution" itself is a fallacy. Then to posit the first on the basis of the second...I can only conclude that you are "reaching" here.

well... I truly wish a new era is about to come. but I simply don't believe it, that humans won't make it.
In the way you see things, economy is the bottom line, that's cultural, you've been leaned to think that way. Not me.
So no xavier, I don't care about the economy, and I don't care I'm not able to convince you, I just think it's already over, and there's nothing I can do

Well, I don't know what you do for a living, but for the vast majority of working individuals on this planet, who derive their sustenance and therefore their existence from the economy and their role in it -- I think your opinion is sadly in the minority on this one.

Do you *really* believe in this "doomsday" to which you refer here?

I don't care, I'm just having fun pressing xavier's buttons

Interesting -- usually if someone's pressing my buttons I feel a lot more passionate about my posts. in your case, I thought I was just trying to guide someone through their misconceptions and confusion on a topic. Hmm..

[xavier]

You will never be able to reason with an Ideologue by showing the science or the facts.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing. I usually reserve that reminder only for your posts, Victor, but it appears you now have progeny.

[Bekas]

Second, the facts demonstrate your ignorance in this matter -- indeed, the scientists at the center of this email controversy state that they cannot explain why temperatures over the last ten years have not risen (and by all accounts have expressed great frustration at their inability to correlate CO2 and temperature on that basis).

From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"

"Lack of warming" explained.

[xavier]

Second, the facts demonstrate your ignorance in this matter -- indeed, the scientists at the center of this email controversy state that they cannot explain why temperatures over the last ten years have not risen (and by all accounts have expressed great frustration at their inability to correlate CO2 and temperature on that basis).

From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"

"Lack of warming" explained.

Then given the 10 pages of comments explaining it in your link, I can't account for the fact that a climate scientist apparently cannot account for it...

I am also somewhat suspicious of the site itself, given that Michael Mann and Caspar Ammann, two of the central figures in this email flap, are 50% of the contributing board.

That in itself is not enough to justify disregarding it out of hand; "guilt by association" is simply the flipside of "appeal to authority". However, the fact that when you read through pages and pages of comments, that the contributing scientists themselves can't even agree on the meaning of the measurements, is a strong indicator that the "jury is still out" on the topic.

[jheld]

As a scientist, we have a word for what is actually going on: INCONCLUSIVE

Their initial theories have problems (they call them "anomalies"). The leaked emails describing data "tricks" have seriously devalued their own results. Reports of data averaging, splicing, and removal of "anomalies" also mean that I no longer take much stock in their results. It's kind of like shooting a shotgun at the side of a barn, then walking up and painting a target. Same thing happened with cold fusion, by the way.

It doesn't mean that global warming isn't happening. It means we don't really know what it's doing or why.

Jason
ps- their approach to modelling complex systems also has issues, but that's a bit more of a critique of their method, than their integrity, so it's far less exciting.

[Jerky]

Jason, this graph is the most reliable thing we can have about the past. whatever rotation or sunspot, these are averages.
if these data where not valid, scientists would have noticed it...

See, that's the issue I have with the whole debate. That graph is the best we can do ... meaning, we really have no flipping clue. Did they happen to mention that they were able to get ~400,000 years of history in a only a couple thousand feet of ice? What does that come down to? Let's check it out a little: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

420,000 years divided by 2000 ft = 210 years per foot = 17.5 years per inch. That's not a lot of space to extrapolate a lot of good data that I can believe in. I realize that we don't have any other sources, so this is the best; but therein lies my point. We don't really have the data to make the call on this. It leaves a ton of room for error, not to mention that if the climate was different way back then, the numbers could mean something totally different, and things could have decayed or changed over time.

Also, if you look closely at the graph on that wikipedia page (the one with 3 measurements), it shows that while CO2 seems to be the highest (like you've been saying), BUT temperature is not. That to me ruins the correlation, or just proves that (like we have been saying) we don't really know squat. Also, look at it from 150,000 years ago and draw the line there. Imagine we were sitting there on the last upslope. We would be thinking the same darn thing we are right now: "OMG! It's getting hot! What have we done!" To me the graph only proves that there are cycles, which we already knew! What about the asteroids that hit the earth? They caused global climate change. Where are they reflected in the graph? I know many animal species that lived through that, so why are we not trying to learn from them. One of those asteroids could cause MUCH more harm in just a few minutes than we are right now.

Anyways, this debate is fun, but nobody is going to be convincing anybody of anything . You might be right that it is just us Americans who are crazy enough to argue against the so-called data, so what? We do a lot of stupid things . We also do a lot of insanely smart things too. What's to say we aren't on to something? Like I said before, give me data that makes sense and I will believe it. If you don't then I reserve my right to be skeptical. If that makes me arrogant and dumb in your book, then so be it. Agree to disagree.

[xavier]

Jason
ps- their approach to modelling complex systems also has issues, but that's a bit more of a critique of their method, than their integrity, so it's far less exciting.

For example, one of the issues (thanks to one of the comment threads on Bekas RC link):

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n ... eo578.html

[jacmoe]

Like I said before, give me data that makes sense and I will believe it. If you don't then I reserve my right to be skeptical. If that makes me arrogant and dumb in your book, then so be it. Agree to disagree.

I couldn't have put it better!
In my opinion, science is much like religion - more advanced, perhaps - but still pretty much a matter of belief.
What's the truth now, won't be the truth tomorrow.
The more we know, the more we know that we know so little.

That does not mean that we should cut down the rainforest and drill holes all over Northern Alaska..
Only the dumbest of fools shits in its own lair.

<edit>
And good to see (hear) you, Jerky!
</edit>

[Bekas]

Then given the 10 pages of comments explaining it in your link, I can't account for the fact that a climate scientist apparently cannot account for it...

The point is, an out-of-context quote from one scientist doesn't invalidate the whole scientific community.

I am also somewhat suspicious of the site itself, given that Michael Mann and Caspar Ammann, two of the central figures in this email flap, are 50% of the contributing board.

That in itself is not enough to justify disregarding it out of hand; "guilt by association" is simply the flipside of "appeal to authority". However, the fact that when you read through pages and pages of comments, that the contributing scientists themselves can't even agree on the meaning of the measurements, is a strong indicator that the "jury is still out" on the topic.

It so happens that the scientists in this site address this concern of yours as well:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... d-science/

[xavier]

Hehe -- still perusing the comments threads on the RealClimate site. One I found amusing...not trying to make a point with this one, just thought the appeal to Rumsfeld was funny.

Recycler wrote: “… just a pervasive layer of ignorance that spreads across most of the scientific community.”

What are you recycling other than drivel? Here we have the classic case of the crank who actually believes that he, and he alone, knows the SIMPLE AND OBVIOUS REASON why all of climate science is WRONG — a SIMPLE AND OBVIOUS REASON that has somehow eluded the grasp of hundreds and hundreds of dedicated, diligent, highly trained scientists from all over the world who have studied the issue for decades.


Wow! A little over-reaction, perhaps? Maybe I didn’t choose the most diplomatic of words, but let me explain, with some help from Donald Rumsfeld. “There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we do not know we don’t know.”

It’s obvious that the GCMs can only incorporate the known knowns. Do the model builders understand every aspect of each known physical process they incorporate? No,of course not, but the scientists who contribute them obviously do. But do these contributors understand all the others. That’s inconceivable, so they inevitably have unknown knowns.

And then there are the known areas of ignorance. These are listed in the AR4 report, as in all the others, and though the wording is designed to minimize the impact of the depth of ignorance, it is in places profound. Cloud physics, for example, interaction between the sun and the earth, the hugely complex but totally unknown cyclic variation in the sun (beyond the obvious sunspot cycle) and similar for the oceanic currents.

And then there are the unknown unknowns. Does anyone suppose for a moment the lists of unknown science in AR4 are complete?

So, by definition, there is a “pervasive layer of ignorance that spreads across most of the scientific community.” It’s inevitable, given the sizee and complexity of the problem.

So, Mr. Animist, I’m quite prepared for you to regard me as a crank, but I tend to regard scientists who are so convinced of the completeness of their understanding and the certainty of their belief in AGW as cranks, too. Or, at the very least, as lacking in a certain amount of intellectual honesty.

Unless you (and the rest of the RC regulars) can show convincingly how three quadrants of Rumsfeld’s analysis can be fully removed from the discussion of GCM results, I think you should carefully consider your position!


[Response: you need to spend more time reading past posts here. You will find frequent mention of Rumsfeld's dictum and a complete absence of evidence for the certainty you assert that we have with regards to the future. However if your point is to assert that since we don't know everything, we therefore know nothing, you are wasting your time and ours. -gavin]

It's encouraging to see a modicum of intellectual honesty in this crowd ("gavin" is one of the site contributors/maintainers).

[xavier]

It so happens that the scientists in this site address this concern of yours as well:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... d-science/

Oh trust me -- I've spent the past hour or two looking through pages and pages of comments; I have a pretty good fix on where each of these people stand.

The problem is that I have heard, more than once, variations that phrase: "the science on climate change is settled on this and people simply have to accept that". And for all the objective platitudes I see on that site's mission statement, the comments I see by its maintainers in the comments sections seem contradictory to the point of that article: that consensus exists on anthropogenic global warming and that people simply have to accept that. Indeed,

In the climate field, there are a number of issues which are no longer subject to fundamental debate in the community. The existence of the greenhouse effect, the increase in CO2 (and other GHGs) over the last hundred years and its human cause, and the fact the planet warmed significantly over the 20th Century are not much in doubt. IPCC described these factors as ‘virtually certain’ or ‘unequivocal’. The attribution of the warming over the last 50 years to human activity is also pretty well established – that is ‘highly likely’ and the anticipation that further warming will continue as CO2 levels continue to rise is a well supported conclusion. To the extent that anyone has said that the scientific debate is over, this is what they are referring to. In answer to colloquial questions like “Is anthropogenic warming real?”, the answer is yes with high confidence.

To me that says "the science is settled". And certainly this is an important distinction in the context of Copenhagen.

[Bekas]

Anyways, this debate is fun, but nobody is going to be convincing anybody of anything . You might be right that it is just us Americans who are crazy enough to argue against the so-called data, so what? [...] Agree to disagree.

This is not just a matter of a personal belief ("I may argue against evolution, so what?"). The point is that if the US (among the biggest polluters) keeps its head in the sand, it may have dire consequences for the whole planet.

[xavier]

Anyways, this debate is fun, but nobody is going to be convincing anybody of anything . You might be right that it is just us Americans who are crazy enough to argue against the so-called data, so what? [...] Agree to disagree.

This is not just a matter of a personal belief ("I may argue against evolution, so what?"). The point is that if the US (among the biggest polluters) keeps its head in the sand, it may have dire consequences for the whole planet.

The problem is the proposed solution. Currently that consists largely of a system of payola to a large cadre of third-world countries who have no interest in climate, yet love the idea of more handouts from the UN. It consists as well of a significant loss of sovereignty should a nation "default" on its obligations under the terms of Copenhagen (the ones that are currently floating around anyway) -- in the US, this means one step closer to "One World Government" that the crazy right has been on about for decades. Maybe the happy EU members are fine with that, but I am not, and I am not alone. Lastly, the US has seen a decline in CO2 emissions, and China has raced past us -- yet China has basically told Copenhagen attendees "yeah, we'll go ahead and do whatever we feel like and you can just go ahead and suck it if you don't like it". China has simply said they will think about reducing the rate of expected emissions growth -- yet the rest of the developed world would be called upon actually to reduce *current* output some percentage (80%?) below (I forget the exact year -- 1995?) levels. And of course since China makes everything that the rest of the world consumes, no one wants to tell them no.

So yeah, maybe you can understand the reticence of the United States and other developed nations (Canada isn't too happy about this either) about signing onto something this binding and potentially damaging, without *any* assurance that the ends justify the means.

[syd]

Like I said before, give me data that makes sense and I will believe it. If you don't then I reserve my right to be skeptical. If that makes me arrogant and dumb in your book, then so be it. Agree to disagree.

I couldn't have put it better!

okay you guys ready for data?

Vostok

As of 2003, the longest core drilled was at Vostok station. It reached back 420,000 years and revealed 4 past glacial cycles. Drilling stopped just above Lake Vostok. The Vostok core was not drilled at a summit, hence ice from deeper down has flowed from upslope; this slightly complicates dating and interpretation.Vostok core data are available.

here is the Vodstok data on NOAA.

In January 1998, the collaborative ice-drilling project between Russia, the United States, and France at the Russian Vostok station in East Antarctica yielded the deepest ice core ever recovered, reaching a depth of 3,623 m (Petit et al. 1997, 1999). Preliminary data indicate the Vostok ice-core record extends through four climate cycles, with ice slightly older than 400 kyr (Petit et al. 1997, 1999).

So here is measured co2 rates, and the temperatures reconstructions (here I don't get it)

so now that you got the data that make sence, you guys believe it ??

[xavier]

now that you got the data, you guys believe it now??

I thought you went to bed?

So your "proof" is a set of raw data? Can you even explain what the data is saying?

[syd]

I thought you went to bed?

slept 4 hours, now it's time to go to work (8am)

So your "proof" is a set of raw data? Can you even explain what the data is saying?

don't understand the temperature reconstruction thing.
the co2 is easy.
however if you understand it, parse it, and make a graph from it, you get the graph I showed.
but they asked for pure brute data didn't they??

[xavier]

Maybe I missed it but the only one who was on about data was yourself...

New topic: so as I am reading through section 8.3 of this

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/Climat ... teVol1.pdf

(which actually provides many more questions than answers, and was found via link-crawling in a rebuttal of a particularly egregious example of pseudo-science here: http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.p ... cheuschner )

I noticed one thing; first it was mentioned in the Smith paper, and reiterated in the link above: the focus has been on CO2 emissions and trying to tie those to the greenhouse effect (even though it makes up only trace composition in the atmosphere, 0.3% by volume), and a tiny bit of handwaving was provided to other gases in the atmosphere (such as nitrogen and oxygen). Granted, N2 is an inert gas so considering it in the context of silicate weathering is probably futile, but from what I can tell, no one has done any real work on anything other than CO2 and to a lesser extent, CH4.

So I was wondering: what ever happened to the Great Ozone Scare? You don't hear about ozone anymore; was that "problem" "solved"? Since ozone is responsible for absorbing incoming radiation (about 19%) it would seem reasonable that less ozone == more incident radiation == higher surface temperatures. "Ozone's contribution to the enhancement of greenhouse effect is still yet to be quantified."

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7h.html


One paper seems to suggest that "fixing" the ozone problem may actually contribute to increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere (at least how I read the abstract):

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 06059.html

Never a dull moment in climate science, eh?

[Jerky]

so now that you got the data that make sence, you guys believe it ??

Actually, no. That data only goes to 1950, so we have to go to other sources.

This page is a better step to understanding the data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

There is one major problem I have with it though: It says "Human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation have caused the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to increase by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization." This is simply not a true scientific statement. Just because the CO2 levels went up 35% during that time period does not automatically mean it was us that did it. Remember, we were already on the upslope, and the world can do that part on its own. The data clearly shows that the earth would have gone on that upslope without humans, so to say we caused all of it is just stupid. Moreover, the data only shows us 5 peaks and 4 ice ages. So we happen to be on the highest of the 5 peaks right now. That is still only 420,000 years of history. The fossil record goes back 3.5 BILLION years. Where is the other 3.5 billion years of data (the data set we are looking at won't even let me make that a 3.499, because it is so minuscule)? So, what they're trying to tell me is that because this is the only data we have, that we must believe it as fact? No good.

Now, once again, let me state that I am not saying we are not having an effect. I just don't think we should over-react based on weak data. I do agree, however, that under-reacting would be a bad thing. I think more analysis is needed before people sit in conferences and try to decide anything that effects the whole world and all its economies.

So, after reading the raw data I am still unconvinced. Shame on me

When I was a kid, the talk was about the depleted Ozone layer and all the CFC's we were releasing. The world came up with the Montreal Protocol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol) and has now long forgotten it. Turn's out, the scientists were wrong *gasp* to target CFC's, since it's really the HCFC's that cause the harm. I'm sure this couldn't be similar in any way.
<edit>Just noticed xavier references the ozone thing too. I didn't see that when I wrote this last paragraph, but I don't think it needs to be modified</edit>

[jjp]

So I was wondering: what ever happened to the Great Ozone Scare? You don't hear about ozone anymore; was that "problem" "solved"? Since ozone is responsible for absorbing incoming radiation (about 19%) it would seem reasonable that less ozone == more incident radiation == higher surface temperatures. "Ozone's contribution to the enhancement of greenhouse effect is still yet to be quantified."

That it doesn't come up in the media right now does not mean it is a solved problem. I guess you know that the scare about the ozone layer was not related to a fear of climate change but of UV radiation.

[Jerky]

So I was wondering: what ever happened to the Great Ozone Scare? You don't hear about ozone anymore; was that "problem" "solved"? Since ozone is responsible for absorbing incoming radiation (about 19%) it would seem reasonable that less ozone == more incident radiation == higher surface temperatures. "Ozone's contribution to the enhancement of greenhouse effect is still yet to be quantified."

That it doesn't come up in the media right now does not mean it is a solved problem. I guess you know that the scare about the ozone layer was not related to a fear of climate change but of UV radiation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depl ... al_warming