My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Turtle]

Not really the same thing Turtle.

I didn't see any name calling or lack of references there.

It was a well spelled out position with a nice summary of a full paper.

I look forward to the peer reviewed article when it becomes available.

 

? Little Bang's quote said nothing about name-calling, and it is his 'axe' I referred to.

We sometimes defend what we want the truth to be with rhetoric that excludes the real truth.

 

Also of interest is that Dr. Spencer is a meteorologist, and as a group, meteorologists have expressed skepticism over the methods & conclusions of the climatologists and their models right along the way.

..."Our paper is an important step toward validating a gut instinct that many meteorologists like myself have had over the years," said Spencer, "that the climate system is dominated by stabilizing processes, rather than destabilizing processes -- that is, negative feedback rather than positive feedback." ...

UAHuntsville News

 

What do you want the truth to be?

[Moontanman]

What do you want the truth to be?

 

I want The Star Ship Enterprise (TNG Version) to show up and rescue us all! So far reality seems to interfering with all my wants. Actually what I would really like to see is the truth with out all the posturing of politics, religion, egos, and personal agendas getting in the way.

[freeztar]

I'm actually surprised it took this long for that report to be mentioned in this thread. ;)

 

I share Zyth's enthusiasm for the up-coming peer-reviewed article. Any data that can help fine-tune climate models is certainly welcome. :phones:

[Zythryn]

My apologies Turtle. I mistakenly thought that was in reference to the email from the Weather Channel founder and the tactics used in it.

 

As for what I want, I want to be able to objectively look at the data and base my conclusions logically on that. I don't want to be swayed by emotional arguments, appeals to authority, or other illogical reasoning. I also want our policy makers to be able to objectively follow the data as well.

[freeztar]

If anyone is interested, the US Climate Change Science Program has released a report entitled "Scientific Assessment of the Effects of Global Change on the United States". It can be found here:

Scientific Assessment

[Turtle]

My apologies Turtle. I mistakenly thought that was in reference to the email from the Weather Channel founder and the tactics used in it.

 

As for what I want, I want to be able to objectively look at the data and base my conclusions logically on that. I don't want to be swayed by emotional arguments, appeals to authority, or other illogical reasoning. I also want our policy makers to be able to objectively follow the data as well.

 

Acknowledged. ;) I do think it's worth noting, that all the arguments ultimately make appeals to authority, so that's no justification to disregard any arguments. Otherwise, as you suggest, one has to determine for him or her self, which 'authorities' deserve their trust.

 

Whether weather plays a roll in all this or not, mine remains un-seasonably cool.

[Essay]

Speaking of Authority: -see below....

 

News | Africa - Reuters.com

...for the newest new data.

Scientific sleuths find seas warming, rising faster

Thu 19 Jun 2008, 11:51 GMT

By David Fogarty

 

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Scientific detective work has uncovered a decades-old glitch in ocean temperature measurements and revealed that the world's seas are warming and rising faster than previously reported.

Correcting the error in data running over decades as well as applying a complex statistical analysis to sea temperature data, the team came up with a global estimate of ocean warming in the top layers down to 700 metres (2,300 feet) as well as how fast oceans are rising.

"We show that the rate of ocean warming from 1961 to 2003 is about 50 percent larger than previously reported," said team member Catia Domingues, from the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research.

 

I've been seeing a lot of blogging about the fallacy of global warming lately, based on older "new data." Several times in the past 15 pages it's come up here, and....

Here are two examples from elsewhere:

 

Human Influence on Climate - Science a GoGo's Discussion Forums

 

This starts out kind of wildly, posts #1-4, but settles into a discussion on the fallacy of global warming, due to the "logarithmic effect" of CO2's IR absorption.

I think the idea is pretty soundly debunked; certainly the challenges are not answered. The provenance of these "logarithmic ideas" is explored also.

 

Page 1 (or p.1-2), posts 5-20, is an interesting back and forth about greenhouse physics.

Just scan #4, RicS, ...to save a lot of time.

 

Page 2 (or p.3-4), post 21-40, begins getting into the physics of atmospheric heating, with some really notable websites. I was shocked to see the extent of unsupportable conjecturing out there in the blogosphere. There are some tangents about ground temperature and air with paul that can be passed over to keep on the topic of CO2.

Very detailed physical and quantum chemistry here on page 2,

 

...and there on page 3.

Page 3 (or p.5-6), posts 41-60, goes further into the physics of absorption, and also begins debunking the logarithmic argument. The last 4 posts are not worth a lot of effort. Some of the graphs don't show up, but you can right click and get the address from "properties." Look for unchallenged accusations also!

 

Page 4 (or p.7), posts 61-70: The first post just continues the previous 4; but after that it starts getting into a back and forth about the mathematics of logarithms (pretty easy, really, if you just follow them through) and graphing equations.

 

I'm not sure who knows their math better; but I have an unreasonably strong opinion and I'm biased, so I must defer.

It'd be nice to see an outside opinion to assess the quality, progress, and summations. (hint, hint; nudge, nudge)

 

Overall it's like a soap opera; ...the continuing warming story, with just a few (obvious) mistakes and just a few flights into "personalized views of physics," I think.

Dr. Archibald's contributions figure prominently in a few episodes!

Steve McIntyre and climatAudit also makes a few "guest appearances," ...by reference only.

Biochemist should be especially interested in this!

 

...also, (esp. Turtle & Biochemist), re: Authority....

Be sure to check out:

Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - Science a GoGo's Discussion Forums

...for a enlightening expose' on the "authority" of climate speculations (followed by a response from the web-site's Author!) and more.

===

 

...mainly though:

Sea-Temp Computers Updated - Science a GoGo's Discussion Forums

Sea-Temp Computers Updated

 

This is only 4 posts long and full of good sciencey stuff.

Hope this helps.

 

:naughty:

[hp69]

I suppose that the scientific findings are relatively evident eginerdude! I am scientist as well and I believe in data measured because I can see with my own eyes what my instruments and my sensory organs approve.

 

I think there can be no doubt, that te impact on Earth and especially on the climate by human activity is real.

Numerous peer reviewed studies confirm this. The only question is, to which extent and when will all this change happen.

 

Here some references from short summaries of recent peer review papers about the topic I found on a science-website.

 

Rainforests clean up world athmosphere

 

Climate change accelerates

 

I think who ever argues (like some politician morons (....I won`t name persons) and puppets of oil companies) that there is no proof for anthropogenic impact on our climate is acting on the expense of all mankind and our children and grandchildren.

 

The oil age is over...we should head forward towards fundamental new energy supplies. This will not only help to make this earth a cleaner but also more peaceful place.

 

Cheers

[freeztar]

This is rather interesting. Forty nine percent of GOPers polled said that they did not believe that the Earth is heating up.

 

49% - GOPers Doubt Global Warming - Yahoo! News

 

This just goes to show the amount of ignorance among the general public regarding climate science. The Earth *IS* heating up on a global scale. It's like someone showing you a thermometer with your temperature reading over 100 degrees and refusing to believe the thermometer.

 

:thumbs_do

[REASON]

This is rather interesting. Forty nine percent of GOPers polled said that they did not believe that the Earth is heating up.

 

Hmm. I wonder why it's "GOPers." :thumbs_do

[InfiniteNow]

This is rather interesting. Forty nine percent of GOPers polled said that they did not believe that the Earth is heating up.

 

<...>

 

The Earth *IS* heating up on a global scale. It's like someone showing you a thermometer with your temperature reading over 100 degrees and refusing to believe the thermometer.

 

You know that GOP stands for the Gas and Oil Party, don't you? :thumbs_do

[REASON]

This appears to be a good place in the discussion to link to a recent Bill Moyers' Journal piece about how our government attempted to deal with new energy legislation in the Senate involving the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act that included a Cap and Trade provision intended to stem the harmful effects of CO2 emissions over time, and encourage investment in alternative energy sources.

 

It is a good summary of how the bill was ultimately killed.

 

PBS - Bill Moyers' Journal - Climate Security

[InfiniteNow]

Yes. I watched that myself on Friday night. I was more taken by the final segment of the show about the oil executives and Cheney meeting 2 years before the Iraq invasion, but the part about how Congress has ignored the global warming issue for over 20 years is rather distressing as well.

 

 

 

Two decades later, even as the leading scientists in the world have reached a consensus that global warming truly does threaten the planet, Congress still has not passed any law mandating major cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions. So this week, twenty years to the day after his first appearance, Dr. Hansen was back to tell press and politicians of some striking similarities between then and now and one crucial difference. "The difference is that now we have used up all slack in the schedule for actions needed to defuse the global warming time bomb."

 

<...>

 

BARBARA BOXER: Now, today, you will hear from those who wish to kill this bill, kill it, kill it as dead as they can. They say it is too complicated, that we should do nothing and we should continue the status quo. Well, the status quo is devastating, my friends. The scientists have told us that.

[REASON]

Yes. I watched that myself on Friday night. I was more taken by the final segment of the show about the oil executives and Cheney meeting 2 years before the Iraq invasion....

 

Oh, you mean this part:

 

PBS - Bill Moyers Journal - Moyers on Big Oil

 

Yes, you are referring to the famous Energy Task Force meetings at the White House with representatives of the major oil and energy conglomerates in 2001 that were so secret that the Supreme Court ruled that the Administration could avoid revealing to the public the entirety of what was discussed in those meetings.

 

I assume that's because if it were revealed that the discussions were about how to divvy up the oil spoils in Iraq after our invasion and occupation for regime change six months prior to 9/11, it wouldn't go over very well.

[Grains]

DailyTech - Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

[InfiniteNow]

DailyTech - Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

 

Yeah, it's called La Niña, and the Daily Tech makes zero mention of that slightly important point. :)

 

God. Even FOX News was able to get that one right. :)

 

 

EO Newsroom: New Images - La Nina and Pacific Decadal Oscillation Cool the Pacific

A cool-water anomaly known as La Niña occupied the tropical Pacific Ocean throughout 2007 and early 2008. In April 2008, scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory announced that while the La Niña was weakening, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation—a larger-scale, slower-cycling ocean pattern—had shifted to its cool phase.

 

 

JPL.NASA.GOV: News Releases

The comings and goings of El Niño, La Niña and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation are part of a longer, ongoing change in global climate,” said Josh Willis, a JPL oceanographer and climate scientist. Sea level rise and global warming due to increases in greenhouse gases can be strongly affected by large natural climate phenomenon such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the El Nino-Southern Oscillation. “In fact,” said Willis, “these natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities."

[Grains]

Yeah, it's called La Niña, and the Daily Tech makes zero mention of that slightly important point. ;)

 

God. Even FOX News was able to get that one right. :)

 

 

EO Newsroom: New Images - La Nina and Pacific Decadal Oscillation Cool the Pacific

A cool-water anomaly known as La Niña occupied the tropical Pacific Ocean throughout 2007 and early 2008. In April 2008, scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory announced that while the La Niña was weakening, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation—a larger-scale, slower-cycling ocean pattern—had shifted to its cool phase.

 

 

JPL.NASA.GOV: News Releases

The comings and goings of El Niño, La Niña and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation are part of a longer, ongoing change in global climate,” said Josh Willis, a JPL oceanographer and climate scientist. Sea level rise and global warming due to increases in greenhouse gases can be strongly affected by large natural climate phenomenon such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the El Nino-Southern Oscillation. “In fact,” said Willis, “these natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities."

 

True! But the graph goes back to 1988!!! :)

 

You mentioned 2007-2008 but you have to take the whole graph into account! The graph clearly shows data from 1988-2008. We must look at the overall study!!! :doh: