My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[modest]

None of those graphs you gave plot the feature the article from NASA is talking about, which is the pressure of the solar wind.

 

That's my point Turtle. In order to accurately forecast solar irradiance we need to better understand the mechanisms that bring it about. The article you give and the science behind it is helpful in that regard. I do not think that counting sunspots and accounting for solar cycles is adequate. Given that sunspot data has been used in this thread to discount irradiance / temp correlation, I think it needs pointed out that other factors are involved... which your article does.

[Turtle]

That's my point Turtle. In order to accurately forecast solar irradiance we need to better understand the mechanisms that bring it about. The article you give and the science behind it is helpful in that regard. I do not think that counting sunspots and accounting for solar cycles is adequate. Given that sunspot data has been used in this thread to discount irradiance / temp correlation, I think it needs pointed out that other factors are involved... which your article does.

 

Agreed. I have also pointed out that the models lack data on submarine volcanism's role in climate forcing, and again do largely to a lack of data. Also a while back a piece challenging the models for not including the feedback of the clouds. More of my 'glitches'.

 

I am pointing things out that I see as problematic issues with the science of modeling, not discounting human CO2.

[Michaelangelica]

I am told that the next 3-5 years could mean a global cooling due to the sun's eccentricities.

[Eclipse Now]

You are "told?" I heard a rumour that Aliens were going to invade in 2012 to take back all those Myan calendars, so don't worry about your rumour because mine is sexier.

 

(Sources please. )

 

Ummm, I probably shouldn't pay out on doomers... because of my own signature and all. But that's different, it's a scenario based on scientific and sociological extrapolation! It's more than superstition, really truly.

 

Anyway, getting back to climate science, Hansen says we are already in the danger zone and that feedbacks could propel us all the way up to 5 degrees warming.

 

We've got to get "Beyond Zero" as I so painstakingly spelt out before or our kids will be in a world of pain.

[Michaelangelica]

You are "told?" I heard a rumour that Aliens were going to invade in 2012 to take back all those Myan calendars, so don't worry about your rumour because mine is sexier.

 

(Sources please. :) )

 

 

 

"I am told" implies that I have no sources or none that I can quote anyway.

If I had sources I would quote them

"I am told" gives you the luxury of accepting or rejecting the statement as you see fit.

So get stuffed.

[Eclogite]

I am told that the next 3-5 years could mean a global cooling due to the sun's eccentricities.

There are occassions where selective hearing may be a good thing. This could be one of them.

[Michaelangelica]

The next 50 years

 

listen now | download audio

 

The next 50 years, next 100 years and beyond will be unique in history in that one species, us, will have the power to affect the future of the entire planet. If we continue burning coal, then by 2050, the risk of serious climate change from carbon dioxide building up in the atmosphere will be very real. Martin Rees is calling for a huge effort for research on carbon capture and storage.

 

Show Transcript | Hide Transcript

Transcript

The next 50 years - Science Show - 20 September 2008

[Eclipse Now]

Hi M,

I think I had you all wrong. I apologise. I responded with 'attitude' because I thought you were contributing the solar-cooling forcing as a sceptic. Now you're talking about climate change as a real risk, and I'm guessing that you were just contributing the solar-cooling forcing as one of many forcings without trying to debunk the overall theory. I apologise for reading you out of context. :hyper:

[Michaelangelica]

Hi M,

I think I had you all wrong. I apologise. I responded with 'attitude' because I thought you were contributing the solar-cooling forcing as a sceptic. Now you're talking about climate change as a real risk, and I'm guessing that you were just contributing the solar-cooling forcing as one of many forcings without trying to debunk the overall theory. I apologise for reading you out of context. :hyper:

Tar for the explanation.

No problems,

I am used to being slated and can be just as nasty back.

 

I don't think anyone with half a brain can deny anthropogenic global warming.

 

I found myself defending The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery in my local paper this week

I rang his publisher and asked if they would like to reply to the slander in the local paper

They said "No, we are not interested in talking to idiots."

 

I have stopped reading "Climate Wars" as I hope to be dead before it all comes to fruition.

 

Terra preta is one great hope but no one wants to know.

[Flying Binghi]

I found myself defending The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery in my local paper this week

I rang his publisher and asked if they would like to reply to the slander in the local paper

They said "No, we are not interested in talking to idiots."

 

Hmmm.... how much money has Flannery made from all his AGW books and interviews ?

[Spiked Blood]

I'm not really sure where to begin with this post.

 

I guess I could begin with the statement that 'I am a skeptic'. I am skeptical about everything, not just the theory that current global warming is in part anthropogenic. It is just my nature, especially when I am told to believe something as fact, I tend to question it.

 

When it comes to an issue like this, what I tend to do is, look more at the opposing argument (often simply because it is more entertaining). I look at the people who are saying this isn't true, and I look at their arguments more. Often what happens is the skeptics arguments/ accusations often convince me that what they are saying isn't true, actually is true.

 

In the case of anthropogenic global warming this is true. A lot of it stems from the accusations that this is a political issue used by politicians and the media, and so forth, to further personal agendas and for certain people to make money, or for scientists to get funding.

 

This doesn't sit right with me at all. Firstly, because it makes AGW a conspiracy, that lots of people are in on. Secondly, because these politicians, media, etc, the people in the spotlight that talk about AGW, and talk about its possible calamitous effects, aren't creating the basic data for this problem. All the research and information comes from scientists. People outside the scientific community could be using AGW to further personal agendas, but ultimately the conspiracy would exist within the science world. Where the accusation is, it is all about getting funding.

 

I do not have a scientific education(beyond basic physics and chemistry in high school) but I do have a penchant for science. I know very little though, but I wish to know more. And it seems to me, that that is fundamentally what science is all about. The desire to know more. Scientists want to know the truth, and to share it, as I'm sure Einstein was like with General Relativity, 'In your face, biatches!!'

 

Fundamentally, or rather pathetically, this is where my belief in Anthrpogenic global warming comes from. My belief that scientists become scientists because they want to know the truth.

 

I don't think anyone with half a brain can deny anthropogenic global warming.

 

The problem is, they do. Some highly intelligent people deny the authenticity of this theory, or hypothesis as they say.

 

This is the crux of my problem. I am the member of a forum(nothing to do with science), where this AGW topic came up. The people that think this is bogus were very vocal, and the people that believe AGW to be true remained silent. Which unfortunately leaves me, whilst skeptical on the whole issue, and not having the scientific knowledge to argue the truth of AGW with expertise, but hating to see an argument be so onesided, I leapt into the lions den. With very, very little knowledge on this subject.

 

With what little time I have, I am trying my best to research both sides of this issue, and I might add, also trying to leave any bias at the door. I think that coming to a topic with a completely closed mind is just horrendous. I mean, what's the point in researching something divided like this, if you believe no matter what in one side of the argument. Unfortunately, my main 'opponent' is completely close minded, however, I do consider him to be quite intelligent. I would prefer if he had a life, instead of what he apparently has, no need to sleep/work/eat and boundless energy to research this topic.

 

 

Anyway, I would love to hear from intelligent.. (respected)members that don't believe the AGW theory, and why that is.

 

Right now, I am arguing that temperature hasn't stopped rising from 1998, but the increase has slowed down, in part due to La Nina. My opponent(who I'll call nappy from here on, if I get valuable responses from members that want to help me out and further my understanding of this issue) says that it is accepted by "denialists" and "alarmists" alike that the global temperature has stopped increasing after 1998, and we are in a short term cooling trend.

 

Temperature after 98 is the focal point of the argument(which he's rather annoyingly fixating on), but there are a couple of other tidbits in between. A very helpful member of hypography gave me some links to look at(which I am very appreciative of) and some information to help me understand this, and argue it rationally, I'd like broader scope though. In essence, the more brains to help me understand this(both sdes of the argument) and to argue it better, can only be a good thing.

 

 

Here is a video by Bob Carter, who doesnt believe AGW. He seems to be quite an intelligent man. I'd love to know what some of you smarter folks think about what he says in this video, and if there is adequate evidence to counter what he is claiming.

 

YouTube - Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 1 of 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

 

 

Thanks to everyone for reading my post, and to anyone who responds with some helpful information.

 

I don't even know if he's still around, or if this is the sort of topic he would look at, but I'd love to know what the Big Dog thought about this issue.

[Flying Binghi]

A lot of it stems from the accusations that this is a political issue used by politicians and the media, and so forth, to further personal agendas and for certain people to make money, or for scientists to get funding.

 

This doesn't sit right with me at all. Firstly, because it makes AGW a conspiracy

 

I dunno, I find most media in Oz (ABC excepted) reports the info they receive - if most of the info is being pushed by certain groups, then that will be the majority of news reports. I carnt see any conspiracy there.

 

IMHO, theres no real conspiracy out there - just a lot of people who have identified a profitable idea.

 

Exibit A - (Extract) Three years ago, former US Vice President Al Gore joined with David Blood, the former head of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, to form an investment-management firm dedicated to investing for sustainability...

Sustainability: interview with Al Gore and David Blood - The McKinsey Quarterly - interview Al Gore - Strategy - Strategic Thinking

 

 

Edit - Hmmm... I just came across this -

 

The BBC is being investigated by television watchdogs after a leading climate change sceptic claimed his views were deliberately misrepresented.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1063110/BBC-investigated-peer-says-climate-change-programme-biased-sided-polemic.html

[Flying Binghi]

A slight diversion back to my 'left field' question -

 

Has a consensus been reached re, if the sun was turned 'off' how long would it take the ISA of about 15C to drop to zero C ?

[InfiniteNow]

Right now, I am arguing that temperature hasn't stopped rising from 1998, but the increase has slowed down, in part due to La Nina. My opponent(who I'll call nappy from here on, if I get valuable responses from members that want to help me out and further my understanding of this issue) says that it is accepted by "denialists" and "alarmists" alike that the global temperature has stopped increasing after 1998, and we are in a short term cooling trend.

 

Temperature after 98 is the focal point of the argument(which he's rather annoyingly fixating on), but there are a couple of other tidbits in between.

You should tell "nappy" that no such thing is accepted by "denialists and alarmists alike." It's only accepted by people who are too dumb to read a GD graph properly.

 

Does this look global average temperatures have stopped increasing after 1998 to you?

 

 

 

http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentcc.html

 

 

 

But, you know... he'll likely remind you how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are in on the conspiracy to tax us more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AHas a consensus been reached re, if the sun was turned 'off' how long would it take the ISA of about 15C to drop to zero C ?

 

You have not provided enough information to obtain an answer to this question, for example, how much atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane are present (among countless other variables, like the heat capacity of the oceans and the dominance of the albedo effect, etc.)

[Eclipse Now]

Hi Spiked Blood,

Yeah, I can relate to a lot of what you said there mate!

 

However, there IS a conspiracy around Global Warming — but it’s from the denial camp funded by Exxon, not the hundreds of independently trained, sceptical climate scientists all coming to the same basic conclusions.

 

I am collecting newspaper summaries and links to online documentaries that document the conspiracy of misinformation being funded by Exxon.

Eclipse Now: GW — Proof of a "Denial Machine"

 

It really seems 3/4 of the big names in climate scepticism are on the take!

 

As for Bob Carter, his Wiki says it all.

Robert M. Carter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Carter is a global warming sceptic and has consistently opposed the consensus view on global warming.,[3][4] and was one of the founding members of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. Carter has addressed many academic, professional, and business organisations, some of which are listed on his website. His titles include "Global Warming: Cool Science or Hot Air", and "The Great Barrier Reef is Doing Just Fine, Thank You." While Carter offers a critique of the mainstream view on climate change, he has no published peer reviewed papers providing evidence to discredit the climate change consensus. [1][2] According to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community.[5]

 

If you look up that organization…

New Zealand Climate Science Coalition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

You’ll note my ‘conspiracy theory’ being born out…

 

The organisation has encountered some criticism, with suggestions that their aim to increase the level of media coverage to allow equal press for climate-change dissent actually creates an illusion of greater dissent than truly exists.[6] They have also been criticised by Greenpeace for accepting funding from ExxonMobil.[7]

[Essay]

SB,

I've seen denialist mention this deal about no warming since '98, but it's always just mentioned as an aside in some other argument about climate change. I've never seen any presentation showing this to be indicated by the data (although there is lots of controversy over the data).

 

I'd like to see some links to presentations about this "no warming" thing. It'd be nice to know what this "new finding" is all about when it gets brought up in the blogosphere.

 

It sounds kinda like that CO2/saturation misunderstanding that was going around this past year.

===

 

Eclipse, I'd been thinking I noticed a large percentage of the denialist on the web seem to be from New Zealand, Australia, and the Indonesia area. Maybe your link explains that, eh?

Any reason Canada also seems to generate a lot of denialists?

===

 

~

[Eclipse Now]

As always, follow the money! The CBC ran a great documentary called "The Denial Machine" which followed Exxon funding of these guys. Google it, it's well worth watching.

 

Essay, the argument about temperatures goes something like "1998 was the hottest year and every year since has been cooler". It's data cherrypicking. It ignores other factors. It's 'technically' true, but does NOTHING to debunk the theory of global warming.

 

1998 was a severe El Nino year. It was a freakishly hot super-spike in an overall trend of increasingly temperatures. 12 of the last 13 years have been the hottest on record, but the denialists grab the 1998 super-spike out of context, and rant about every year since then being cooler!

 

As it stands I remember a piece on RealClimate explaining that 2005 was about the same temperature as 1998, down to within 1 hundredth of a degree, which also happens to be the variation of instrumentation. In other words, they're not sure if 2005 actually did equal 1998 because they can't quite measure that fine a difference accurately! But so far, in the published peer reviewed science, as long as we ignore overall century long temperature trends, ignore 2005 because it missed out by 1/100th of a degree, and ignore the fact that 1998 was a strong El Nino, then we can turn around and say "It's all bogus because it's been getting cooler for the last decade!"

 

(Like when I bang my head on the table in frustration at denialists and then move onto the brick wall, and REALLY bang my head, and then move back to the wooden table and exclaim, "Wow, this table's getting softer!" :))