Global warming - a suggestion

[Chalks]

I like the regurgitating of links that you didn't bother to check for relevance beforehand:

"New peer-reviewed study counters global warming theory, finds carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice Age."
What?

"To accurately assess the effects of human-induced climate change, scientists must be able to quantify the contribution of natural variation in solar irradiance to temperature changes."
So, agreeing with the existence of human-induced climate change?

"The continuing rapid increase in carbon dioxide concentrations during the past 10-15 years has apparently been unable to overrule the flattening of the temperature trend as a result of the Sun settling at a high, but no longer increasing, level of magnetic activity."
Also agreeing with man made emissions affect the climate.

And my personal favourites:
"Error 404 - Page not found!"

"Not Found
The requested document was not found on this server. "

Also loving the links to the republican senate committee website. That really is top notch unbiased sourcing of information there.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Thats right, KingYosef, come here to spread Fossil Fuel Industry propaganda-I guess it saves them having to pay money to get people to do it for them.

Its funny to note how the bulk of the "papers" you refer to turn up in "Energy & Environment", a non ISI Journal well known for allowing extremely poorly researched papers to get published (indeed, the Editor of E&E is a fully paid up member of the Denialist Cult). Almost all the rest seem to be from Geophysical Research Letters-which is equally known for having extremely low standards for its Peer-review process (just look at a recent paper by McLean et al where they "Hide the Incline" by splicing data from weather balloons to data from satellites *without* telling the reader they've done so, & without adjusting the Y-axis accordingly. That's extremely sloppy "science", but it still passed into GRL's selection criteria). The fact is that, for all the talk about "ClimateGate" in the first month or so that the story broke, its not proven to be the great "smoking gun" the denialist cult wanted it to be. Even the most pro-denialist newspapers have stopped running stories on the subject, as readers have clearly lost *all* interest. The hacking proves how desperate the Denialist Cult are, though, if they're prepared to resort to CRIMINAL ACTIVITY to achieve their goals-yet still they've failed to achieve their goal.
As a scientist myself, I'd love to hear a legitimate explanation for what has caused the warming of the last 60 years, & the accelerated warming of the last 30 years-given that there has been a modest decline in solar activity for the bulk of this time period.
If people want the *facts* regarding climate change, I personally suggest they go here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/

 

[Ahriman]

And my favorite from your links (that Civ-King alludes to):

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.

Translation: 48% of papers on climate didn't need to make a claim in favor of or against AGW in order to discuss the actual point of their research, so they didn't bother.
Interpreting that as saying that those are by scientists who don't believe in AGW is just bizarre.

 

[KingYosef]

I thought this one to be very interesting. It is a peer reviewed scientific paper done by 3 scientists on the Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature.

The home page is called the Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres. And, they have a lot of current data on climate change.

 

[KingYosef]

Thats right, KingYosef, come here to spread Fossil Fuel Industry propaganda-I guess it saves them having to pay money to get people to do it for them.

Its funny to note how the bulk of the "papers" you refer to turn up in "Energy & Environment", a non ISI Journal well known for allowing extremely poorly researched papers to get published (indeed, the Editor of E&E is a fully paid up member of the Denialist Cult). Almost all the rest seem to be from Geophysical Research Letters-which is equally known for having extremely low standards for its Peer-review process (just look at a recent paper by McLean et al where they "Hide the Incline" by splicing data from weather balloons to data from satellites *without* telling the reader they've done so, & without adjusting the Y-axis accordingly. That's extremely sloppy "science", but it still passed into GRL's selection criteria). The fact is that, for all the talk about "ClimateGate" in the first month or so that the story broke, its not proven to be the great "smoking gun" the denialist cult wanted it to be. Even the most pro-denialist newspapers have stopped running stories on the subject, as readers have clearly lost *all* interest. The hacking proves how desperate the Denialist Cult are, though, if they're prepared to resort to CRIMINAL ACTIVITY to achieve their goals-yet still they've failed to achieve their goal.
As a scientist myself, I'd love to hear a legitimate explanation for what has caused the warming of the last 60 years, & the accelerated warming of the last 30 years-given that there has been a modest decline in solar activity for the bulk of this time period.
If people want the *facts* regarding climate change, I personally suggest they go here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/

What do you think about the research I linked to in my post #104? Can you refute it, or show a better model?

 

[Ahriman]

I don't understand why you seem to think that the presence of natural forcing mechanisms, like El Nino or solar activity, somehow disprove the presence of anthropogenic forcing mechanisms (carbon levels).

Yes, we have to understand the natural forcing mechanisms, which do indeed explain a lot of the year-on-year variation. But they don't explain the trend.

 

[KingYosef]

OMG! the almighty 6% majority!

also snow pack growth is from lack of sunspots

However you try to discredit the survey, the truth is, as the survey shows, that the majority of scientists do not endorse man made global warming for the fact that it is junk science. That is why Al Gore the politician is pushing it so much.

 

[KingYosef]

I don't understand why you seem to think that the presence of natural forcing mechanisms, like El Nino or solar activity, somehow disprove the presence of anthropogenic forcing mechanisms (carbon levels).

Yes, we have to understand the natural forcing mechanisms, which do indeed explain a lot of the year-on-year variation. But they don't explain the trend.

As pointed out, the numerous peer-reviewed scientific papers I linked to, the natural data is the force in understanding the Earth's climate. These scientists have obviously accounted for the MAN FACTOR and the data shows that it is irrelevant. If one wants to go on believing that man has contributed then go ahead, but the majority of papers are saying otherwise.

 

[Ahriman]

However you try to discredit the survey, the truth is, as the survey shows, that the majority of scientists do not endorse man made global warming for the fact that it is junk science.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.

Dude! No it doesn't. It shows that 6% of articles were by scientists who disagreed with AGW. How can you interpret "neutral" papers (translation: they don't take a position) as opposing the position? Do you assume that everyone who reads this thread and chooses not to comment agrees with you?

And I don't understand peoples' fixation with Gore. He hasn't been a politician for 10 years.

As pointed out, the numerous peer-reviewed scientific papers I linked to, the natural data is the force in understanding the Earth's climate. These scientists have obviously accounted for the MAN FACTOR and the data shows that it is irrelevant.

Logic fail. "Natural factors influence climate" is not mutually exclusive with "human-caused factors influence climate."

 

[civ_king]

However you try to discredit the survey, the truth is, as the survey shows, that the majority of scientists do not endorse man made global warming for the fact that it is junk science. That is why Al Gore the politician is pushing it so much.

That is a factual error, because if a majority thought it was junk science they would be against it in greater percentages, 1-2% (conservative estimate) might have rejected the "Theory" because it is untestable therefore can never be a Theory! I have a feeling that many scientists think there isn't enough data yet and so are neutral on it

 

[KingYosef]

Thats right, KingYosef, come here to spread Fossil Fuel Industry propaganda-I guess it saves them having to pay money to get people to do it for them.

This is a typical "knee-jerk" reaction that one would not expect from someone who claims to be a scientist. When did I ever advocate the misuse of fossil fuel? It is rather unscientific like to make those assumptions upon someone.

Please tell me if you have published any peer-reviewed papers as a scientist on your model of Global Warming and then I'll consider it up against the other papers that have been published in opposition to man-made global warming.

 

[civ_king]

He is a "Research Support Officer" according to his page (whatever that means )

I think his patience is wearing thin, people make the same claims in that the scientists are screwing with the data,

like for example this modification that people shout about is adjusting for the massive influx of Carbon 14 after 1944 from nuclear bombs which heavily mess up statistics

 

[KingYosef]

That is a factual error, because if a majority thought it was junk science they would be against it in greater percentages, 1-2% (conservative estimate) might have rejected the "Theory" because it is untestable therefore can never be a Theory! I have a feeling that many scientists think there isn't enough data yet and so are neutral on it

Then why would leading scientists that advocate man-made GW manipulate the data?... http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...n-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

I mean, this is a HUGE proven scandal! This shows that the data is just not there for man-made global warming. Scientists have moved passed and are continuing to research into the natural cycles of our Earth and Solar System which effect Earth's climate.

 

[KingYosef]

He is a "Research Support Officer" according to his page (whatever that means )

I think his patience is wearing thin, people make the same claims in that the scientists are screwing with the data,

like for example this modification that people shout about is adjusting for the massive influx of Carbon 14 after 1944 from nuclear bombs which heavily mess up statistics

Read my post # 113. Also, it doesn't really matter anyway, because even before the scandal was revealed, scientists favored a non man-made model of Climate change.

 

[702]

I don't know why you are linking to Delingpole, a man who very clearly knows nothing about climate change. Certainly not an active researcher.
"Climategate" was a nail in nothing. Did it show CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Did it show temperatures have not been rising as we have been pumping huge quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere? Did it show a vast conspiracy among the worlds scientists and scientific bodies?
No.
The IPCC was established in 1988. So I guess global warming has also been referred to as CC for a while now...
And as another random aside I note a link to Svensmark and his solar claims.
He's a bit of a nut, but never mind hey!
Plenty of info here,
http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-deniers-favorite-sunspot-theory-refuted-again
The Skeptical Science website is also very good, here is just one example,
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
Inevitably, there will be scientists who are skeptical about man-made global warming. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009)... As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.

 

[mjs0]

I thought the fanatics were calling it 'Climate Change' now for their lack of evidence and tampering of evidence?

We should just stick to what the scientific data suggests and have the Civ game follow a pattern of what we call on Earth, "WEATHER!"

Check this out... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/...hit-normal-what-will-the-news-say/#more-17970

I realise there has been much discussion since this original article, but I have to say upon reviewing the data in this article that it does nothing to suggest any change in the long term trend of loss of arctic ice or, by implication, refute the theory that human-caused factors influence climate.

There has been a steady measurable downward trend in average arctic sea ice for several years. The fact that for one month out of hundreds the sea ice has crept back towards (or even shockingly above) the long-term average does nothing to substantially change that downward trend.

There would need to be consistent above-average arctic ice for many years to reverse that long-term trend. This is one of the primary mistakes that lay people make when attempting to interpret long-term data and trends...they see a single spurious data point and assume that it refutes all the years of evidence that have mounted up.

It is the weight of evidence that matters and it is enlightening to say the least the way the climate change deniers get excited about a single uptick in data when they can conveniently ignore years of downward trending data.

To use a Civ analogy...When playing Civ4 if you are bleeding 4 gold per turn for many turns and then one of your largest cities gets a "We love the ... day" and the deficit goes away for one turn it doesn't mean your economic woes are over.

 

[KingYosef]

I realise there has been much discussion since this original article, but I have to say upon reviewing the data in this article that it does nothing to suggest any change in the long term trend of loss of arctic ice or, by implication, refute the theory that human-caused factors influence climate.

There has been a steady measurable downward trend in average arctic sea ice for several years. The fact that for one month out of hundreds the sea ice has crept back towards (or even shockingly above) the long-term average does nothing to substantially change that downward trend.

There would need to be consistent above-average arctic ice for many years to reverse that long-term trend. This is one of the primary mistakes that lay people make when attempting to interpret long-term data and trends...they see a single spurious data point and assume that it refutes all the years of evidence that have mounted up.

It is the weight of evidence that matters and it is enlightening to say the least the way the climate change deniers get excited about a single uptick in data when they can conveniently ignore years of downward trending data.

To use a Civ analogy...When playing Civ4 if you are bleeding 4 gold per turn for many turns and then one of your largest cities gets a "We love the ... day" and the deficit goes away for one turn it doesn't mean your economic woes are over.

You might have a point, but then we see the history of the Earth and previous ice ages succumbed by a warming trend, WHEN NO MAN WAS THERE TO INFLUENCE THE CLIMATE!

This point you did not mention, and is why Scientists have realized that natural Earth cycles is a better explanation to the warming and cooling trends of our Earth.

 

[chongli]

Please, everyone, stop!

This thread is about global warming in Civ 5, a video game!

No more arguments about the merits of real world science.

 

[Chalks]

You might have a point, but then we see the history of the Earth and previous ice ages succumbed by a warming trend, WHEN NO MAN WAS THERE TO INFLUENCE THE CLIMATE!

This point you did not mention, and is why Scientists have realized that natural Earth cycles is a better explanation to the warming and cooling trends of our Earth.

Man, do you seriously have absolutely no understanding of science what so ever, or are you intentionally pretending not to understand?

If a hurricane hits your house, your windows will break.

If I run in there and smash all your windows, your windows will also break.

I can't say "Hey, I have scientific proof that hurricanes can smash your windows! This means it can't be my fault that your windows are broken!"

Lots of things influence climate change - humanity's burning of fossil fuels is absolutely 100% scientifically proven to be one of those things.

You can list a whole load of other things that also influence climate change until your brain leaks out of your eyes - it doesn't mean that human factors don't do it too.

The only scientific debate on the issue between real scientists on the issue is "how much are we influencing it". And the consensus based on all available data is "significantly". Yes, maybe there is some very interesting scientific research being done about the fact that even without us, it would still be happening to some degree or maybe some other research is being done into the fact that there are other balancing factors at play that might save our skin if we're lucky - but non of that detracts from the fact that something we're doing is causing real problems for the entire planet.

I can understand how someone who doesn't know anything about the subject matter can be as ignorant as you are, but I don't see how after everyone has been telling you why you are wrong for post after post in this thread you can still be so unable to understand the concept.

 

[civ_king]

You might have a point, but then we see the history of the Earth and previous ice ages succumbed by a warming trend, WHEN NO MAN WAS THERE TO INFLUENCE THE CLIMATE!

This point you did not mention, and is why Scientists have realized that natural Earth cycles is a better explanation to the warming and cooling trends of our Earth.

Scientists know that, WHAT MATTERS IS THE RATE AT WHICH IT CHANGES