Humanity is causing Global Warming, for sure.

[Kaitzilla]

Here's a fun little read.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...trial-ever-goes-ahead-global-warming-is-toast

The headline alone made me laugh.

 

[tokala]

Do the climate models explain these odd spikes and plunges in temperature?
These threads on CFC tend to have so much information I can't find an answer when I get a question.

You might want to look for yourself:
http://scholar.google.de/scholar?q=...limate+models&btnG=&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1

That's some fairly obscure question about climate science, I doubt you will get a competent answer here. But after a cursory glance, it would appear the answer is yes:

Abstract from http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6817/abs/409153A0.html

Here we use an intermediate-complexity climate model to investigate the stability of glacial climate, and we find that only one mode of Atlantic Ocean circulation is stable: a cold mode with deep water formation in the Atlantic Ocean south of Iceland. However, a 'warm' circulation mode similar to the present-day Atlantic Ocean is only marginally unstable, and temporary transitions to this warm mode can easily be triggered. This leads to abrupt warm events in the model which share many characteristics of the observed Dansgaard–Oeschger events. For a large freshwater input (such as a large release of icebergs), the model's deep water formation is temporarily switched off, causing no strong cooling in Greenland but warming in Antarctica, as is observed for Heinrich events. Our stability analysis provides an explanation why glacial climate is much more variable than Holocene climate.

I myself always wonder about whom to blame for that other "smaller half" of the warming.

Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama ?

In particular, we discuss recent studies showing that at least some of the key attributes of global warming from increased atmospheric greenhouse gases have been under-predicted, particularly in IPCC assessments of the physical science, by Working Group I.

The best current estimates agree that fairly close to 100% of the warming up to this point is anthropogenic, and even if it were a bit less, it will rapidly approach that value in the next decades.
At the moment the total amplitude of the natural fluctuations is still not that much smaller than the anthropogenic signal, but those natural fluctuations tend to add up to a trend close to zero in the longer run (unless we are talking "glacial cycle long"), while humanity will keep having an ever increasing warming influence for the foreseeable future.

 

[CavLancer]

That's exactly why I say lets wait and see because its the climate that will have the last word. If I'm right then you fine folks can argue with the glaciers.

I've moved to the tropics where I have a good blender to make slushy rum drinks out of any icebergs that make it this far. Its a plan for dealing with climate change, and its the best one ever.

Edit: ...and for increased precipitation I have a batch of those colorful little umbrellas mounted on a toothpick that are so often used to skewer a slice of lime, lemon, or pineapple hanging on the side of my glass.

Enjoy the climate!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td2InffQcwM

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

This.

The hypocrisy is disgusting.

Government grants are highly competitive and there's way way more money to be had in the private sector - coal, oil and gas in particular. I should know, I'm consciously sabotaging my own career prospects by refusing to consider working in oil and gas. If science could be bought the proportion of contrarians would be way more than 3%.

The consensus in favour of AGW, which is something that 97% of people don't want to hear because it means actually doing stuff to fix things, in the face of entrenched opposition from the actual rulers of the world - the energy industries - shows to me that the system works.

For people who call themselves skeptics they're sure mightily selective about what they're skeptical about. Not skeptical about the claims of fellow skeptics. Not skeptical about their agendas.

And that NASA letter? None of the signatories have anything to do with climate science.

The sad part is, they are sceptical towards scientific articles in favour of being gullible towards youtube videos and breitbart.

And then being smug about their chosen ignorance.

Oh well. Good thing they've rediculised themselves to irrellevancy in the bigger picture.

 

[CavLancer]

We'll see won't we?

 

[Borachio]

We will.

In the meantime, though, I'm siding with the overwhelming opinion of climate scientists. I mean, what's the point in having experts on a subject and then not believing them?

It's just a gut instinct, that I have, that these people are more likely to know the truth of the thing than anyone else.

As if it matters what I think!

 

[Truronian]

We'll see won't we?

We already have.

 

[CavLancer]

As if it matters what I think!

Its what keeps me from getting angry when treated poorly in these discussions simply in some cases because I don't agree with the climate mania. Who cares? No opinions will be changed here. Even if I were to change someone's opinion then that's just one more meaningless opinion. Really, what will happen will happen.

If you still have doubt about the impending cooling Truronian or I about meaningful man made warming then no, we have not. The climate will resolve this when it either gets so hot that all the gloom and doom starts coming true or so cold that glaciers advance with determination only then will it truly be resolved.

 

[CavLancer]

...and who knows? Perhaps an opinion has been changed here. Lets say someone with an open mind followed those links and really got deep into it. That person might be sitting there convinced that the whole man made global warming thing is all wrong. For that person to say so here among friends...that takes not only openness but courage. Say goodbye to a lot of respect from friends and in some cases friendship itself. Perhaps less replies in other, not related discussions, an a lessening of the enjoyment taken from this discussion group. The temptation to say nothing of ones new opinion must be great.

Just think of scientists working on man made global warming back when the globe was actually warming and being tied to it by profession and buying into the whole "The debate is over" thing and then having warming stop and one's opinion change. What a terrible decision these folks must face! Professional isolation if not job loss itself!

So, its one of the reasons I say I'll wait and see what happens. When it becomes so clear one way or the other that not so much courage is required to speak up, then the changes will happen fast.

Then we will be hated for having been right all along. Its not an appealing position to take but I have to call em as I see em, as they say.

 

[Wastl]

It's really funny how you twisted things around. The only ones who actually face backlash are the scientists who dare to disagree with what the big companies want. Those companies try their damn best to make sure as few of the facts as possible make it into the public, just like they love to lie about certain research to make it look bad, which usually leads to big news when the claim that research has been wrong gets made, only to let it fall under the table when it comes out that it was right all along. This rubbish behaviour is actually one of the reasons why some - most of them not scientist - had to go to the extreme when it came to bringing the point across. After all, politicians love to sit on their behind unless something absolutely has to be done. Something that is even more true if you add the incredible bs that is lobbying.

You seem to have absolutely no idea how science works. Science is the anti-thesis of "the debate is over" and "it can't possibly be something different". The idea that scientists would try to push someone to the sidelines or even stop being friends with someone just because they have a different opinion is patently absurd. The whole point of science is to offer different theories and trying to prove them right or wrong. If you can make good points, your voice will be heard. Sometimes you may face disagreement, and science has been known to lead to some rather heated debates over the centuries, including ridicule and insults by all sides, but if you actually have something essential - and this is particularly true in this case - it will be rather easy to convince others. But if you just throw out the same five ideas that have been refuted time and time again, you obviously won't get the best reception.

Unlike certain other people, scientists do this to find out something new, not because they are zealots who can't stand it if someone questions them. You are a whole lot closer to what you describe than the average scientist is. Don't confuse lots of people throwing their arguments at a person who disagreed with the general opinion with someone being pushed to the sidelines. It would be very weird if those who disagreed with a theory didn't voice their opinion. You make it sound like there is a big evil science community which is trying to suppress everything that isn't the party line, when in truth it is very much the opposite. Scientist have to fight against "big bad companies" who try to undermine their work as much as possible, going from producing movies which make Al Gore look like the truth personified to using their influence on parts of the press to seed doubt by purposefully mis-representing research, to blowing large sums of money up the rear of congressmen so they block every law they can (seriously, have you seen the house committee on science, space and technology? a bunch of five year olds wouldn't ask such stupid questions, that's what happens when you screw up your political system and have lobbying rule the world).

 

[CavLancer]

Yes that was always my understanding of science as well, until recently. You really haven't heard about the fraud? Btw I was just quoting Al Gore with "the debate is over", perhaps I did not attribute it as I should have but thought everyone knew the quote.

Don't know where you got the "it can't possibly be something different" quote. Not the kind of thing I would say. Though I believe it is cooling I do still have an open mind and realize I might be wrong. I'll let the climate show me however as all reason and civility has left the room long ago. Something some on your side of the debate might want to emulate.

 

[peter grimes]

What fraud?

 

[Truronian]

If you still have doubt about the impending cooling Truronian or I about meaningful man made warming then no, we have not. The climate will resolve this when it either gets so hot that all the gloom and doom starts coming true or so cold that glaciers advance with determination only then will it truly be resolved.

When I say 'we', I mean the scientific community (which are the only people whose opinions and ideas really matter with regards to global warming).

There will always be conspiracy theories to the contrary, but AGW is as much a part of the current scientific models as evolution, heliocentrism and all the other controversial models of the past that annoyed certain sections of society.

 

[CavLancer]

This is an excellent discussion of the last decade...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJwayalLpYY

Speaking to the fraud issue I get into more below, note when Lindzen was talking about the NASA video of the temperature change in the last decade. The temps go from cool blue to hot orange and red. Lindzen spoke a bit about how they "fudged" things to make it happen. To me such stuff is fraud. NASA wants people to believe one way so it misrepresents the facts. There is no end to such stuff, its everywhere. Opinion is being constructed out of nothing using BS, for some reason. You tell me. Why is NASA interested in making people believe something that isn't true?

 

[CavLancer]

What fraud?

I see it all the time but I look in different places than many here I'm sure. Just day to day stuff, I'll try to find a few.

Its been quite a while since I formed my opinions so I'm out of touch with where I saw quite a bit of intentionally misleading stuff. However I daily watch this guy for his solar science and when he started on climate I started following his journey. He sees the sun as the primary driver of climate change, and in the process when things appear skewed to create a result that is outside actual events he isn't afraid to say so. At the same time he isn't a rabble rouser. So I'll look through a few of his vids and see what I can find but as far as going back through the years... Of course there was climategate but supposedly that was looked into and found to be innocent stuff. Which might be a whitewash because years ago I read some of those emails to satisfy myself on the matter. My opinion of science as a pure thing, as pure as the reality it describes suffered from them as well as the obvious bias continuously encountered. Then I heard of something called climategate II, but did not look into it. Anyway I recommend these vids highly.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xfi940PyCo&index=8&list=PLHSoxioQtwZcqdt3LK6d66tMreI4gqIC-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un8kQ7oY87s&list=PLHSoxioQtwZcqdt3LK6d66tMreI4gqIC-&index=4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c4XPVPJwBY&list=PLHSoxioQtwZcqdt3LK6d66tMreI4gqIC-&index=2

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Of course there was climategate but supposedly that was looked into and found to be innocent stuff. Which might be a whitewash because years ago I read some of those emails to satisfy myself on the matter. My opinion of science as a pure thing, as pure as the reality it describes suffered from them as well as the obvious bias continuously encountered.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12731296&postcount=625

 

[Tee Kay]

Link to video.

 

[CavLancer]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12731296&postcount=625

Thank you Ziggy.

"Those who want to believe a lie will believe a liar." -Me, just now. (Actually it was some years ago)

Actually that was from Ziggy's link. Think how many times in history people have been mislead because they wanted to believe something? So why do people cling to their guilt? Why blame yourself for global warming because of driving your car down the road or heating your house? Maybe its just changes in the sun? Maybe you're being led down the garden path? Yet people cling to this stuff and get angry at those who do not.

 

[CavLancer]

Link to video.

I watched it. He does not correctly represent the position of skeptics so as to add ridicule. :zzz: Boring. You want to believe such simple stuff because it reinforces you in your opinion.

 

[Truronian]

Think how many times in history people have been mislead because they wanted to believe something?

Indeed. Some people will even overlook mountains of evidence from thousands of eminent scientists in order to stick with a more comfortable falsehood.