Global Cooling will kill us all!

[Old_Man]

Notice the zero point or baseline used in all the graphs. It is the average (typically) of temperatures between 1950 and 1980. I'm just curious why this should be the base as to which one determines whether something is a 'temperature anomaly' above or below the norm? Why is the average between 1950 and 1980 "average"? Seeing that climate fluctuates dramatically ~ every 130,000 years why would someone arbitrarily designate a 30 yr span as an indicator? In fact, if we look back over the life of the planet we have continued to cool (and CO2 plummet) for the last several million years. Species population and diversity was immensely higher when CO2 was some 1700ppm higher (~2.0% of the atmosphere as opposed to 0.038% now) and temperature many degrees C higher. People are spazing over less than 1 degree C rise (.2 degree C at the moment) above the "norm".


[img]<a%20href="http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm"><img%20src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2414/2349056933_b2a04e169b.jpg"%20width="500"%20height="316"%20alt="image277"%20/></a>[/img]]

[El_Dickman]

I write this with respect for the ZS members that have given to this thread. But, I am going to challenge something that I've seen signs of in every discussion of "climate change." It's something that I can't quite put my finger on but it is very evident in posts where there is a complete lack of respect for people that hold a different viewpoint.

To me a healthy level of skepticism is a sign of wisdom. This needs to be combined with action to research and validate the situation to come to an opinion that is respectable. And an understanding that everyone has their limitations and will rely on others in many areas.

A healthy level of skepticism does not cover motivations that are based on paranoia, bigotry, ego, hatred, etc. This is something each person has to look into themselves to identify. But, if you are willing to lump all research, researchers and proponents of a point of view into a camp and summarily dismiss them based on a flimsy judgment then I among others will question your motivation.

Having an opinion that you haven't researched and validated to the extent of your abilities is putting faith completely in other's judgment. Do not expect to be respected for having an opinion that you haven't put thought and research into. This is most apparent in the "facts" that are brought up to dismiss the body of work based on a simple notion like "the earth goes through cycles and that's what we are in right now." In all cases in this thread the notions provided have been addressed in the body of research and are included in the analysis. I personally question your commitment to researching your own opinion when this simple fact-checking appears to have been ignored.

And as much as I support self-sufficiency there is no-one out there that can know or do everything. Particularly when it comes to understanding the world-climate. It is quite possibly the most complex system we have constant interaction with. The number of variables involved pushes any analysis of it into chaos theory and involves significant non-linear mathematics. We will need to rely on specialists to get a deep understanding of the system and on the peer-review system to validate all research and analysis. This isn't an excuse to put blind faith in others, but an acknowledgment that we have to rely on others for much of what we know.

Please take this as constructive criticism. That's how it is intended.

[Dark Cloud]

Question: If the MWP and LIA were local, how do we/can we know that the arctic melting (which I believe has already re-frozen...but not having taken my tape measure to Santa's Workshop I have no way of knowing personally) is not also local since at the same time the north pole ice was melting, the south pole ice was getting thicker (again , not having been to BF, Antartica myself...)

The one thing I keep seeing in the alarmist position of global warming is that we need to give more money to some global governance committee who, like the specialists we are all supposed to rely on to tell us how deep the water will be once all the polar bears die and the poles melt for good, we have to trust to have our best interests in mind the way all good politicians do.

Once again, I haven't seen this with my own physical eyes, but did Algore say that even if all of his ideas about Global Warming were proven to be false, and given a choice of which of his plans for saving the world he would keep and which he would get rid of he answered that he'd keep them all? Seems fishy. It's going the long way around to get everybody to submit to his/their idea of more and larger government control in the lives of every huiman on the planet.

[kyle]

Well said, El_Dickman.

I think the debate about climate change in here is unimportant. Pollution is a more important direction where I think the discussion should be. Breathing air that doesn't kill me and eating food that doesn't poison me is more important than speculating about the climate.

There are more important things to focus our efforts on than blaming each other. Instead we should focus on preparing for climate change and cutting back on pollution we're ejecting into the environment. I'm sure the planet can only handle so much, like a smoker's lung.

[ghostface]

Notice the zero point or baseline used in all the graphs. It is the average (typically) of temperatures between 1950 and 1980. I'm just curious why this should be the base as to which one determines whether something is a 'temperature anomaly' above or below the norm? Why is the average between 1950 and 1980 "average"?

NASA GISTEMP uses 1951-1980. HadCRU uses 1961-1990. NOAA/NCDC uses 1901-2000. These baselines are selected to reflect the current warming trend as referenced to something we are familiar with. It is pretty useless to use a baseline for temp that is taken from a period with vastly different climate regimes for the purposes of discussing the present.

Seeing that climate fluctuates dramatically ~ every 130,000 years why would someone arbitrarily designate a 30 yr span as an indicator?

First of all, the climate doesn’t fluctuate like this in any regular (~22, ~42, ~100 ka) orbital cycle- there is no record of this much warming happening globally this quickly, with the possible exception of D-O events, which depended on rapid thermohaline changes definitely not happening now. Orbital forcing occurs over hundreds and thousands of years, not decades.

1901-2000 vs. 1951-1980 (or 1961-1990) doesn’t give significantly different results, so the idea that it’s only a 30 year span is false.

In fact, if we look back over the life of the planet we have continued to cool (and CO2 plummet) for the last several million years.

CO2 concentrations for millions of years ago aren’t particularly relevant. Talking about CO2 concentrations or temperature when the continents weren’t in their present configurations is literally like talking about a different planet for purposes of discussing climate on any meaningful scale. We have records that go back 800,000 years that illustrate both CO2 and temp increases and rates of increase are extremely abnormal.

Species population and diversity was immensely higher when CO2 was some 1700ppm higher (~2.0% of the atmosphere as opposed to 0.038% now) and temperature many degrees C higher.

What were sea levels like back then? What would happen to coastal cities today should we experience the same?

People are spazing over less than 1 degree C rise (.2 degree C at the moment) above the "norm".

Calling it ".2C" before the end of the year is dishonest cherry picking. The current warming trend is considered to be ~.74C (+/-.18C) based on the 5-year running mean, with an additional .4-.5C already committed to even if emissions were capped at current levels.

And the "spazzing" is about the projected effects of warming past 2-3C.

Question: If the MWP and LIA were local, how do we/can we know that the arctic melting (which I believe has already re-frozen...but not having taken my tape measure to Santa's Workshop I have no way of knowing personally) is not also local since at the same time the north pole ice was melting, the south pole ice was getting thicker (again , not having been to BF, Antartica myself...)

Antarctica has been losing mass as well.{1}{2}{3}

The one thing I keep seeing in the alarmist position of global warming is that we need to give more money to some global governance committee who, like the specialists we are all supposed to rely on to tell us how deep the water will be once all the polar bears die and the poles melt for good, we have to trust to have our best interests in mind the way all good politicians do.

Here's what I don't get about this accusation-

There is a vast outcry from anti-regulation voices shouting that there simply isn't enough evidence to support limiting known greenhouse gas emissions, but suggesting the solution to that line of argument would obviously be more studies performed is somehow evidence of conspiracy?

You do realize that no matter who is responsible, reducing GHG emissions would lead to less warming and less altering of the climate. Whether businesses do it voluntarily, or as with CFCs an international agreement is worked out, or a plague wipes out humanity, or cold fusion is made practical overnight.

There is no need scientifically for the government to be involved, so when discussing the science itself, that aspect is irrelevant.

[Old_Man]

NASA GISTEMP uses 1951-1980. HadCRU uses 1961-1990. NOAA/NCDC uses 1901-2000. These baselines are selected to reflect the current warming trend as referenced to something we are familiar with. It is pretty useless to use a baseline for temp that is taken from a period with vastly different climate regimes for the purposes of discussing the present.

If one wishes to prove that humans are the driving force in global warming, wouldn't it be a good idea to include a time period that didn't include human influence? Making the claim that the earth has never seen such a rapid change is not true. There have been no climate stations before the late 1800's to get daily, monthly or yearly climate data. Though icecores, are able to discern decadal and certainly century indicies.

First of all, the climate doesn’t fluctuate like this in any regular (~22, ~42, ~100 ka) orbital cycle- there is no record of this much warming happening globally this quickly, with the possible exception of D-O events, which depended on rapid thermohaline changes definitely not happening now. Orbital forcing occurs over hundreds and thousands of years, not decades.

Icecore data absolutely does show cycles...extremely clearly.
[img]<img%20src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2030/2196444334_8ff4e9a5b9.jpg"%20width="500"%20height="253"%20alt="IceCores1"%20/></a>[/img]]

"Paleoclimatologists theorize that interglacial periods come to an end when polar ice caps melt rapidly (due to high atmospheric temperatures) and increase the amount of fresh water in the sub-polar oceans, thereby altering the thermohaline circulation patterns which govern global climate. The thermohaline "conveyor belts" essentially shut down and stop moving warm water and air away from the equator toward the poles. The net result is colder water and air temperatures. These colder temperatures deepen and continue despite high GTG concentrations left over from the previous interglacial phases."

1901-2000 vs. 1951-1980 (or 1961-1990) doesn’t give significantly different results, so the idea that it’s only a 30 year span is false.

All use point data from stations that have transitioned from rural point stations to urban point stations (urban heating influence). Additionally, only since 1980 (satellites) have we been able to truly 'see' the global temperature. Data until 1980 also did not include oceans which occupy some 70% of the planets surface. 30 or even 100 yrs does not make a climate trend (see ice core data).

CO2 concentrations for millions of years ago aren’t particularly relevant. Talking about CO2 concentrations or temperature when the continents weren’t in their present configurations is literally like talking about a different planet for purposes of discussing climate on any meaningful scale. We have records that go back 800,000 years that illustrate both CO2 and temp increases and rates of increase are extremely abnormal.

I don't follow your argument. If the point is to say increase in CO2 is bad and temperature rise is bad then comparing to a time when these levels were many times higher would seem relevant. Arguing that the planet looked completely different thus past data is irrelevant seems unusual. Thus any data collected is merely for the purpose of collection and nothing else. The face, orbit, even shape of the planet is constantly changing. That is the nature of the system. The 800,000 yrs of data does show massive temp changes. I do agree that humans have caused an increase in CO2 (100ppm or 0.01%) increase in atmospheric CO2. My point is atmospheric CO2 is only 1 factor in a system that should be looked at as chaotic and not linear. There are so many factors such as solar output, orbit, cosmic dust, cloud cover, vegetation cover, non-pervious surfaces, etc., that should be included, but are typically ignored in the global climate change discussion.

What were sea levels like back then? What would happen to coastal cities today should we experience the same?

Sea levels were higher...I don't understand the issue. We are here for the ride. Environment dictates suitable habitat. 11,000 years ago the coast of Florida was 50 miles farther east and has been receding since...this is not something new. Sea level rises and falls with every glacial or interglacial period...totally natural.

Calling it ".2C" before the end of the year is dishonest cherry picking. The current warming trend is considered to be ~.74C (+/-.18C) based on 5-year running mean, with an additional .4-5C already committed to even if emissions were capped at current levels.
And the "spazzing" is about the projected effects of warming past 2-3C.

Over the last 15 months it has been .53 using Dr. Hansen at NASA (who I believe has an agenda) anomoly scale. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/monthly_maps.lrg.gif
This trend has continued to decrease...
[img]<img%20src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3205/2352190562_368fedc931.jpg"%20width="500"%20height="375"%20alt="Temperatures_since_2003"%20/></a>[/img]]

Antarctica has been losing mass as well.

Southern hemisphere data doesn't support that claim. It has been on a 4 year increase.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg

Arctic sea ice loss (substantial in 2006-2007) has been due to wind...not temp increase.
"Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. "Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters. "
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html

Perhaps ultimately we should simply agree to disagree. I do agree we need to get off fossil fuels and in a huge hurry. Hopefully prices will force such a move.

[19kilo]

But it is government bodies that are wanting to force carbon taxes on us.


Less GHG emissions will absolutely decrease warming, and pollution in general. We get this point. however why do the leaders of the movement continue to own three homes and fly around the world telling the masses to consume less?

Jesus, there is a governor of a state that flies almost daily from brentwood to Sacramento in a private friggin jet and wants to control our thermostat.

I just think that if it was such a "planetary emergency" or the "eleventh hour" then they would themselves be dumping less GHG's into the atmosphere.
Instead they say they are buying carbon credits? Why not do both if it is such a crisis that we are facing.



And Ghostface. calling someone a shill is also name calling isn't it.
So if the next person who calls for carbon taxes or more government control on our lives, can we call them shills for socialism?

[Osiris Risen]

Al Gore isn't the leader of the movement, the movement was around long before Gore. He's just trying to capitalize on it, it isn't a real threat to him, he's got the money to make sure he comes out on top no matter what happens. It isn't exactly uncommon for politicians to have the do as I say not as I do mentality.

Most of the scientists I know are trying to reduce their emissions, and you don't have to revert to living in the stone age to do so. There's so many little things we can do, we've got a lot of excellent ideas right here on our forum. The fact that the politicians would rather be put in charge of reducing our emissions only shows what we've all known all along, politicians want power. They take every problem and try to find a way to get themselves involved, it's nothing new, and it certainly doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.

[mrdbeau]

I've seen some book recommendations in this thread.

I would recommend a new book by Dr. Roy Spencer, Climate Confusion.

Perhaps not as important as his discussion on "climate change," Spencer goes quite in-depth as to how the policies that many are advocating to "fix" global warming are going to cause significant problems in most third-world countries if they are truly enacted.

Edit: And don't sweat the polar bears too much... they survived the last interglacial period 130,000 years ago when there was almost no ice at the North Pole. Somehow they survived then, so I think they'll figure out a way to survive this go-round if it gets down to it.

[SSgtMobley]

Edit: And don't sweat the polar bears too much... they survived the last interglacial period 130,000 years ago when there was almost no ice at the North Pole. Somehow they survived then, so I think they'll figure out a way to survive this go-round if it gets down to it.

And if not, honestly, while I don't want to see that particular species go - species die out all the time. Sometimes by manmade causes, sometimes by natural causes. I think I remember something in the 1980s I remember hearing that it was a certain number of species per day.

However, coincidently, mankind is being suprised by both the appearances (or discoveries) of new species regularly as well as the reemergance of species that were thought extinct.

[ghostface]

If one wishes to prove that humans are the driving force in global warming, wouldn't it be a good idea to include a time period that didn't include human influence? Making the claim that the earth has never seen such a rapid change is not true.

Can you name an event, not including D-O events (which we can rule out due to observations of thermohaline circulation), when warming occurred as much over as short of a time period? If you can, you should write it up in study form and submit it to Science or Nature, because no one else seems to be able to.

There have been no climate stations before the late 1800's to get daily, monthly or yearly climate data.

We use proxies for data that predates observational records.

Though icecores, are able to discern decadal and certainly century indicies.

Icecore data absolutely does show cycles...extremely clearly.
[img]<img%20src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2030/2196444334_8ff4e9a5b9.jpg"%20width="500"%20height="253"%20alt="IceCores1"%20/></a>[/img]]

Where do you believe, in this graph you’ve presented, is there warming occurring as fast? Are you looking at the same x axis as I am?

Ice cores show warming happening much slower, which was my entire point. Additionally, your chart clearly illustrates how we’ve pushed CO2 far beyond natural variability. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. More of it means more energy that doesn’t escape back into space. What do you believe is counteracting the warming that necessarily must follow from this?

"Paleoclimatologists theorize that interglacial periods come to an end when polar ice caps melt rapidly (due to high atmospheric temperatures) and increase the amount of fresh water in the sub-polar oceans, thereby altering the thermohaline circulation patterns which govern global climate. The thermohaline "conveyor belts" essentially shut down and stop moving warm water and air away from the equator toward the poles. The net result is colder water and air temperatures. These colder temperatures deepen and continue despite high GTG concentrations left over from the previous interglacial phases."

The site that you seem to have lifted this quote from- do you agree with it, or not? If not, why quote it? If you do, it endorses anthropogenic warming, which you do not, so how can you consider it credible?

This tactic of quote-mining from sources that endorse the consensus view is yet another from the evolution-creationist debate. Those that reject the scientific view have no problem citing facts or figures that may seem to bolster their case superficially that either themselves support or are taken out of context from a larger argument that supports the very thing they are trying to reject. I’ve never understood how the cognitive dissonance is overcome.

All use point data from stations that have transitioned from rural point stations to urban point stations (urban heating influence).

Again, this seems to be an attack on surface records contaminated by UHI, which I’ve already shown to be bollocks.

Additionally, only since 1980 (satellites) have we been able to truly 'see' the global temperature.

Satellite data confirms surface data. If you believe that satellites mean that we can “truly see” the global temperature, why are you implying that the surface temperature is somehow unreliable, when satellites confirm its readings?

Data until 1980 also did not include oceans which occupy some 70% of the planets surface.

The historical ocean temperature record, generated via direct observation and filled in via proxies and modeling goes back to the mid-to-late 19th century.{1}{2}

30 or even 100 yrs does not make a climate trend (see ice core data).

30-100 years certainly is enough of a trend by your own standards. You’ll go on to quote >5 years as a trend.

I don't follow your argument. If the point is to say increase in CO2 is bad and temperature rise is bad

It isn’t inherently “bad”. The results of such increases will be at first largely and then subsequently extremely “bad” for us because of the way we have inhabited the planet, demographically and agriculturally. In order to object to the mainstream scientific opinion, you should be aware of what it is in the first place. A lot of spin has been generated trying to frame the situation that scientists believe that CO2 is inherently bad (“When in fact, it’s fertilizer!TM”). This is ridiculous, if not for the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be some 60F colder, uninhabitable. There is nothing “wrong” with CO2 per se. It’s that increasing concentrations of known GHGs leads to warming, this warming leads to shifts in the shape, intensity, duration, and location of climatic “norms” (as much as any exist) and this will have predictably negative impacts for residents of the biosphere adjusted to a fairly small band of variability.

then comparing to a time when these levels were many times higher would seem relevant. Arguing that the planet looked completely different thus past data is irrelevant seems unusual. Thus any data collected is merely for the purpose of collection and nothing else.

You’re not understanding me. It’s useless to, for example, talk about the Earth in terms of climate before the existence of cyanobacteria shifted the atmosphere from anoxic to oxic. The atmosphere prior was so different as to be for all intents and purposes that of another planet.

Similarly, talking about the Earth in terms of climate when the atmosphere was CO2-richer but the sun was 30% weaker is also useless.

It’s not about “looks”. It’s about the forces in play that determine climate. When the Earth existed as a supercontinent, ocean currents alone were so different that comparisons are virtually useless. Prior to the Antarctic being separated by water, it couldn’t gain ice, which now plays an incredible important role in determining climate.

Talking about the Earth millions of years in the past is rarely useful in terms of drawing relevant analogs to today.

The face, orbit, even shape of the planet is constantly changing. That is the nature of the system.

Not too fast to make useful observations and predictions on scales shorter than millions of years, however. Again, you’re talking about forcings that occur much, much slower than what we’re talking about here.

The 800,000 yrs of data does show massive temp changes.

Not as much as fast as what we’re seeing now. And the 800,000 years of data also shows that CO2 concentrations have greatly exceeded natural variability.

I do agree that humans have caused an increase in CO2 (100ppm or 0.01%) increase in atmospheric CO2.[/quote]

Interesting that you choose to frame it as an increase in percentage of the total atmospheric concentration rather than the concentration of CO2 itself. It certainly doesn’t sound like much when you put it that way.

When you acknowledge that we’ve actually increased CO2 ~30-40% of preindustrial levels, it makes a bit more sense why there is concern.

My point is atmospheric CO2 is only 1 factor in a system that should be looked at as chaotic and not linear. There are so many factors such as solar output, orbit, cosmic dust, cloud cover, vegetation cover, non-pervious surfaces, etc., that should be included, but are typically ignored in the global climate change discussion.

Ignored by whom? Who is ignoring solar forcing, cosmic dust, cloud cover, vegetal influence on the carbon cycle as well as albedo, etc.? The gibbering masses? Sure. Is their opinion relevant to the science? Absolutely not.

All of those factors are certainly taken into consideration when making projections of future warming and climate. Uncertainties in the amount of their influence are acknowledged and constantly reevaluated.

Sea levels were higher...I don't understand the issue. We are here for the ride. Environment dictates suitable habitat. 11,000 years ago the coast of Florida was 50 miles farther east and has been receding since...this is not something new. Sea level rises and falls with every glacial or interglacial period...totally natural.

And it took a long, long time for those changes to take place. We are talking about forcing them over a much shorter time period on a society that is perhaps ideally situated to be hit hardest by them.

Over the last 15 months it has been .53 using Dr. Hansen at NASA (who I believe has an agenda) anomoly scale. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/monthly_maps.lrg.gif
This trend has continued to decrease...
[img]<img%20src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3205/2352190562_368fedc931.jpg"%20width="500"%20height="375"%20alt="Temperatures_since_2003"%20/></a>[/img]]

So before, when 30-100 years was “not a trend”, this suddenly is because why?

[Southern hemisphere data doesn't support that claim. It has been on a 4 year increase.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg

We’re not talking sea ice. We’re talking Antarctic ice. If you followed the link, you’d have seen that. Antarctic sea ice melt is not a particular worry in terms of global sea level increase. WAIS disintegration is.

Arctic sea ice loss (substantial in 2006-2007) has been due to wind...not temp increase.

That’s a distortion of the findings. Arctic sea ice is of course melting due to temperature increase. The shocking speed and extent of last year’s loss was attributable to unusual atmospheric conditions. That doesn’t negate the loss of ice to warming. Once again- do you trust the source you quoted? If not, why quote it? If so, why not trust that source on attribution of warming as well?

Perhaps ultimately we should simply agree to disagree. I do agree we need to get off fossil fuels and in a huge hurry. Hopefully prices will force such a move.

I’m not a fan of the “well, regardless of what the science says, we all can agree that we need to reduce fossil fuel dependence” compromise, because it gives ground to the side that rejects science without credible evidence.

Mainstream scientific attribution of observed warming is that humans are the dominant cause. That’s what NCAR, NASA, NOAA, Met-Hadley, CRU, the IPCC, AAAS, the AGU, the National Science Academies of the G8+5 (Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the UK, and the United States), etc. all say.

You can disagree with mainstream science if you choose. But let’s not pretend that there is some confusion as to what the science says.

[ghostface]

I've seen some book recommendations in this thread.

I would recommend a new book by Dr. Roy Spencer, Climate Confusion.

Are there any contrarians out there that aren’t Intelligent Design fans, smoking-cancer/CFC-ozone depletion deniers, paid by anti-regulation think tanks, etc.?

I’ve not read this, but a glance at the link you supplied seems to indicate that this book is an extended series of reductio ad absurdum, knocking down strawmen that the uneducated will mistake for the real evidence, arguments, and positions made by mainstream science.

Perhaps not as important as his discussion on "climate change," Spencer goes quite in-depth as to how the policies that many are advocating to "fix" global warming are going to cause significant problems in most third-world countries if they are truly enacted.

He’s contradicted by the largest economic studies done on the subject, from the UK Treasury’s Report to the WG II and III of the IPCC.

Edit: And don't sweat the polar bears too much... they survived the last interglacial period 130,000 years ago when there was almost no ice at the North Pole. Somehow they survived then, so I think they'll figure out a way to survive this go-round if it gets down to it.

They survived then because the change happened slowly, over a long period of time, and they were able to shift with the climate. Polar bear populations today are faced with prior over-hunting, loss of habitat, chemical pollution, etc. Unchecked emissions warming and the resulting melt of hunting ice would be a substantial threat to their numbers.

I have no doubt that polar bears will survive, but they will do so because contrary to the impression given on blogs and internet forums, the international scientific and governmental communities already decided that action was necessary to prevent drastic anthropogenic climate change.

[SSgtMobley]

Can you name an event, not including D-O events (which we can rule out due to observations of thermohaline circulation), when warming occurred as much over as short of a time period? If you can, you should write it up in study form and submit it to Science or Nature, because no one else seems to be able to.

The lack of a previous rapid warming is not proof of a current cause. Mearly that there was no previous rapid warming. It seems as if you're extrapolating that because the scientific hypothosis is that the current rapid warming is due to man-made influence that the lack of previous rapid warming is proof of this.

We use proxies for data that predates observational records.

What does this mean? Because it sounds like you're saying "In lieu of scientific facts specifically related to what we're attempting to understand we're going to select other facts and insert them." This sounds like an apples to oranges comparison. I DO understand that the world is interconnected and that readings regarding other aspects of the world can help us reverse engineer the causes and relate them possibly to other areas. I know the world isn't independant sets of data and systems. I'm just pointing out how what you said sounds.

Where do you believe, in this graph you’ve presented, is there warming occurring as fast? Are you looking at the same x axis as I am?

Ice cores show warming happening much slower, which was my entire point. Additionally, your chart clearly illustrates how we’ve pushed CO2 far beyond natural variability. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. More of it means more energy that doesn’t escape back into space. What do you believe is counteracting the warming that necessarily must follow from this?

But earlier in this thread statements similar to "It was cooler these last 5 years so Global Warming is fake" as attacked for being short term. Now you're saying that short term is what we need to look at? Is there a specific "medium term" that needs to be looked at? A point where looking at too big a picture can occure AND looking at too short a picture can occur? What temperature of porridge is "just right" and how do you know it is just right and not arbitrary?

This tactic of quote-mining from sources that endorse the consensus view is yet another from the evolution-creationist debate. Those that reject the scientific view have no problem citing facts or figures that may seem to bolster their case superficially that either themselves support or are taken out of context from a larger argument that supports the very thing they are trying to reject. I’ve never understood how the cognitive dissonance is overcome.

You are attempting to use an attack on someone's faith-based creationism belief as a basis for attack on someone's effort to actual debate you using facts on a completely seperate matter. If they are out of context they are out of context, but please don't pull the "you're wrong because you're a devout christian" card. Rather than trying to invalidate the person disagreeing with you, invalidate the statements please...else you will risk violating forum rules.

Additionally, only since 1980 (satellites) have we been able to truly 'see' the global temperature.

Satellite data confirms surface data. If you believe that satellites mean that we can “truly see” the global temperature, why are you implying that the surface temperature is somehow unreliable, when satellites confirm its readings?

[/quote]

I took his statement to mean something different than you took it to mean. I think you're arguing the wrong thing. You seem to think that he believes that because "we can truly see" the global temperature now that those readings are all we should trust. I think what he means is that the period of time the readings have existed are too short to justify a trend, much as pro-human-influence arguers so far have claimed was the cause of many anti-human-influence arguers disbelief.

Data until 1980 also did not include oceans which occupy some 70% of the planets surface.

The historical ocean temperature record, generated via direct observation and filled in via proxies and modeling goes back to the mid-to-late 19th century.{1}{2}

30 or even 100 yrs does not make a climate trend (see ice core data).

30-100 years certainly is enough of a trend by your own standards. You’ll go on to quote >5 years as a trend.

You're both doing it. Both for your own sides. You're both calling short term a trend when it suits you. You're both claiming the other is doing it and then being hypocritical. Again, I ask - what is "just right" for the length of time to determine a trend as being "man made" versus "not man made"? How do you determine that length and how do you prove it as not arbitrary to fit your arguement?

I don't follow your argument. If the point is to say increase in CO2 is bad and temperature rise is bad

It isn’t inherently “bad”. The results of such increases will be at first largely and then subsequently extremely “bad” for us because of the way we have inhabited the planet, demographically and agriculturally. In order to object to the mainstream scientific opinion, you should be aware of what it is in the first place. A lot of spin has been generated trying to frame the situation that scientists believe that CO2 is inherently bad (“When in fact, it’s fertilizer!TM”). This is ridiculous, if not for the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be some 60F colder, uninhabitable. There is nothing “wrong” with CO2 per se. It’s that increasing concentrations of known GHGs leads to warming, this warming leads to shifts in the shape, intensity, duration, and location of climatic “norms” (as much as any exist) and this will have predictably negative impacts for residents of the biosphere adjusted to a fairly small band of variability.

I like this. Regardless of which side someone is on, I like this. It's the first rational thing I've actually seen - as most people on one side or another argue the "world is better off without humans" debate or the "we need to go back to living like cavemen" debate...this is about whats best for the humans on it.

The 800,000 yrs of data does show massive temp changes.

Not as much as fast as what we’re seeing now. And the 800,000 years of data also shows that CO2 concentrations have greatly exceeded natural variability.

I do agree that humans have caused an increase in CO2 (100ppm or 0.01%) increase in atmospheric CO2.

Interesting that you choose to frame it as an increase in percentage of the total atmospheric concentration rather than the concentration of CO2 itself. It certainly doesn’t sound like much when you put it that way.

When you acknowledge that we’ve actually increased CO2 ~30-40% of preindustrial levels, it makes a bit more sense why there is concern.

I'm curious, using BOTH of your arguements as true (which ghostface seems to aknowledge). If we've increased our CO2 levels by 30 - 40% compared to preindustrial levels, then we've increased our CO2 levels per his arguement from about .006% to .01% in about 250 years from the 1750s (which is when the "industrial revolution" really got its start). Assuming we continue at a linear trend then we wouldn't even increase it by 1% total (from the begining) for another ~25,000 years. Now, what affect that much of a shift over time would have on global warming and the arguement I have no idea.

My point is atmospheric CO2 is only 1 factor in a system that should be looked at as chaotic and not linear. There are so many factors such as solar output, orbit, cosmic dust, cloud cover, vegetation cover, non-pervious surfaces, etc., that should be included, but are typically ignored in the global climate change discussion.

Ignored by whom? Who is ignoring solar forcing, cosmic dust, cloud cover, vegetal influence on the carbon cycle as well as albedo, etc.? The gibbering masses? Sure. Is their opinion relevant to the science? Absolutely not.

[/quote]

Perhaps not, but it is the gibbering masses you have to convince it is happening and motivate to cause change. Calling them gibbering masses doesn't help that. It only makes you sound like an elitist with an agenda of control over the masses. Just a thought.

Over the last 15 months it has been .53 using Dr. Hansen at NASA (who I believe has an agenda) anomoly scale. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/monthly_maps.lrg.gif
This trend has continued to decrease...
[img]<img%20src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3205/2352190562_368fedc931.jpg"%20width="500"%20height="375"%20alt="Temperatures_since_2003"%20/></a>[/img]]

So before, when 30-100 years was “not a trend”, this suddenly is because why?

I again point out the tendancy of both sides of this arguement (over the course of this thread) to both be guilty of doing this.

I’m not a fan of the “well, regardless of what the science says, we all can agree that we need to reduce fossil fuel dependence” compromise, because it gives ground to the side that rejects science without credible evidence.

You may not be a fan of it, but you may have to accept it because I seriously doubt most people say it out of some sort of attempt to disenfranchise your claims - but out of a sincere belief that pollution and manmade effects are there on a level that can inconvenience us...even if they don't believe in the "bigger picture" you paint.

Mainstream scientific attribution of observed warming is that humans are the dominant cause. That’s what NCAR, NASA, NOAA, Met-Hadley, CRU, the IPCC, AAAS, the AGU, the National Science Academies of the G8+5 (Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the UK, and the United States), etc. all say.

Yes, but mainstream science also once believed the world was flat, that the sun orbited the earth, that there couldn't be water on other worlds/moons in our solar system, that other planets didn't exist outside our own star system and that man was the center of the universe. Granted, Science was controlled by the Church and the government during much of that. But while the Church may have finally taken its hand (for the most part) out of the cookie jar...the government is still there playing with both sides. Modern skepticism is a result of a distrust of institutions...period..not just of science but the basis of information. We don't trust the media. We don't trust the government. And we don't trust the agencies that depend on both to get the word out to us about the world around us (to include science). Its the culture we live in because of sincere and evident corruptions that have shown themselves.

You seem to argue that Creationists and similar "gibbering masses" are trying to manipulate the facts and truth to suit their needs. This may be true (in fact I'm pretty sure of it).

Others seem to argue that Politicians and other "elites" are trying to manipulate the facts and truth to suit their needs. This may be true (in fact I'm pretty sure of it).

Regardless of if you are on one side, the other, or are actually the real deal in your statement of fact, the truth is many people don't want to trust you (this is a generalization "you", not you specifically ghostface) because of the culture we live in today.

The key isn't just to prove your case right, but to do so in a manner that helps people want to listen.

[SSgtMobley]

I've seen some book recommendations in this thread.

I would recommend a new book by Dr. Roy Spencer, Climate Confusion.

Are there any contrarians out there that aren’t Intelligent Design fans, smoking-cancer/CFC-ozone depletion deniers, paid by anti-regulation think tanks, etc.?

Yeah. Me.

[ghostface]

The lack of a previous rapid warming is not proof of a current cause.

That’s not my claim. I am rebutting the contention that warming like this has happened before. It has not as far as we can tell.

Mearly that there was no previous rapid warming. It seems as if you're extrapolating that because the scientific hypothosis is that the current rapid warming is due to man-made influence that the lack of previous rapid warming is proof of this.

Of course not. There is a mountain of evidence in support of anthropogenic warming. This isn’t based upon an observed correlation between CO2 and warming or the increasing rates thereof- It's founded on fundamental physics relating to infrared absorption by greenhouse gases, blackbody radiation, atmospheric moist thermodynamics, etc. Anthropogenic warming from increased levels of CO2 is an over 110 year old concept in physics.

What does this mean?

It means that when direct observations cannot or have not been available, proxies for those records are used.

Because it sounds like you're saying "In lieu of scientific facts specifically related to what we're attempting to understand we're going to select other facts and insert them." This sounds like an apples to oranges comparison. I DO understand that the world is interconnected and that readings regarding other aspects of the world can help us reverse engineer the causes and relate them possibly to other areas. I know the world isn't independant sets of data and systems. I'm just pointing out how what you said sounds.

If you don’t accept proxy data for past temperature you are rejecting not just mainstream climate science, but a lot of geology, biology, chemistry, etc. Feel free to do so, but remain consistent. Also reject any attempts to talk about what the climate of the Jurassic was and so on.

But earlier in this thread statements similar to "It was cooler these last 5 years so Global Warming is fake" as attacked for being short term. Now you're saying that short term is what we need to look at?

No, again- I am not claiming that the rate of change is proof of anything- this is once again merely a rebuttal to the claim that such a rate has occurred before. And once again the running mean reflects the continued warming trend.

Is there a specific "medium term" that needs to be looked at? A point where looking at too big a picture can occure AND looking at too short a picture can occur? What temperature of porridge is "just right" and how do you know it is just right and not arbitrary?

There is no “correct” answer to this- people that understand atmosphere and climate can look at the entire reconstructed temperature record going back hundreds of millions of years ago and correctly see the current increase as significant and concerning because they understand the other components (besides temp) in play. Likewise, they can look at a slice of a few years and know that internal variability can overwhelm the warming signal on the short term while the overall trend continues to rise.

You are attempting to use an attack on someone's faith-based creationism belief as a basis for attack on someone's effort to actual debate you using facts on a completely seperate matter. If they are out of context they are out of context, but please don't pull the "you're wrong because you're a devout christian" card.

No- I am drawing a parallel between two groups that reject mainstream scientific opinion. I have no idea whether he is or is not a religious person- that’s irrelevant. I’ve seen plenty of atheists do this. The point is that you have to tie yourself into knots in order to justify rejecting science- quote mining sources that explicitly support what you are attempting to deny is an example.

Rather than trying to invalidate the person disagreeing with you, invalidate the statements please...else you will risk violating forum rules.

I’m pretty well aware of the forum rules. That’s one of the reasons why I am moderator.

You seem to think that he believes that because "we can truly see" the global temperature now that those readings are all we should trust.

No, I was pointing out that the source he seems to trust (satellites) explodes the idea that surface temps are wrong because of UHI, as the former confirms the latter.

You're both doing it. Both for your own sides. You're both calling short term a trend when it suits you.

Please cite as evidence when I’ve ever portrayed such a short time period as a definite trend. I referenced the temp for the 5-year running mean because that is the most up to date in terms of describing the entire warming (+120 years). Not as the trend itself.

Again, I ask - what is "just right" for the length of time to determine a trend as being "man made" versus "not man made"? How do you determine that length and how do you prove it as not arbitrary to fit your arguement?

It’s all about context. If I see a five-year stagnation or cooling of global temps, I would note it as something to look into- are we, for example, in the downward phase of the solar cycle? Are we experiencing above average volcanism? Several strong La Ninas? And so on. I wouldn’t call five years worth of warming significant without attribution either. And moreover, if we had five years of warming well above the 2005 record during our current solar cycle, I would look beyond emissions and land use for what was causing the bump. 1998, for example, was an anomaly- an extremely warm El Nino pushed that year’s temps beyond what was expected. If the next five years are not as warm, that hardly constitutes cooling.

I'm curious, using BOTH of your arguements as true (which ghostface seems to aknowledge). If we've increased our CO2 levels by 30 - 40% compared to preindustrial levels, then we've increased our CO2 levels per his arguement from about .006% to .01% in about 250 years from the 1750s (which is when the "industrial revolution" really got its start).

No- current levels are around 385 ppmv, or .0385% of the total atmosphere. That is up from ~280 ppmv or .028% from preindustrial average:



Talking about it in terms of total atmosphere is a strategy designed to underplay its significance.

Assuming we continue at a linear trend then we wouldn't even increase it by 1% total (from the begining) for another ~25,000 years. Now, what affect that much of a shift over time would have on global warming and the arguement I have no idea.

We are not on a linear path. Emissions could easily reach 900 ppmv by end of century, which could easily result in 5C warming or more.

Perhaps not, but it is the gibbering masses you have to convince it is happening and motivate to cause change. Calling them gibbering masses doesn't help that. It only makes you sound like an elitist with an agenda of control over the masses. Just a thought.

I am being a little flippant because it irritates me to see public opinion/grasp of a subject equated with scientific knowledge/debate. The idea that no one is tracking other forcings/factors in climate science is monumentally absurd. Also, if my agenda was to control the masses, why would I insult them?

I again point out the tendancy of both sides of this arguement (over the course of this thread) to both be guilty of doing this.

When did I do this?

You may not be a fan of it, but you may have to accept it because I seriously doubt most people say it out of some sort of attempt to disenfranchise your claims - but out of a sincere belief that pollution and manmade effects are there on a level that can inconvenience us...even if they don't believe in the "bigger picture" you paint.

That’s fine by me. I am just extremely tired of the old “even if no one knows if humans are causing warming we can all agree to get off of fossil fuels”, because, as I said, it cedes ground to those that reject science. We do know with more than sufficient confidence that humans are causing the majority of the observed warming.

heliocentrism, flat earth, etc.

You’ll forgive me if I don’t dignify that with a response for the obvious reasons.

But while the Church may have finally taken its hand (for the most part) out of the cookie jar...the government is still there playing with both sides. Modern skepticism is a result of a distrust of institutions...period..not just of science but the basis of information. We don't trust the media. We don't trust the government. And we don't trust the agencies that depend on both to get the word out to us about the world around us (to include science). Its the culture we live in because of sincere and evident corruptions that have shown themselves.

You’re welcome to reject what mainstream science has to say on any subject. That is different than pretending that it has nothing to say.

Anyone that chooses to believe that humans are not causing warming is rejecting the findings of pretty much every relevant scientific body involved. If they want to do that, so be it.

You seem to argue that Creationists and similar "gibbering masses" are trying to manipulate the facts and truth to suit their needs. This may be true (in fact I'm pretty sure of it).

I think that’s been made evident.

Others seem to argue that Politicians and other "elites" are trying to manipulate the facts and truth to suit their needs. This may be true (in fact I'm pretty sure of it).

Irrelevant to the science.

Regardless of if you are on one side, the other, or are actually the real deal in your statement of fact, the truth is many people don't want to trust you (this is a generalization "you", not you specifically ghostface) because of the culture we live in today.

The key isn't just to prove your case right, but to do so in a manner that helps people want to listen.

It has been my experience that when someone chooses to reject scientific opinion- be it regarding evolution, smoking, CFCs-ozone depletion, anthropogenic warming, what have you- they are doing so for ideological reasons. It could be religion, it could be anti-regulation politico-economic preference. It could be because of a belief that humans are simply insignificant in comparison to Nature. To accept science when it contradicts their ideology means potentially delegitimizing their belief system, which most people will not consider. The only thing that can allow them to accept the science is for their ideology to accept or find a compromise for it.

Many people that formerly denied that the planet was even warming eventually ceded that as the paradigm of denial shifted to causation. Those same people then acknowledged human influence as the paradigm of shifted to focusing on the economic costs of mitigation.

However, there is no cohesive denial theory, which is why you can have a group of skeptics, or even individuals themselves, simultaneously denying warming, admitting warming but denying human influence, admitting warming and human influence but downplaying the amount, admitting warming, human influence, and amount, but claiming that the cost of mitigation will be too high and/or that China, India, etc. will gain economic advantage. And so on.

[ghostface]

Are there any contrarians out there that aren’t Intelligent Design fans, smoking-cancer/CFC-ozone depletion deniers, paid by anti-regulation think tanks, etc.?

Yeah. Me.

I meant among so-called experts, but...

Some great, free resources on climate change and climate science:

# IPCC AR4 Working Group 1: The Physical Science Basis

There are glossaries that explain most of the terminology. Alternatively, you can get the terminology and a brief sketch of the science by reading:

# Elizabeth Kolbert's award winning (National Magazine Award, National Academy of Sciences Communication Award, American Association for the Advancement of Science’s magazine award) series of articles for the New Yorker The Climate of Man.

Audio and video:

# NASA and the Adler Planetarium have an audio podcast outlining most of the relevant science
# The University of Arizona has a nice but more basic overview in their climate change lecture series videopodcast
#Lonnie Thompson's lecture on abrupt climate change at this last AGU (Fall '07) meeting
# UC Berkeley's Atmospheric Science class LS70B podcast touches on the basics, and includes a minimal amount of the relevant math (pops to iTunes)

Textbooks:

# Ray Pierrehumbert has a textbook that he is putting together that is currently free, though a work in progress
# David Archer has a couple of his chapters of his textbook online
# Spencer Weart's chronology of climate change science is available in an online form

One more interesting item:

# University of California: Perspectives on Ocean Science The American Denial of Global Warming

by Naomi Oreskes, author of Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

If you are honestly skeptical and you just don't have the information- it is there for you.

If you read/listen to even a fraction of the information there, and still believe that there is no evidence, then so be it. I've never met anyone that has. They either refuse to educate themselves or acknowledge the evidence.

[SSgtMobley]

No, again- I am not claiming that the rate of change is proof of anything-

But you spent much of the post I quoted you from pointing out the period of time the other guy used to show rate of change was wrong and that we should look at your period of time to look at rate of change as proof. I would quote from those couple of posts ago but it takes a lot of effort on my part to successfully use the quote function on the LAST post without having to figure out how to mix quotes from multiple posts. Just go back a few and read and you'll see you're attack on his graphs as options have you repeatedly discussing how your information was more correct because of the rate of change.

I'm curious, using BOTH of your arguements as true (which ghostface seems to aknowledge). If we've increased our CO2 levels by 30 - 40% compared to preindustrial levels, then we've increased our CO2 levels per his arguement from about .006% to .01% in about 250 years from the 1750s (which is when the "industrial revolution" really got its start).

No- current levels are around 385 ppmv, or .0385% of the total atmosphere. That is up from ~280 ppmv or .028% from preindustrial average:

.038 - .028 = .01, you state that focusing on that percentage is wrong. What would you have us focus on?...because your ppmv are still a percentage. I don't get your arguement.

heliocentrism, flat earth, etc.

You’ll forgive me if I don’t dignify that with a response for the obvious reasons.

If it were so obvious I wouldn't have made a statement for a response. However, it wasn't the point of the paragraph. It was the introduction that led to the part you DID respond to below.

But while the Church may have finally taken its hand (for the most part) out of the cookie jar...the government is still there playing with both sides. Modern skepticism is a result of a distrust of institutions...period..not just of science but the basis of information. We don't trust the media. We don't trust the government. And we don't trust the agencies that depend on both to get the word out to us about the world around us (to include science). Its the culture we live in because of sincere and evident corruptions that have shown themselves.

You’re welcome to reject what mainstream science has to say on any subject. That is different than pretending that it has nothing to say.

Anyone that chooses to believe that humans are not causing warming is rejecting the findings of pretty much every relevant scientific body involved. If they want to do that, so be it.

The point of the statement wasn't that we should ignore you, but that you have the problem to deal with in terms of changing perceptions weather you like it or not.

You seem to argue that Creationists and similar "gibbering masses" are trying to manipulate the facts and truth to suit their needs. This may be true (in fact I'm pretty sure of it).

I think that’s been made evident.

Others seem to argue that Politicians and other "elites" are trying to manipulate the facts and truth to suit their needs. This may be true (in fact I'm pretty sure of it).

Irrelevant to the science.

You point out the validity of the first part, but ignore the validity or importance of the second part by simply stating it as irrelevant to science. While it may be irrelavant to science it is VERY relavant to your case and your ability to present it. Both sides are.

For there to be the shift in paradigm you require for ideologs, there has to be a means to help them shift it. Throwing scientific facts at them like stones at a witch who isn't part of your church doesn't do it. You need to convert them.

[SSgtMobley]

Ghostface,

I would have addressed your asking me to cite you when you were making claims based on short term climate changes, but I couldn't manage it in the last post without screwing up the post itself. Here it is.

First of all, the climate doesn’t fluctuate like this in any regular (~22, ~42, ~100 ka) orbital cycle- there is no record of this much warming happening globally this quickly...

majority of papers published during that time dealt with global warming.{1}{2}

In both the above quotes, as well as the majority of your graphs, you seem focused on the fact that "this quickly" refers to the 1960's - 2000. Granted, the majority of those who argue against you were claiming significantly shorter periods (such as 5 years). However, when someone attempts to show you a trend over the course of hundreds of thousands of years (through a icecore sample) you then state that they can't do it over that long a period because there is no evidence of somewhere where the changes are "this quick".

I asked you in a previous post what is the "right period" of time because to say we can't look at anything too small a period is to not look at trends but simple short term causality AND to say we can't look at long term trends as being irrelevant doesn't make sense to me. Your answer was that "its in context" and people who understand climate change look at both periods. Well if people who understand climate change look at both, why are you telling us to look at neither? And if its "in context" what is it in context with?

[ghostface]

But you spent much of the post I quoted you from pointing out the period of time the other guy used to show rate of change was wrong and that we should look at your period of time to look at rate of change as proof. I would quote from those couple of posts ago but it takes a lot of effort on my part to successfully use the quote function on the LAST post without having to figure out how to mix quotes from multiple posts. Just go back a few and read and you'll see you're attack on his graphs as options have you repeatedly discussing how your information was more correct because of the rate of change.

There seems to be some sort of disconnect here.

The assertion or implication that the current warming is natural because we’ve had periods of warming before is fallacious because we have no evidence of such warming at such a rate. This isn’t proof in and of itself of anthropogenic influence, it is a refutation of the idea that this has happened before.

.038 - .028 = .01, you state that focusing on that percentage is wrong.

No, I said it was a way to downplay the significance of its increase.

What would you have us focus on?...because your ppmv are still a percentage. I don't get your arguement.

The percentage of total atmosphere a gas consists of is not in and of itself reflective of the amount of warming it produces. Oxygen and nitrogen could shift from .0000000000000001% to 99.9999999999999999% of a given atmosphere with no increase in radiative energy balance because they are not GHGs. By shifting the amount of increase relative to total of an already small percentage, the relevant percentage of change (preindustrial to current) of CO2 itself is obscured. If .028% is enough to warm the planet by X degrees, increasing that concentration by some 35% implies a change in temperature beyond that suggested by a mere .01% increase to most people.

The point of the statement wasn't that we should ignore you, but that you have the problem to deal with in terms of changing perceptions weather you like it or not.

As I’ve said, the people that remain unconvinced about anthropogenic warming are doing so out of ideology or ignorance. If ignorance, there is plenty of free material available to them. If ideology, there is little or nothing that can be done until their ideology catches up to science.

You point out the validity of the first part, but ignore the validity or importance of the second part by simply stating it as irrelevant to science.

The first part has no bearing on the science either.

While it may be irrelavant to science it is VERY relavant to your case and your ability to present it. Both sides are.

When science conflicts with ideology, it is almost always one's ideology that wins out. No presentation, no matter how perfect, will be enough to convince someone that refuses to acknowledge the science underlying it.

For there to be the shift in paradigm you require for ideologs, there has to be a means to help them shift it.

I don’t “require” any shift- the ideologies do in order to maintain relevance. They and their supporters will be forced to catch up to science lest they be marginalized. Science has no obligation to duke it out with those that have no interest in reality.

Throwing scientific facts at them like stones at a witch who isn't part of your church doesn't do it.

Just as an FYI- when someone equates science and religion, literally or figuratively, many people stop listening.

You need to convert them.

Why?

In both the above quotes, as well as the majority of your graphs, you seem focused on the fact that "this quickly" refers to the 1960's - 2000.

Woah there- that second quote is dealing with the focus of studies published- it doesn’t have anything to do per se with the warming trend itself. I’m not sure why you’re referencing that.

Granted, the majority of those who argue against you were claiming significantly shorter periods (such as 5 years).

And any one five year period is too short, either in favor of or against warming.

However, when someone attempts to show you a trend over the course of hundreds of thousands of years (through a icecore sample) you then state that they can't do it over that long a period because there is no evidence of somewhere where the changes are "this quick".

No, no, no. They can cite the ice core changes, but not as evidence of similar warming, because while the amount of change in temp may be similar, the rate of change is not.

I asked you in a previous post what is the "right period" of time because to say we can't look at anything too small a period is to not look at trends but simple short term causality AND to say we can't look at long term trends as being irrelevant doesn't make sense to me.

It’s not that long terms trends are irrelevant- it’s that long term trends without the same context are not relevant-

Solar output has been relatively constant for the period in discussion, and GHG concentrations, while cyclical, have been fairly regular. Citing temperatures from a period when solar output and atmospheric makeup was completely different, or GHG levels from a period before glaciation was possible due to the continental configuration doesn’t make sense because the contexts are so different as to make the comparisons not particularly useful.

Does it make sense to you to compare current temperatures and climate to the period of time when the Earth had no water? Before the Earth had oxygen? You can see where I’m going, hopefully.

Your answer was that "its in context" and people who understand climate change look at both periods. Well if people who understand climate change look at both, why are you telling us to look at neither? And if its "in context" what is it in context with?

I’m not telling anyone to look at neither- look, but do so within the larger context of what you are looking at. 1998-2004, for example- do you see cooling? Maybe, but let’s look at the context- oh, 1998 was a massive El Nino year skewing that temp so high that the next few years seem to show cooling. Zoom out a little more and it becomes clear that something anomalous happened in 1998 even without knowing the specifics, and that the following years in fact were consistent with the overall warming trend.

Context is key. January 2007-January 2008 shows a drop in temp- why? It helps to know the context. 2007 was one of the warmest years on record and the winter of ’07 had a La Nina coinciding with the minimum of solar cycle 23.

[mrdbeau]

Are there any contrarians out there that aren’t Intelligent Design fans, smoking-cancer/CFC-ozone depletion deniers, paid by anti-regulation think tanks, etc.?

Hahaha... I wasn't sure if you'd go the intelligent design route, but I thought you would. Well I have a degree in Biology and I've taken Evolution classes and I still don't believe in Evolution as it is asserted today. Nor do I believe in intelligent design strictly or that the Earth has only been around 10,000 years. Actually, I see Evolution and Global Warming to have many commonalities. They are "generally believed" theories that both have serious problems with them, but that does not mean there are not some parts of both of those theories that are true.

He’s contradicted by the largest economic studies done on the subject, from the UK Treasury’s Report to the WG II and III of the IPCC.

However, he's backed up by many people in the UN, the US, and other places that have already tracked a definitive role that Ethanol (as a global warming "fix," which is complete fallacy) has played in rising food prices worldwide and an increased difficulty in global food distribution.

They survived then because the change happened slowly, over a long period of time, and they were able to shift with the climate. Polar bear populations today are faced with prior over-hunting, loss of habitat, chemical pollution, etc. Unchecked emissions warming and the resulting melt of hunting ice would be a substantial threat to their numbers.

The time frame is completely irrelevant. If polar bears can survive with no ice at the North Pole, then they could survive if there was no ice at the North Pole. If ice disappeared completely from the North Pole in the next year, polar bears would survive. Would there be a massive die off due to an inability to move to more habitable areas, yes. But would polar bears still survive? Yes. Furthermore, there is significant evidence that there are more polar bears now than in the past, so the "over-hunting, loss of habitat, chemical pollution, etc." is overstated, perhaps vastly.

[SSgtMobley]

You need to convert them.

Why?

[/quote]

Because if you're intended goal is to save the planet through undoing human-influence or changing human influence you need to convince the humans to do it. And as long as there is a loud enough voice in the form of people based on ideology you will find that difficult if not impossible.

[ghostface]

Hahaha... I wasn't sure if you'd go the intelligent design route, but I thought you would. Well I have a degree in Biology and I've taken Evolution classes and I still don't believe in Evolution as it is asserted today. Nor do I believe in intelligent design strictly or that the Earth has only been around 10,000 years. Actually, I see Evolution and Global Warming to have many commonalities. They are "generally believed" theories that both have serious problems with them, but that does not mean there are not some parts of both of those theories that are true.

Feel free to PM me what you believe the problems with "Evolution as it is asserted today" are. I don't think it's relevant to current events, but I am curious.

And yes, there are a lot of commonalities between the arguments. One side is supported overwhelmingly by the scientific community, and the other is populated by a vocal minority that can't even agree among themselves about what they disagree with the consensus view on.

However, he's backed up by many people in the UN, the US, and other places that have already tracked a definitive role that Ethanol (as a global warming "fix," which is complete fallacy) has played in rising food prices worldwide and an increased difficulty in global food distribution.

Corn-based ethanol being a terrible idea isn't something unique to Spencer, or the contrarian community. It has widely been criticized by the scientific and environmental communities and its largest backers are agri-businesses and politicians from corn states. That's not a point in his favor, it's a nearly universally agreed upon issue.

The time frame is completely irrelevant. If polar bears can survive with no ice at the North Pole, then they could survive if there was no ice at the North Pole. If ice disappeared completely from the North Pole in the next year, polar bears would survive. Would there be a massive die off due to an inability to move to more habitable areas, yes.

The difference being, of course, that a smaller polar bear population not at risk from the numerous other factors they face today would be much more likely to keep its numbers high enough to repopulate the Arctic during the next glaciation. Polar bears wouldn't be wiped out to a bear, but their population would become extremely vulnerable to any other threat, such as disease.

Furthermore, there is significant evidence that there are more polar bears now than in the past, so the "over-hunting, loss of habitat, chemical pollution, etc." is overstated, perhaps vastly.

There is evidence that some polar bear populations (it's not one big group mind you) were underestimated, sure, but the general agreement is that prior to the restrictions on hunting in the mid 70s, their overall numbers had dropped significantly.

The polar bear argument is really just a sideshow. I don't think that warming itself will cause the polar bear to go extinct. And there is still too much uncertainty in population trends to make bold statements about their numbers with any sort of confidence.

[ghostface]

Because if you're intended goal is to save the planet through undoing human-influence or changing human influence you need to convince the humans to do it. And as long as there is a loud enough voice in the form of people based on ideology you will find that difficult if not impossible.

Not really. As an example- and please let's not take this into politics itself- every candidate remaining in the Presidential race for the United States has not only acknowledged the reality of anthropogenic warming and resulting climate change (Bush has even done that), they have all committed to significant emissions reductions in furtherance of an international agreement to mitigate.

EDIT to add:

Mark my words, attempts to further educate or convince the public will be called propaganda and viewed as part of a conspiracy by those that reject the science.

[Old_Man]

Can you name an event, not including D-O events (which we can rule out due to observations of thermohaline circulation), when warming occurred as much over as short of a time period? If you can, you should write it up in study form and submit it to Science or Nature, because no one else seems to be able to.

Why do we rule out rapid warming events yet want to include other rapid warming events? Though typically a Dansgaard-Oeschger event takes 1500 yrs?

Please read the raw Vostok (or others) icecore data.

Depth (m) 202-200
Sample ages 8226 to 8135 YBp (span of 81 years) Please note, the cores where taken in 1999 so another ~9 yrs should be added (not sure which month it was pulled).

Temperature changes from -0.87 deg C to + 2.06 deg C

An anomaly change of +2.93 deg C in a span of 81 years. I assume an 81 yr event counts? or am I cherry picking and this is a D-O event we should discount?

.... 128357 YBp the temp was 3.23 deg C above 'norm' or 2.52 deg C higher than summer of 2007 anomoly (I picked it since it was a high anomaly).

1917 to 2004
-0.4 to +0.62 or a positive of +0.66 (new corrected NASA data...according to NASA)

I'm missing the extreme? I don't need to write a paper...the data is out there.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/vostok/vostok.1999.temp.dat


Paleoclimatologists theorize that it would take many years (decades?)of plus 2 degrees C to melt both ice caps. So I think we have a way to go.

That said...

Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I do not deny humans (as I stated before) have caused a plus 100ppm increase over the last 100 years. BUT temperatures are NOT following....thus I am dubious....want to talk water vapor then we may have something....

In the interest of not driving everyone insane with a discussion that really does not address the original purpose of this forum...I will shut up and let you have the last word....