The Most Extra New Super Global Warming Thread

[Lucky Shot]

You ask for sources, I give them then you compare me to a criminal. I posted that fully knowing you would take no time whatsoever to look it up but still did it as I am stubborn and want to show that I do have data on my side as well.

I don't believe you have access to the peer review process at the IPCC, but I would like to see the notes behind their process as well as the source code used in their global warming models. Let's be honest though, the UN has no interest in providing that information and you don't have access to it. But provide me that for further basis of conversation.

Lucky Shot

[Kerostasis]

Originally Posted by bkelly

But before you decide to lurk I'd be interested in your answer to one question. What would it take- what theories could I prove, what data could I show you, what studies could I debunk- for you to conclude that there is a good chance that the Earth is warming and humans are responsible?

bkelly

For my part, you'd have to show a study demonstrating unique warming that had never occurred previously on Earth. All of the studies I've seen so far present warming that is no more significant than warming that has happened in the past, if not 30 years ago then 400 years ago, if not 400 years ago then 15000 years ago. Show me something new, that hasn't happened before, and I'd strongly consider changing my mind.

[Gillespie]

The last major warming cycle that occurred - to my knowledge - was about 700 years ago, sometime after the Black Death swept through Europe. It was a benefit to humanity. Global warming is nothing new, yet it is being treated as an impending global disaster.

As others have said: the global warming "issue" is propaganda and alarmist tripe. There's no conclusive data that proves humanity is making any sort of notable impact upon the climate, yet many government officials and scientists are treating the subject as if its a lost cause.

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by Gillespie

As others have said: the global warming "issue" is propaganda and alarmist tripe. There's no conclusive data that proves humanity is making any sort of notable impact upon the climate, yet many government officials and scientists are treating the subject as if its a lost cause.

Assuming that "they" are knowingly publishing falsehoods, if it's for the purpose of righting other ecological issues, would that make it OK?

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by Lucky Shot

You ask for sources, I give them then you compare me to a criminal. I posted that fully knowing you would take no time whatsoever to look it up but still did it as I am stubborn and want to show that I do have data on my side as well.

I did not mean to offend. I just found it funny that I asked for the eight year plateau sources and received links covering everything from ice cores to holes in the existing computers models.

I have read about 75% of what you presented and will get to the rest. I have much to say but know my replies can quickly become a dense fog. My comments on everything would surely be impenetrable.

On your requests, NCAR is the head developer of the newest public forcasting model, WRF (http://wrf-model.org/index.php - Woo! I can post links!). I may not be able to determine if studies used it or the previous model but the source code of either shouldn't be a problem. As for the IPCC notes, I know of no way, but can ask.

But I'd like to go back to my last question as I was looking for a higher level answer, like Kerostasis' above. You described global warming as a lemon and implied that you've no faith in the GISS numbers and the UN. Could either of these groups do something to change your opinion of them or would you require new data from a new source? Also, you have pointed out a lot of unknowns in climate forcasts. Is there something that could be done to make you think they were reasonable handled?

bkelly

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

For my part, you'd have to show a study demonstrating unique warming that had never occurred previously on Earth.

That is a fair answer Kerostasis, thank you, and it makes the importance of the hockey stick controversy clearer in my mind.

What are your thoughts on the shrinking polar ice cap, retreating glaciers and increasing runoff of the Greenland ice sheet?

bkelly

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Assuming that "they" are knowingly publishing falsehoods, if it's for the purpose of righting other ecological issues, would that make it OK?

Gillespie, may I?

Absolutely not. Such deception for the greater good has been the cause of some of the greatest atrocities in human history.

bkelly

[xTYBALTx]

I've been making my way through the TED talks lately. They're fascinating, anyone who considers himself intellectually curious would like them. But before I get too far off track, I was watching one talk which centered on the eventual possible colonization of Mars; the key, according to the speaker, is to establish factories on the planet now which can begin the long process of converting surface minerals into gasses which may create a suitable atmosphere.

Interesting stuff.

On the global warming issue, I find Michael Crichton's views on the unpredictability of complex systems compelling, but it's hardly the final nail in the coffin. And I'll tag along with pretty much everything Lucky Shot has posted as well. The fellows presented by that British show a few months back were impressive, and they seemed to present a tight set of arguments. Such is the nature of rigorous thought that a theory corroborated by decades of research can be disproven with a single piece of evidence.

[Kerostasis]

Originally Posted by bkelly

That is a fair answer Kerostasis, thank you, and it makes the importance of the hockey stick controversy clearer in my mind.

What are your thoughts on the shrinking polar ice cap, retreating glaciers and increasing runoff of the Greenland ice sheet?

bkelly

All interesting phenomena that, frightening as they may be, are nothing new. They've all happened before. The Polar Ice cap, for example, has actually been smaller than its current state just in the last century. Greenland was settled during a time when its glaciers had retreated far more than they have today. So what I'm looking for is something new, that humanity hasn't already seen, and lived through just fine.

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

Such is the nature of rigorous thought that a theory corroborated by decades of research can be disproven with a single piece of evidence.

Hmmm, my quote for the day today was:

Originally Posted by Thomas H. Huxley

The great tragedy of Science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

I find Michael Crichton's views on the unpredictability of complex systems compelling...

This argument keeps coming up in one form or another without it ever really being said so let me just get it out on the table. I believe some people on this forum would argue:

Long-term climate forecasts are nothing better than guesswork because weather is a complex system, the exact initial conditions can never be known, all the interactions within the system can never be fully understood and external events that affect the system can never be predicted.

Lucky Shot, Tybalt and anyone else who might consider extended computer models fiction, is this an accurate summary of your position?

bkelly

[xTYBALTx]

I find it a compelling position, yes, but it's not the final nail in the coffin, so to speak. Computer models need not be perfect to be useful, even a ballpark figure can be sufficient in certain situations.

Like I said in my previous post, a lot of people have raised a lot of issues; the folks in that Brit documentary seemed to present a tight set of arguments, the Aussie that Lucky Shot posted seemed to have a few good points, and the Crichton position is more supplementary than anything - I don't think Crichton's position is sufficient to destroy the entire anthropogenic global warming theory, it's just enough to cast some doubt.

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by bkelly

This argument keeps coming up in one form or another without it ever really being said so let me just get it out on the table. I believe some people on this forum would argue:

Long-term climate forecasts are nothing better than guesswork because weather is a complex system, the exact initial conditions can never be known, all the interactions within the system can never be fully understood and external events that affect the system can never be predicted.

Lucky Shot, Tybalt and anyone else who might consider extended computer models fiction, is this an accurate summary of your position?

bkelly

Isn't that what some in the IPCC say?

Originally Posted by Lucky Shot

Ironically, their is a misconception that the IPCC predicts the future. The head (Kevin Trenberth) of the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research and an advisory to the UN IPCC says in fact that the IPCC does not and can not predict the future. Most of the possibilities in their computer models are static and they produce basic "What if's" based on a couple variables. They don't account for the El Nino, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, Recovery of the Ozone Layer, Observed trends in Forcing Agents, State of the Ocean, Sea Ice, or soil moisture as well as many other hundreds of possibilities.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...-27197,00.html

Jim Renwick, a lead author of the IPCC Working Group 1 Science report admits "climate prediction is hard, half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don't expect to do terrifically well." This is based on an audit issued by New Zealand's NIWA which stated that climate forecasts were accurate about 48% of the time (Coin Flip territory).
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...-27197,00.html

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by bkelly

On your requests, NCAR is the head developer of the newest public forcasting model, WRF

Lucky Shot, I was mistaken. WRF is specifically tailored to weather forecasting so its focus is on how front X will interact with front Y so we'll know if it will rain next Tuesday. It isn't designed for long term forecasts with increasing CO(2) concentrations or with routines to estimate the effect of the unpredictable parts of the weather system.

The package you were asking about is the Community Climate System Model at http://www.ccsm.ucar.edu. My understanding is that this the most popular framework for American climate forecast models. Framework meaning scientists can modify the model to get better and more detailed results in area of their focus (ocean, land, ice or atmosphere). American because the Europeans have their own version of the CCSM as do other countries. The IPCC publications contain an average of the best models available.

bkelly

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Isn't that what some in the IPCC say?

I don't think so but the question is about your beliefs, Cingular. Do you think long-term climate forecasts are as reliable as fortune telling for the reasons I listed?

bkelly