Global Warming

[JackRT]

Over the past 50 years or so we have gotten a pretty good scientific understanding of the natural warming and cooling cycles. There are a number of mechanisms which can work independently but also combine in a number of ways --- eccentricity of earth's orbit, gyroscopic precession of the poles, solar storms and flares, etc. These have all been studied extensively by climate scientists, the same scientists who study global warming. What they are telling us is that the present global warming cannot be explained by natural cycles, that it definitely is CO2 forced and that it is happening far more rapidly than has ever been observed before. Anthropogenic global warming is a clear and present reality.

 

[AirPo]

It nice to be able to toss any site away as a science denial site when they have shown an opposing science view to yours. I suppose any site that has an opposing view is an anti science site.

Science is not about "views." It's about data.

How about the facts of warming and cooling periods of the earth when there was no CO 2 problem? Including times when the Earth's temperature rise drastically when there was no CO2 issue? How about warming cycles when the Earth's rotation was different or when the sun's activity was higher? There are all kinds of things that occur and have occurred that effect the Earth's temperature. As I pointed out CO2 lags behind temperature increases.
Empirical / Tests Myths - CO2 and Climate Change

New Evidence That Man-Made Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Does Not Cause Global Warming

The irony being all those things are taken into account in the post that was quoted.

 

[lesliedellow]

No, there's not. There's statistics, and peoples' interpretation of them.

But you, as a Catholic, should know that your God does perform miracles, which have no explanation. Jesus did many of them. God did too, with the parting of the Red Sea, the feeding of the Hebrews with manna from heaven, quail and water from rocks. And he could have caused a flood. It says so in your Bible.

So why did God cause all evidence of the event to disappear afterwards, miraculous or not?

 

[Loudmouth]

How about the facts of warming and cooling periods of the earth when there was no CO 2 problem? Including times when the Earth's temperature rise drastically when there was no CO2 issue? How about warming cycles when the Earth's rotation was different or when the sun's activity was higher? There are all kinds of things that occur and have occurred that effect the Earth's temperature. As I pointed out CO2 lags behind temperature increases.

If you understood the mechanisms of past climate change you wouldn't be making these claims.

The natural cycles are governed by Milankovitch cycles which are changes in the tilt and orbit of the Earth. These changes warm the oceans and the atmosphere. As the oceans warm they release CO2 which amplifies the warming caused by changes in the tilt and orbit of the Earth. That's why CO2 lags behind temperature in the natural cycles. Even with the natural cycles CO2 plays a crucial role in climate change.

Presently, we have a very different situation where CO2 is increasing independently of the Milankovitch cycles. No longer is our climate under the control of those natural processes. It is now under the control of our use of fossil fuels.

When anyone tries to argue that past climate change somehow indicates that man is not able to also cause climate change it shows a serious lack of knowledge on the subject.

 

[RickG]

Including times when the Earth's temperature rise drastically when there was no CO2 issue?

Indeed, and through the fields of geophysics and geochemistry we can see what those causes were. For the most part, prior to the mid Cenozoic (Neogene) it had to do with continental configuration and positions, topography, and ocean circulations.

How about warming cycles when the Earth's rotation was different or when the sun's activity was higher? There are all kinds of things that occur and have occurred that effect the Earth's temperature. As I pointed out CO2 lags behind temperature increases.

The sun's activity was less in the geologic past not higher. As for CO2 lags temperature increases, no, it does not, though it was thought to have at one time. But now, with improved techniques and technology Antarctic ice cores show that CO2 and temperature rise were synchronous, and global warming was preceded by increasing carbon dioxide during the last deglaciation. Here are two studies demonstrating this, one in the Journal Science and one in the Journal Nature.

Synchronous Change of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature During the Last Deglacial Warming | Science

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

 

[Aldebaran]

Over the past 50 years or so we have gotten a pretty good scientific understanding of the natural warming and cooling cycles. There are a number of mechanisms which can work independently but also combine in a number of ways --- eccentricity of earth's orbit, gyroscopic precession of the poles, solar storms and flares, etc. These have all been studied extensively by climate scientists, the same scientists who study global warming. What they are telling us is that the present global warming cannot be explained by natural cycles, that it definitely is CO2 forced and that it is happening far more rapidly than has ever been observed before. Anthropogenic global warming is a clear and present reality.

Maybe they should look at HOW they study, and what methods they're using. If your instruments and they way you use them are faulty, then expect faulty data:

Distorted data? Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming

Study Shows Global Warming Data Skewed by Bad Monitoring

 

[Loudmouth]

Maybe they should look at HOW they study, and what methods they're using. If your instruments and they way you use them are faulty, then expect faulty data:

Distorted data? Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming

Study Shows Global Warming Data Skewed by Bad Monitoring

Any peer reviewed articles?

 

[Aldebaran]

Any peer reviewed articles?

Here's some extensive reading for you.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11800.pdf

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/watts-et-al_2012_discussion_paper_webrelease.pdf

 

[Loudmouth]

Here's some extensive reading for you.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11800.pdf

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/watts-et-al_2012_discussion_paper_webrelease.pdf

I asked for a peer reviewed paper. "Watts Up With That" has been caught lying about science so many times I will not visit the site. Not worth my time. Cite peer reviewed papers.

 

[Aldebaran]

I asked for a peer reviewed paper. "Watts Up With That" has been caught lying about science so many times I will not visit the site. Not worth my time. Cite peer reviewed papers.

Ah, you mean ones reviewed by people who would agree with whatever the paper claimed? If it was reviewed by peers, and those peers (subject to peer pressure) say that the claims are not credible (the politically correct thing to say when someone disputes the common global warming claims), then what? Is it automatically not credible just because the scientists who subscribe to the idea of man-made global warming say it isn't? Instead of listening to what a scientist's peers say, why not research the claims yourself?

 

[RickG]

Here's some extensive reading for you.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11800.pdf

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/watts-et-al_2012_discussion_paper_webrelease.pdf

Anyone who wishes to learn about climate science needs to go to actual climate sources.

 

[RickG]

Ah, you mean ones reviewed by people who would agree with whatever the paper claimed? If it was reviewed by peers, and those peers (subject to peer pressure) say that the claims are not credible (the politically correct thing to say when someone disputes the common global warming claims), then what? Is it automatically not credible just because the scientists who subscribe to the idea of man-made global warming say it isn't? Instead of listening to what a scientist's peers say, why not research the claims yourself?

I suggest citing a peer review paper from the 97% consensus and show where the science is wrong.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ah, you mean ones reviewed by people who would agree with whatever the paper claimed?

No. I mean peer review.

If it was reviewed by peers, and those peers (subject to peer pressure) say that the claims are not credible (the politically correct thing to say when someone disputes the common global warming claims), then what?

They send it to another journal or address the weaknesses of the paper as described by the reviewers. I have had papers rejected before, and I still got them published by addressing the criticisms made by the reviewers and/or sending it to another journal.

Is it automatically not credible just because the scientists who subscribe to the idea of man-made global warming say it isn't?

No. If the data supports their conclusions then the paper gets published.

Do you have any experience with the peer review process?

Instead of listening to what a scientist's peers say, why not research the claims yourself?

Why do you go to websites known for lying about science?

 

[The Barbarian]

Ah, you mean ones reviewed by people who would agree with whatever the paper claimed? If it was reviewed by peers, and those peers (subject to peer pressure) say that the claims are not credible (the politically correct thing to say when someone disputes the common global warming claims), then what? Is it automatically not credible just because the scientists who subscribe to the idea of man-made global warming say it isn't? Instead of listening to what a scientist's peers say, why not research the claims yourself?

See, if they are real scientists, with degrees and knowledge, they're part of the Great Worldwide Scientist Conspiracy Against Decent People.

To get the truth, we should listen to bloggers who don't know anything.

 

[Root of Jesse]

So why did God cause all evidence of the event to disappear afterwards, miraculous or not?

Maybe I'll ask him when I meet him.

 

[Aldebaran]

Anyone who wishes to learn about climate science needs to go to actual climate sources.

Right. The ones where the scientist needs to either agree with his peers, or be excluded and labeled as a "climate denier" or whatever label is in vogue these days.

What you want is one-sided "science".

 

[Aldebaran]

I suggest citing a peer review paper from the 97% consensus and show where the science is wrong.

What's wrong with showing you research done by someone who has considered what the 97% may have ignored? Are you not open to new research? If that's the case, then the future will be stuck with only what is known at the current time. It's an indication of an unwillingness to learn.

 

[lesliedellow]

Maybe I'll ask him when I meet him.

You do that, but in the meantime you might want to make the obvious inference.

 

[Aldebaran]

No. If the data supports their conclusions then the paper gets published.

That's basically what I was saying. "If the data supports their conclusions" is another way of saying, "If the data you provide goes along with the conclusion we've already decided is correct". In simpler terms, "Agree with the rest of us, or you don't get published".

Why do you go to websites known for lying about science?

Instead of listening to what a scientist's peers say, why not research the claims yourself?

 

[RickG]

Right. The ones where the scientist needs to either agree with his peers, or be excluded and labeled as a "climate denier" or whatever label is in vogue these days.

Once again, look at the science published in peer review literature, and show where that science is wrong. I am not interested in opinions from blogs and the media, especially when they don't even come from actual scientists, much less climate scientists.