Global Warming

[Aldebaran]

The only thing I have rejected is opinions from sources (blogs & media) who have no background in science, especially climate science. Also, I asked for two things. (1) Cite one of the 97% consensus papers and show where the science is wrong in it. (2) Show what science is being ignored by the 97%.

I've already done your second request which also fulfills your first request. One more time:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11800.pdf

 

[RickG]

I've already done your second request which also fulfills your first request. One more time:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11800.pdf

First, that was a GAO review providing suggestions for improving weather station data. It changes nothing.

Second, I still have not been shown what I asked for. I'll re-state it and provide more explanation.

"... I asked for two things. (1) Cite one of the 97% consensus papers and show where the science is wrong in it. (2) Show what science is being ignored by the 97%."
​

There were 11,944 papers published in the peer review scientific journals between 1991 and 2011. Of those paper 66.4% had no position on AGW. Rather, that 66.4% covered other climate research not related to AGW. The remaining 33.6% (4,013) did cover AGW and had statements pertaining to AGW. Of those papers 4,013 papers addressing AGW, 97% confirmed that the earth is warming and the vast majority of that warming measured was due to anthropogenic processes. Only 3% of the 4,013 did not agree. Going back to my request I asked, "Cite one of the 97% consensus papers and show where the science is wrong in it."

Also, it was previously it was stated that the 97% papers (collectively) are ignoring other possible causes. I would very much like to know what is supposedly being ignored.

 

[Aldebaran]

First, that was a GAO review providing suggestions for improving weather station data. It changes nothing.

If the GAO was having to make suggestions to improve weather station data, then I'd say that's an indication that they acknowledge the fact that those weather stations needed improvement in order to provide more accurate data. Near the beginning of the document, it states: "NOAA balanced geographic distribution with other factors, including a desire for a long history of temperature records, limited periods of missing data, and stability of a station’s location and other measurement conditions, since changes in such conditions can cause temperature shifts unrelated to climate trends."

Not very far below that statement is this: "According to GAO’s survey of weather forecast offices, about 42 percent of the active stations in 2010 did not meet one or more of the siting standards."

That's a pretty large number of stations not meeting the standards that were set. Small wonder if they produce unreliable data that the "97%" are relying on for their "scientific" conclusions.

 

[RickG]

That made no sense at all. If a statoin is positioned next to a source of artificial heat such as a burn barrel, or next to an air conditioner that blows hot air towards it from the outside, or at an airport where jet exhaust can hit it, then it's not accurately measuring the earth's temperature. Also, putting it on blacktop where the sun's heat is more absorbed and is radiated into the temperature monitoring station doesn't accurately measure the earth's temperature.

Remember the article in the Daily Mail that made a number of erroneous claims concerning NOAA, especially those concerning throwing out data? Well, that's the type of data they excluded, the heat island effect, and stations that reported temps at varying daily times. If you wish to discuss problems concerning global temperature acquisitions and reporting, satellite data is at the top of the list.

 

[rjs330]

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.

The problem some HAVE shown the science to be wrong or at least non settled. What do you often hear about these folks? They are called climate deniers or not real scientists or whatever and are summarily dismissed. A few have even lost positions they held because of it. So yeah, it's toe the line or shut up or be called names and or have your name drug through the mud. Seems like a good way to get good data and information to me.

 

[rjs330]

No. Science is empirical. Either the data support the claim or it doesn't.

Actually that is completely false. Data is data. How you collect the data can make a difference.How you interpret the data is something else entirely. Often the interpretation is where it's faulty because it's based upon preconceived ideas.

 

[Root of Jesse]

No they aren't. There are a handful of earth scientists who are deniers or contrarians, but the vast majority of them are not even scientists.

There aren't a handful regardless of what you believe. See? If you believe your own statement, I wonder how you can actually believe in something like AGW.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Here's the bottom line, at least for me:
Either you believe God is all-powerful, or you don't.
If you believe God is all-powerful, then you must believe that there is nothing mankind can do to subvert the will of God.
Also, if God is omniscient, you know that he fore-knew what the universe looked like when he created it, he fore-knew what man would do, and like a child, he led Man to where we are today. And, we don't have the kind of power, even as a race of 7 billion strong, to do anything to destroy God's will.

 

[Root of Jesse]

No. Science is empirical. Either the data support the claim or it doesn't.

The law is empirical, as well. Either something is wrong or it's right. No two ways about it. Yet lawyers all the time try to get their guilty clients off on some interpretation of the law. Same with scientists.

 

[Root of Jesse]

With all due respect, that does not address what was quoted. 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."
​

I won't say nobody, but I'm not disputing the measurements that have been taken, even a little bit. What I dispute is the conclusions drawn from them, especially that Mankind caused it, and that it will lead to global catastrophe.

No, what I am not interested in is opinions from non professional sources, nor professionals whose profession is not climatology. My opinions are based on what actual practicing climatologists have published from their research, in the appropriate professional literature. It is also based on my academic background and professional experience which allows me to review that literature from a professional point of view and understanding.

I agree with you. I'm not interested in opinions and conclusions, even from those 'climatologists'. In fact, I don't even see where you can say when climatology became a science. But you know what? Even if it is, so is meteorology a science in which practitioners of said science look at data and try to give a forecast, and much of the time are wrong about said forecast. So it is possible for scientists to take data, interpret data, and be completely wrong.

 

[AirPo]

Here's the bottom line, at least for me:
Either you believe God is all-powerful, or you don't.
If you believe God is all-powerful, then you must believe that there is nothing mankind can do to subvert the will of God.
Also, if God is omniscient, you know that he fore-knew what the universe looked like when he created it, he fore-knew what man would do, and like a child, he led Man to where we are today. And, we don't have the kind of power, even as a race of 7 billion strong, to do anything to destroy God's will.

What has that got to do with global warming?

 

[JackRT]

An excellent on-line resource on climate research that is completely up to date is:

RealClimate

RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is mostly restricted to scientific topics and will only rarely get involved in any political or economic implications of the science. All posts are signed by the author(s), except ‘group’ posts which are collective efforts from the whole team. This is a moderated forum.

 

[RickG]

I won't say nobody, but I'm not disputing the measurements that have been taken, even a little bit. What I dispute is the conclusions drawn from them, especially that Mankind caused it, and that it will lead to global catastrophe.

The conclusions are straight forward. There is a difference in the ratio of 13C/12C between produced by the natural carbon cycle and that of the consumption of fossil fuels. That ratio reflects measurements showing an increase beginning with the industrial revolution to present to account for the atmospheric content increase of CO2. It is straight forward chemistry.

I agree with you. I'm not interested in opinions and conclusions, even from those 'climatologists'. In fact, I don't even see where you can say when climatology became a science. But you know what? Even if it is, so is meteorology a science in which practitioners of said science look at data and try to give a forecast, and much of the time are wrong about said forecast.

Meteorology and climatology are two completely different sciences. Meteorology deals with short term day to day weather, where climatology is long term climate conditions based on trends 30 years and longer. I have been stressing the scientific literature rather than blogs and media because the majority of my professional background and experience is in science. I have an M.S. in Earth Science from the Univ. of Memphis (1977), which encompasses Geology, Oceanography, and Climatology. My concentration and major research area was in Paleoclimatology. I spent nearly 30 years as a research chemist, in which part of my work involved the effect on polymers due to Solar Irradiation on a long term basis.

 

[Root of Jesse]

What has that got to do with global warming?

I guess you didn't read the original post...but we've gone way off the rails by now.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The conclusions are straight forward. There is a difference in the ratio of 13C/12C between produced by the natural carbon cycle and that of the consumption of fossil fuels. That ratio reflects measurements showing an increase beginning with the industrial revolution to present to account for the atmospheric content increase of CO2. It is straight forward chemistry.

Maybe so, but that doesn't explain how it affects the planet. That's the conclusions I'm talking about.

Meteorology and climatology are two completely different sciences. Meteorology deals with short term day to day weather, where climatology is long term climate conditions based on trends 30 years and longer. I have been stressing the scientific literature rather than blogs and media because the majority of my professional background and experience is in science. I have an M.S. in Earth Science from the Univ. of Memphis (1977), which encompasses Geology, Oceanography, and Climatology. My concentration and major research area was in Paleoclimatology. I spent nearly 30 years as a research chemist, in which part of my work involved the effect on polymers due to Solar Irradiation on a long term basis.

Yes, MEteorology and Climatology are two completely different scientists, but they are conflated quite a bit. They say that the number of hurricanes, a meteorological event, is caused by AGW, that the Polar Vortex, a meteorological event, is caused by AGW, and so on. Can you tell me when Climatology became a science? I can't seem to find that it is, even, a real science.

 

[RickG]

Maybe so, but that doesn't explain how it affects the planet. That's the conclusions I'm talking about.

So, are you suggesting that CO2 is not what is causing the warming? If so, may I ask what the current warming should be attributed to?

Yes, MEteorology and Climatology are two completely different scientists, but they are conflated quite a bit. They say that the number of hurricanes, a meteorological event, is caused by AGW, that the Polar Vortex, a meteorological event, is caused by AGW, and so on.

Warming, whether AGW or non-on AGW, causes more frequent extreme meteorological events. What is being seen in recorded data since the beginning of the industrial revolution and paleo-data prior to that, is a rate of warming exceeding significantly any previous paleoclimate record, that is what the concern is with those events. There is quite a bit of published research demonstrating this, let me know if you would links to some of those papers for your review.

Can you tell me when Climatology became a science? I can't seem to find that it is, even, a real science.

As a recognized modern science I'm not sure where to pin a date on it. Svante Arrhenius, published major research in 1896 on the effects of CO2, coming up with the first climate sensitivity with respect to CO2. Climate sensitivity with respect to CO2 is what would be expected for global average temperature to increase due to the doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Considering the science in general at that time his estimate was quite remarkable, 2 - 6 deg C for a doubling. Current science has that figure at 3 - 3.5 deg. C. Guy Callender in 1938, recognizing concerns for artificially produced carbon dioxide. Norman Phillips begin working with climate models in 1956, and there is much much more concerning climate change and its causes well before it became the political issue it is today. As a person who became quite familiar with the science back in the 1970s, it is quite troubling for me to see so many non-professional sources demeaning climate scientists and presenting misleading and misrepresented information, not intended for the scientific community, but the non-science public.

 

[Grandpa2390]

I don't find the notion of a widespread flood "impossible".

But I would guess that those who don't understand the Flood to have covered the whole world as we know it today interpret that story as best they can and they interpret the evidence for AGW according to their understanding.

And they're not the same thing anyway. One is described as an event that God 'directly' caused, the other is a set of expectations based on observations. Further, a rise in sea levels, no matter how catastrophic, is not the same as the entire world being 100% covered by water, if that is indeed what you mean by "a real world-wide flood event".

also the world has changed since the flood. To subside the waters, God made the oceans deeper for the waters to recede into. There isn't enough water to cover the Earth like in the movie WaterWorld

 

[archer75]

also the world has changed since the flood. To subside the waters, God made the oceans deeper for the waters to recede into. There isn't enough water to cover the Earth like in the movie WaterWorld

I've never heard this before. How did you know this about the depths?

 

[JackRT]

I've never heard this before. How did you know this about the depths?

It is called "constructive guesswork".

 

[Grandpa2390]

I've never heard this before. How did you know this about the depths?

What do you mean?

It is called "constructive guesswork".

Psalm 104:5-9
He established the earth upon its foundations,
So that it will not [g]totter forever and ever.
6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
The waters were standing above the mountains.
7 At Your rebuke they fled,
At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away.
8 The mountains rose; the valleys sank down
To the place which You established for them.
9 You set a boundary that they may not pass over,
So that they will not return to cover the earth.

I don't see how that is constructive guesswork. It is pretty plain, cut and dry to me. do you have an alternative interpretation?

In the greek that means, God created the Earth. He Flooded it over all of the mountains. At his word, he cause the mountains to rise and valleys to sink and made it the place and boundaries for the waters that had flooded the earth so that they could never again cover the earth.
Oceans, rivers lakes, seas, etc.