Climategate turned on its head this time

[Brees4prez]

Originally Posted by mister pc

Of course, its so simple! I wonder why all these scientists have not thought about the fact that the earth is very, very, very, old. the Earth is old, so industrial activity by humans cannot impact the habitat. That just makes sense! I mean, the age of the Earth clearly proves that humans cannot negatively effect the ecosystem. We should email your findings to those dummies at NASA right away.

I laughed out loud. This is a perfect example of conservatives bashing anyone who doesn't believe in what they believe. It's just that black and white. The Earth is old. Wow, and sad thing is that people like this actually have a good chance of being president. I'm moving to Canada because Idiocracy is coming to life. The plants need Brawndo because they have electrolytes!

[Yoweigh]

Originally Posted by UncleDoug

I cited the article because it is from a source repeatedly cite by agw proponents, including the IPCC, so it can not just be dismissed off hand. It asserts that we know far to little about the climate and climate cycles to make definitive proclaimation about what will happen with what can be considered scientic accuracy (which is what I have been asserting for 5 years now).

YOU are making that assertion. The article you linked does not say this. All it does is list known forcings and feedbacks.

[UncleDoug]

Originally Posted by Yoweigh

YOU are making that assertion. The article you linked does not say this. All it does is list known forcings and feedbacks.

"But there's a great deal that we don't know about the future of Earth's climate and how climate change will affect humans.". First paragraph.

"So aerosol forcing is another substantial uncertainty in predictions of future climate." Bottom of the segment about aerosols.

"Clouds have an enormous impact on Earth's climate,... ..Because clouds are such powerful climate actors, even small changes in average cloud amounts, locations, and type could speed warming, slow it, or even reverse it. Current climate models do not represent cloud physics well...". The segment about clouds.

Substantial uncertainty, and enormous impact. Yet we are suppose to except computer projections as proof what is going to happen, yet NASA claims current climate models don't represent cloud physics well. The be all end all "proof of impending doom" is CO2 yet they state that "It isn't well understood where this carbon dioxide goes." But you are correct the report is not intended to refute agw. Hansen would get ****** but they could no longer ignore all the facts that the "deniers" were pointing out.

[RebSaint]

Originally Posted by UncleDoug

"But there's a great deal that we don't know about the future of Earth's climate and how climate change will affect humans.". First paragraph.


"So aerosol forcing is another substantial uncertainty in predictions of future climate." Bottom of the segment about aerosols.

"Clouds have an enormous impact on Earth's climate,... ..Because clouds are such powerful climate actors, even small changes in average cloud amounts, locations, and type could speed warming, slow it, or even reverse it. Current climate models do not represent cloud physics well...". The segment about clouds.

Substantial uncertainty, and enormous impact. Yet we are suppose to except computer projections as proof what is going to happen, yet NASA claims current climate models don't represent cloud physics well. The be all end all "proof of impending doom" is CO2 yet they state that "It isn't well understood where this carbon dioxide goes." But you are correct the report is not intended to refute agw. Hansen would get ****** but they could no longer ignore all the facts that the "deniers" were pointing out.

You're just demonstrating how much you don't understand about science or you have a reading comprehension problem.

There's absolutely nothing on that website to substantiate the logical leaps you're making about climategate. You obviously don't understand there can be a lot of uncertainty about the nature of climate change among scientists, but all agree that it is happening.

And it's obviously that you never bothered venturing over to this part of the same website which pretty much outlines quite clearly that there's tremendous consensus among scientists that climate change is indeed happening, and evidence strongly indicates that man does indeed contribute to it

Climate Change: Evidence

Take a look at the first graph; it provides a strong clue as to NASA's position on the issue of climate change.

You're basically attempting to argue that NASA is making a strong case to completely ignore those who are claiming that climate change is happening, and that the information there somehow ratifies your conclusions on climategate, yet the same website pretty much affirms the argument that Yoweigh and others who have made in this thread about the whole scandal, and global warming in general.

What you're doing is a common tactic among GW deniers--point out that there's a lot that scientists "don't know," and make the illogical assumption that just because there's some disagreement and tacit agreement that there's a lot to learn, then all other conclusions or findings have to be false or questioned as some sort of other "conspiracy."

[UncleDoug]

Originally Posted by RebSaint

And it's obviously that you never bothered venturing over to this part of the same website which pretty much outlines quite clearly that there's tremendous consensus among scientists that climate change is indeed happening, and evidence strongly indicates that man does indeed contribute to it

Climate Change: Evidence

Climate through out history has been changing so scientific consensus that climate is changing is not very meaningful. I never said climate was not changing. It is not if climate is changing that I am debating, despite your continued insistence. It is the cause of the change that is up for debate.

The first graph shows atmosphereic CO2 but does not show temperature. Why?

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre.../IceCores1.gif
This graph does and it indicates CO2 is a LAGGING indicator. So through out history CO2 concentrations as not caused the temperature to increase or decrease it has only increased or decreased in response to temperature change or something else that also causes the temperature to change. Why has CO2 increased so much lately? Human activity certainly has something to do with it, but a lagging indicator reacting to a force outside it's relationship does not mean it WILL affect the other entities within a relationship with it. So the graph you continue to point to does not itself mean anything to the topic of "what is causing climate change" that I am trying to have.

[V Chip]

Originally Posted by UncleDoug

This graph does and it indicates CO2 is a LAGGING indicator.

If it is only a lagging indicator, then explain the spike at the end of the graph in the red line, where it shoots up way higher than any other point it ever reached and as high as any other point the blue line (the temperature variation that the CO2 is supposed to be lagging) has ever reached? If it depends on the blue line, then why the sudden complete disregard for what the temperature variation is?

[Yoweigh]

Originally Posted by NASA

Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute:

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Why should I trust you (or anyone else for that matter) over NASA and NOAA? Are they in on the conspiracy too? I'm a lot more inclined to believe that they know what they're talking about and you don't.

[RebSaint]

Originally Posted by UncleDoug

Climate through out history has been changing so scientific consensus that climate is changing is not very meaningful.

Bogus and based on crass reductionist logic. It's tantamount to claiming that history changes over time, but we need not pay any attention to it. We can say the same thing about weather, right. Well, it's going to change anyway, so might as well not be concerned about the nuances of the larger-scale changes, or trends which may portend more national disasters, floods, or significant weather events? Doesn't this approach sound rather silly? Of course it does.

Originally Posted by UncleDoug

I never said climate was not changing. It is not if climate is changing that I am debating, despite your continued insistence. It is the cause of the change that is up for debate.

Okay. Now you're being a lot clearer about where you stand here, because your points are either illogical or unclear.

Originally Posted by UncleDoug

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre.../IceCores1.gif
This graph does and it indicates CO2 is a LAGGING indicator. So through out history CO2 concentrations as not caused the temperature to increase or decrease it has only increased or decreased in response to temperature change or something else that also causes the temperature to change. Why has CO2 increased so much lately? Human activity certainly has something to do with it, but a lagging indicator reacting to a force outside it's relationship does not mean it WILL affect the other entities within a relationship with it. So the graph you continue to point to does not itself mean anything to the topic of "what is causing climate change" that I am trying to have.

So we're saying the same thing here.

Legitimate points, but my point still stands, and it's essentially the same graph that I referenced: there's a huge spike in CO2 production, and yes, it has a lot to do with human activity according to an increasing amount of scientists and scientific institutions. There's still not considerable consensus about anthropomorphic global warming, but the science is quickly moving in that direction.

Here's another point I think many discount about the ability of human beings to effect the climate: There's plenty of historical evidence that human beings have created a lot of significant industrial damage to land, water, and the air. The damage is documented. We know it happened, and thanks to the EPA and much-needed government regulations, this country now has cleaner water, land, and air compared with the 1960s and 70s. There are documented, known examples--one after the other of how much damage humans can do to the ecosystem; damage done vital food and water sources which are life sustaining. We see the same sort of damage happening in emerging industrialized nations.

And yet we are to believe that somehow human beings can't much at all change the climate and can't do anything about it?

It's not logical.

[Team 444]

Originally Posted by Brandon13

How can be so absolutely certain on that? Maybe the negative effect humans have had on the climate is overblown, maybe by a lot, but how can you just absolutely say that humans cannot do any harm to it?

It seems like the height of naivete/ignorance to hold such a resolute position.

I'm very comfortable with climate change being constant. I'm also very comfortable with the great minds who study this topic not having filet migon with Al Gore and his cronies.

What I'm not very comfortable with is leveraging liberal paranoia to inject new regulations, laws, and of course some bill leading to taxes to do research that statistically have about as much of chance of finding anything of substance as you hitting the Power Ball.

Your argument is the goold ole "if you can't prove it, let's theorize and analyze it even if it costs trillions", right?

I can give you a list of 500 topics that's as hard to prove or disprove as global warming/climate change/. You'd want to analyze them all?

[Sardonios]

Originally Posted by UncleDoug

Climate through out history has been changing so scientific consensus that climate is changing is not very meaningful. I never said climate was not changing. It is not if climate is changing that I am debating, despite your continued insistence. It is the cause of the change that is up for debate.

The first graph shows atmosphereic CO2 but does not show temperature. Why?

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre.../IceCores1.gif
This graph does and it indicates CO2 is a LAGGING indicator. So through out history CO2 concentrations as not caused the temperature to increase or decrease it has only increased or decreased in response to temperature change or something else that also causes the temperature to change. Why has CO2 increased so much lately? Human activity certainly has something to do with it, but a lagging indicator reacting to a force outside it's relationship does not mean it WILL affect the other entities within a relationship with it. So the graph you continue to point to does not itself mean anything to the topic of "what is causing climate change" that I am trying to have.

Nothing in the graph you linked indicates that CO2 variation lags temperature variation. It may -- I don't know -- but that graph, alone, does not support the claim. The graph doesn't give fine detail, but the two variables generally co-vary; occasionally variation in one precedes variation in the other slightly (and it's essentially a coin-flip which variable first experiences a peak/trough when they don't precisely co-vary). I think what you're mistaking, here, is that the range over which CO2 was plotted is proportionately larger than the range over which temperature was plotted (otherwise, the extreme modern end of the CO2 plot would've been impossible to plot on the graph); the result is a squat appearance of the CO2 plot relative to that of the temperature plot, creating a vertical gap between the plots, which can give a false impression of lagging (essentially tricking the eye into comparing the variables across two different points along the x-axis; for example, from 140,000-130,000 YBP, the two variables are in lock-step, but the "air" between the lines gives the false impression that CO2 is lagging temperature unless you're very disciplined in only comparing the plots at the exact same point on the x-axis).

Doing my due diligence, I tried to find the study from which that graph came to see if they provided a more detailed analysis of the actual data. What I found was interesting:

These new data extended the historical record of temperature variations and atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane and other greenhouse trace gases (GTG) back to 420,000 years before present (BP). The ice cores were drilled to over 3,600 meters. This is just over 2.2 miles deep. These new data double the length of the historical record.

The main significance of the new data lies in the high correlation between GTG concentrations and temperature variations over 420,000 years and through four glacial cycles. However, because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether GTG concentration increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa--or whether they increase synchronously. (emphasis mine; note that in the first paragraph, they include CO2 under the "GTG" grouping)

Also, since, as we've seen, the graph does not provide evidence that CO2 lags temperature, the article obliquely addresses V Chip's deeper question:

Notice too that there hasn't been a corresponding increase in temperature during this time period. This is probably due to the ability of the oceans to function as a heat sink, and thereby delay the increase in atmospheric temperatures. However, there are recent indications that the oceans are now warming, which will reduce their ability to act as a heat sink (Link in original, omitted here out of unabashed laziness).

Link to TFA

[SWJJ]

This seems like an appropriate place for this:

Oceans' acidic shift may be fastest in 300 million years - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The world's oceans are turning acidic at what could be the fastest pace of any time in the past 300 million years, even more rapidly than during a monster emission of planet-warming carbon 56 million years ago, scientists said on Thursday....
...

...Oceans get more acidic when more carbon gets into the atmosphere. In pre-industrial times, that occurred periodically in natural pulses of carbon that also pushed up global temperatures, the scientists wrote.


...

...Those skeptical of human-caused climate change often point to past warming periods caused by natural events as evidence that the current warming trend is not a result of human activities. Hoenisch noted that natural causes such as massive volcanism were probably responsible for the PETM.

She said, however, that the rate of warming and acidification was much more gradual then, over the course of five millennia compared with one century.

[peresich]

Originally Posted by Team 444

I can give you a list of 500 topics that's as hard to prove or disprove as global warming/climate change/. You'd want to analyze them all?

I'd like that list. You can just do numerical order if you need to.

[Sarcastic]

Originally Posted by Team 444

I can give you a list of 500 topics that's as hard to prove or disprove as global warming/climate change/. You'd want to analyze them all?

I'm pretty certain everything on your Topics To Discuss list is already being studied and discussed by someone somewhere, but I'm game.

Let's start with the first 50, just to keep it manageable. Try to stick to greatest importance first - you know, the unprovable things that may make life unsustainable on Earth for future generations but that we can prevent by taking measures now. I think they should have top priority, but that's just my opinion.

[Yoweigh]

Originally Posted by Team 444

Your argument is the goold ole "if you can't prove it, let's theorize and analyze it even if it costs trillions", right?

Your argument is the good ole " if I don't understand the science obviously no one else does, right? Al Gore!!!"

[wcklink]

Originally Posted by SWJJ

This seems like an appropriate place for this:

Oceans' acidic shift may be fastest in 300 million years - Yahoo! News

And This:

Current theories of the causes and impact of global warming have been thrown into question by a new study which shows that during medieval times the whole of the planet heated up.

It then cooled down naturally and there was even a 'mini ice age'.

A team of scientists led by geochemist Zunli Lu from Syracuse University in New York state, has found that contrary to the ‘consensus’, the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago wasn’t just confined to Europe.

In fact, it extended all the way down to Antarctica – which means that the Earth has already experience global warming without the aid of human CO2 emissions.

Read more: Global warming: Earth heated up in medieval times without human CO2 emissions | Mail Online