Is global warming even real?

sculptor said:
Unless, of course Eigil Friis-Christensen is wrong.
Is he?
Click to expand...
He said he was. I linked you to the quote, above, in 1116. His predictions, which were always a correlation with no mechanism, stopped aligning with measurement after 1986.

With no correlation any more, and never an explanatory mechanism, his approach was set aside by most researchers as unlikely to be of use.
 
Last edited:
sculptor said:
meanwhile, let us consider:
13. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”

Just how much do you trust(or distrust) this guy? Is/was he lying? Is/was he accurate in that assessment?
Click to expand...
Well, that depends on what part of what he said you think is still correct. From Wikipedia (and well sourced):
In 2009, a number of leading experts, including one Nobel laureate, concluded that the graphs of Friis-Christensen and Svensmark showing apparent correlations between global warming, sunspots and cosmic rays were deeply flawed. Friis-Christensen agreed that any correlation between sunspots and global warming that he may have identified in the 1991 study has since broken down. There is, he said, a clear "divergence" between the sunspots and global temperatures after 1986, which shows that the present warming period cannot be explained by solar activity alone.
Click to expand...
The source is the article on the good Dr. and the original source is here: http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...tics-case-against-climate-change-1839875.html and the paper mentioned in that article by Laut is here: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf

It sounds like Friis-Cristensen no longer believes Svensmark's cosmoclimatology. I'd say he's honest about it too, which is more than can be said of Svensmark.
 
sculptor said:
IMHO---Much of the religion of agw is most likely predicated on a psychological illness wherein people are so full of self loathing that they need to project that self loathing out onto their society, culture, and species------------"we destroyed the planet, we poisoned the oceans, we are a blight on the world"----and when the "we" gets too painful, find a scapegoat like the koch brothers, or big oil or big coal--------add in a pinch of chicken little-and out the other end pops agw and only agw-----the christians have their cross, and the agws have their hockeystick---------------a pseudo-scientific religion that would destroy science.
And by extension, anyone who adheres to the myriad complexity of science is an heretic.

There ain't no easy answers--------------science ain't in the business of easy answers--------science is just a series of better and better questions which lead to the development of better instrumentation, which lead to more questions.
Click to expand...
When it's a matter of well over ten thousand published, peer-reviewed papers in the scientific literature that accept AGW and 25 that don't, making up stories about how you're all scientific and stuff pretty much looks like you're trying to use a sieve as a rowboat. And making up stories about AGW being some sort of religion looks like projection, because in fact you deny over ten thousand papers and accept only 25. If you're going with science, the science seems pretty much against your apparent opinion. Just sayin'.
 
Schneibster said:
When it's a matter of well over ten thousand published, peer-reviewed papers in the scientific literature that accept AGW and 25 that don't, making up stories about how you're all scientific and stuff pretty much looks like you're trying to use a sieve as a rowboat. And making up stories about AGW being some sort of religion looks like projection, because in fact you deny over ten thousand papers and accept only 25. If you're going with science, the science seems pretty much against your apparent opinion. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...


The over riding point from where I am is that whatever the odds, the stakes are such that if we are to err, it is far better to err on the side of caution.
As the great educator Carl Sagan said in his Pale Blue Dot.......

 
sculptor said:
I suspect that it boils down to a value judgment.
Click to expand...
Not for most people. For most people it's a science based issue, with quantifiable parameters, risks and mitigations.

For some people it is a political belief, and is arrived at by a value judgment. Since political parties often define themselves by values, they often make value judgments on AGW. Although it is inherently apolitical, AGW denial has been adopted by the right wing here in the US since the left wing has played a role in popularizing the science behind it. And in American politics, if one party supports something the other party must therefore oppose it. These people are easy to ferret out - they speak to personalities rather than science (i.e. "Al Gore is a big fat hypocrite!") and deny the science rather than accept and study it.
 
billvon said:
... in American politics, if one party supports something the other party must therefore oppose it.
Click to expand...
While that's true during the campaigns, it's less so during the legislative sessions that follow them. I've seen both sides negotiate; admittedly one side more than the other (and I share your bias, if I read your comment right), but still, both.

The "They're all the same" meme does not serve good governance. And we need some good governance to fix AGW.
 
from:
http://education.seattlepi.com/percent-earth-permanently-covered-snow-ice-4666.html

The amount of sunlight absorbed by land, sea, ice and snow ultimately determines the Earth's climate. This is quantified by the albedo of a substance -- defined as the ratio of the reflected to transmitted sunlight. Snow and ice have very high albedos, and their coverage affects the total amount of heat absorbed by the Earth.

Snow and Ice Cover on Earth
The exact amount of snow and ice cover upon the Earth changes drastically with the seasons. Seasonal snow cover can cover up to 33 percent of the Earth's land mass, but this is not a permanent feature and mainly occurs during winter in the Northern Hemisphere. Only 12 percent of the Earth's surface is permanently covered in ice and snow, the majority of which is found in the polar regions.

References
What value do you place on snow and ice?
 
The amount of sunlight absorbed by land, sea, ice and snow ultimately determines the Earth's climate.
Click to expand...
They forgot the atmosphere.

Oops.

Y'know, the PI used to be a pretty good paper.

Then they almost went out of business and got bought.

Now they're just another rightwingnut rag.
 
sculptor said:
The amount of sunlight absorbed by land, sea, ice and snow the planet, and the amount of energy re-radiated from the planet, ultimately determines the Earth's climate. temperature. This is quantified in part by the albedo of a substancethe planet -- defined as the ratio of the reflected totransmitted incoming sunlight. Snow and ice have very high albedos, and their coverage affects the total amount of heat absorbed by the Earth.
Click to expand...
Fixed that statement. Lots of mistakes originally.
 
point of clarification

I really do hope that agw can actually exist.
Anthropogenic atmospheric forcing(AAF) seems real enough. The final effect of which(agw) remains in doubt.

I look at climate from an anthropological perspective, and it just doesn't get any better for our species than the much warmer superinterglacial of mis 11. Just look at h.s.heidelbergensis from that time. Those people lived in a very rich biom -----very much like a "garden of eden". Would you deny your grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren such bounty?

Value judgement: Mine comes from a different anthropocentric perspective that foregoes short term problems for long term positive effects.

There was some discussion a few years ago that due to the patterns within the milankovitch cycles we may be in the 1st 1/2 of a superinterglacial(400kyr cycle). It seems that the greenland and west antarctic ice sheets collapsed during the 2nd 1/2 of that prolonged superinterglacial, and some of the east antarctic ice sheet, causing an eustatic sea level rise of 6-13 meters.
OK-----------maybe that's another 10,000 years in the future, and maybe AAF can accelerate that process?

Pity: I ain't likely to live long enough to see it.

Curiously enough, I think the agw people are wrong, but hope they're right, while they think themselves right but hope that they are wrong.
curious that
 
sculptor said:
Anthropogenic atmospheric forcing(AAF) seems real enough. The final effect of which(agw) remains in doubt.
Click to expand...
This is self-contradicting. If there is atmospheric forcing, and it's being changed in the positive direction, then there will be global warming. For there not to be global warming would be a violation of the law of conservation of energy.

I look at climate from an anthropological perspective, and it just doesn't get any better for our species than the much warmer superinterglacial of mis 11. Just look at h.s.heidelbergensis from that time. Those people lived in a very rich biom -----very much like a "garden of eden". Would you deny your grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren such bounty?
Click to expand...
  1. You just went from saying there isn't any global warming, to saying that it'll all be OK because it will be a "garden of eden." Gish Gallop detected. Warning, shifting goalposts. Raise deflector shields and fire photon torpedoes.
  2. You have no evidence to support your contention that life was a "garden of eden" when heidelbergensis lived, and there is evidence against it. If it was a "garden of eden," then how did they evolve? Obviously there were selection pressures. Guess your "garden of eden" is more like the jungle.
  3. Most people wouldn't want a Garden of Eden anyway; they'd want their cars, their cell phones, their computers, and would be horrified to think their descendants would go back to being hunter-gatherers in a jungle with the daily chance of being eaten by a leopard. They would see it as savagery, and the fall of civilization. So do the rest of us.
  4. A lot of brown people you never will meet are going to do most of the dying. You OK with that?
Value judgement: Mine comes from a different anthropocentric perspective that foregoes short term problems for long term positive effects.
Click to expand...
Short term problems that will kill a couple or three billion people. Personally, my values include not letting people die if I can save them.

There was some discussion a few years ago that due to the patterns within the milankovitch cycles we may be in the 1st 1/2 of a superinterglacial(400kyr cycle). It seems that the greenland and west antarctic ice sheets collapsed during the 2nd 1/2 of that prolonged superinterglacial, and some of the east antarctic ice sheet, causing an eustatic sea level rise of 6-13 meters.
OK-----------maybe that's another 10,000 years in the future, and maybe AAF can accelerate that process?
Click to expand...
The Milanković cycles are well-known and we are definitely not in a superinterglacial. The current interglacial is forecast to run for another 20-40,000 years. AGW, on the other hand, if unchecked, will have devastating consequences by the end of this century, and ever more dire ones the longer it goes on.

Pity: I ain't likely to live long enough to see it.
Click to expand...
So you're OK with everybody's children dealing with those devastating consequences. Noted; fits right in with letting a couple billion people die. At least you're consistent.

Curiously enough, I think the agw people are wrong, but hope they're right, while they think themselves right but hope that they are wrong.
curious that
Click to expand...
I can't even imagine this mindset.
 
Schneibster said:
This is self-contradicting. If there is atmospheric forcing, and it's being changed in the positive direction, then there will be global warming. For there not to be global warming would be a violation of the law of conservation of energy.


  1. You just went from saying there isn't any global warming, to saying that it'll all be OK because it will be a "garden of eden." Gish Gallop detected. Warning, shifting goalposts. Raise deflector shields and fire photon torpedoes.
  2. You have no evidence to support your contention that life was a "garden of eden" when heidelbergensis lived, and there is evidence against it. If it was a "garden of eden," then how did they evolve? Obviously there were selection pressures. Guess your "garden of eden" is more like the jungle.
  3. Most people wouldn't want a Garden of Eden anyway; they'd want their cars, their cell phones, their computers, and would be horrified to think their descendants would go back to being hunter-gatherers in a jungle with the daily chance of being eaten by a leopard. They would see it as savagery, and the fall of civilization. So do the rest of us.
  4. A lot of brown people you never will meet are going to do most of the dying. You OK with that?
Short term problems that will kill a couple or three billion people. Personally, my values include not letting people die if I can save them.

The Milanković cycles are well-known and we are definitely not in a superinterglacial. The current interglacial is forecast to run for another 20-40,000 years. AGW, on the other hand, if unchecked, will have devastating consequences by the end of this century, and ever more dire ones the longer it goes on.

So you're OK with everybody's children dealing with those devastating consequences. Noted; fits right in with letting a couple billion people die. At least you're consistent.

I can't even imagine this mindset.
Click to expand...

You obviously do not understand what constitutes a superinterglacial. How can you both state "we are definitely not in a superinterglacial"
and state "The current interglacial is forecast to run for another 20-40,000 years."?
And
You seem to not understand the anthropology of our species on the earth circa 400kya.
How tall was the average south african h.s.heidelbergensis circa 400kya?(Lee R. Berger)
How would you account for their stature?
How many subsets of our species were in evidence in spain circa 400-420ka?(sima de los huesos)

I have never claimed that AAF would not lead to any agw. The discrepancy lies in the amount, and consequences.
With warming, equable climate comes into play. (And seems to have been in evidence recently.)

You are relatively new here. My position has remained relatively constant since formulation between 1980- 1995.
Do you know of the work done at lake el'gygytgyn?
 
sculptor said:
You obviously do not understand what constitutes a superinterglacial. How can you both state "we are definitely not in a superinterglacial"
and state "The current interglacial is forecast to run for another 20-40,000 years."?
Click to expand...
Because the Milanković cycles say so. The Earth's orbital elements and rotational axis don't just wander around randomly. We've got data for tens of millions of years; 60 million the last time I checked. Might be more now.

You seem to not understand the anthropology of our species on the earth circa 400kya.
How tall was the average south african h.s.heidelbergensis circa 400kya?(Lee R. Berger)
How would you account for their stature?
How many subsets of our species were in evidence in spain circa 400-420ka?(sima de los huesos)
Click to expand...
So you've got no data and you're trying to shift the burden of proof.

So much for all the "garden of eden" horsepucky. Thanks for tacitly admitting it.

I have never claimed that AAF would not lead to any agw. The discrepancy lies in the amount, and consequences.
With warming, equable climate comes into play. (And seems to have been in evidence recently.)
Click to expand...
And billions of people die. Mostly by starving to death, a long, slow, agonizing way to die.

You are relatively new here. My position has remained relatively constant since formulation between 1980- 1995.
Click to expand...
And it's still wrong. Meanwhile it is neither here nor there how long I've been here. This is another logical fallacy, you're attempting to argue from authority by presenting yourself as an authority.

Do you know of the work done at lake el'gygytgyn?
Click to expand...
If you claim it's relevant then present your evidence. I'm sure you've got some way you're going to try to spin it as if it "proves" "butttheresnoglobalwarming." And I'm equally sure that it's going to show nothing of the kind.
 
sculptor said:
point of clarification

I really do hope that agw can actually exist.
Anthropogenic atmospheric forcing(AAF) seems real enough. The final effect of which(agw) remains in doubt.

I look at climate from an anthropological perspective, and it just doesn't get any better for our species than the much warmer superinterglacial of mis 11. Just look at h.s.heidelbergensis from that time. Those people lived in a very rich biom -----very much like a "garden of eden". Would you deny your grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren such bounty?

Value judgement: Mine comes from a different anthropocentric perspective that foregoes short term problems for long term positive effects.
Click to expand...

Ah you have switched to a Type III denier - "OK, so maybe the climate is warming, and maybe we're the cause - but it will all be good!" That's great. That is, by far, the most intellectually honest type of denial - an acceptance of the basic science and denial only of the potential harmful effects of warming.

One of the reasons this is less intellectually dishonest than the other types is that, for some people, that view will be personally valid. For a rich retired guy living in Denver, Colorado, there won't be much negative impact from climate change - at least for him personally. And as snows decrease and winter days, on average, get warmer, it may even benefit him personally. Food prices may rise, but he can afford them. Water may become scarce, but again - he can just pay more. He's got savings. Mass extinctions may occur, but why does he care? By the time there is enough ecosystem damage to put him personally at risk, he will be dead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top