Is Global Warming a Leftist Urban Legend?

[Michael Hardner]

The evidence is not the issue - the issue is how much weight do we give to the evidence.

I would give evidence 100% of the weight and non-evidence 0%.

If the MWP was warmer than today the evidence suggesting that the current warming is a concern will be given a lot less weight. This, in turn, affects the type of policies that people will accept. That is why the people pushing the IPCC political agenda aggressively defend the hockey stick while claiming it 'does not matter'. If it really did not matter they would not insist on abusing science to defend it.

Wait - is AGW an opinion or not ? If it's just an opinion, then we can talk about MWP in the context of whether AGW is real. If it's more than an opinion, close to a fact, then we start talking about policy.

What are we talking about then ?

[wyly]

Actually there is a "law" in chemistry that states that gasses in a mixture retain their individual properties. Irregarless, CO2 is present in PPM quantities and is a poor IR absorber. Water vapor is present in whole percentage quantities and is a very efficient absorber of IR.

still no answer, why is that? is it because your entire argument will fall apart if you answer?...

individual properties are very much irrelevant when in a mixture, CO2 by itself is deadly to humans, in an atmospheric mixture it's essential for our survival...pure water normal freezing temp is 0c, a typical seawater solution has a freeze point 1.8c lower...

And what about the timeline in the graphs? Nice dodg

dodge, no I was being nice...the timeline is the smoking gun for AGW, which you like most in the denier world can't comprehend....temp and CO2 are absolutely linked, temp increase can drive CO2 but the reverse is also true, CO2 can drive temp....in ice core studies previous warmings temps always preceeded a CO2 rise which ties in nicely with milankovitch cycles...in this warming a CO2 rise is preceeding temp, if today's warming was like the previous warmings we should not see a significant rise in CO2 for another 800 years....in this warming CO2 is driving temp... Edited September 29, 2010 by wyly

[TimG]

I would give evidence 100% of the weight and non-evidence 0%.

In a trial the testimony of an eye witness is evidence. The weight that evidence is given by the jury depends on a lot of factors including how credible they think the witness is.

The same is true of all evidence being used to support the AGW claims. The weight given by the jury (i.e. the voting public) to the evidence affects what policies they will accept.

If it's more than an opinion, close to a fact, then we start talking about policy.

But what policies and at what cost? Would you support mandatory population control given the evidence today? Would you consider such policies if more evidence was available? This is a simple example of how the willingness to accept policies depends on the weight given to the evidence.

That is also why climategate matters. It really does not make a difference that nothing in the emails conclusively demonstrates that any of the science is "wrong". What the emails do is show that leading climate scientists are willing to engage in any number of dirty tricks in order to push the ideas that they believe to be true. This means the evidence provided by these scientists is given a lot less weight when it comes to accepting policies.

Edited September 29, 2010 by TimG

[wyly]

But it has huge effect on the policy discussion because large variations in climate in the recent past make the argument that AGW is a threat much less plausible.

how so?...planetary warming's and cooling's have different causes you cling to some unrealistic idea that the planet has only one set of rules that govern it's climate...our planet now does not have the same conditions as it did in centuries past, human domination has changed everything... Edited September 30, 2010 by wyly

[TimG]

our planet now does not have the same conditions as it did in centuries past, human domination has changed everything.

In your opinion. The evidence supporting that opinion is much weaker if there was a warming 1000 years ago that cannot be explained. Edited September 29, 2010 by TimG

[wyly]

In your opinion. The evidence supporting that opinion is much weaker if there was a warming 1000 years ago that cannot be explained.

that cannot be explained or you're not aware of?

first the MWP was not global, it was northern hemisphere and the causes were above average solar radiation and below average volcanism, throw in a warmer than normal gulf stream from the those causes and you have the MWP...

pointing to previous warmings with different causes as evidence that this warming is not man made is wrong, it's apples and oranges...find another previous warming where CO2 preceeded a rise in temp and compare conditions from that era to todays...

[Michael Hardner]

In a trial the testimony of an eye witness is evidence. The weight that evidence is given by the jury depends on a lot of factors including how credible they think the witness is.

The same is true of all evidence being used to support the AGW claims. The weight given by the jury (i.e. the voting public) to the evidence affects what policies they will accept.

Ok...

But what policies and at what cost? Would you support mandatory population control given the evidence today?

No.

Would you consider such policies if more evidence was available?

I might, depending on the evidence and the challenge.

This is a simple example of how the willingness to accept policies depends on the weight given to the evidence.

Ok - but ... I asked the question. Just answer it. Or better yet, if you don't agree that AGW is at least likely, then go back and read the threads...

That is also why climategate matters. It really does not make a difference that nothing in the emails conclusively demonstrates that any of the science is "wrong". What the emails do is show that leading climate scientists are willing to engage in any number of dirty tricks in order to push the ideas that they believe to be true. This means the evidence provided by these scientists is given a lot less weight when it comes to accepting policies.

Climategate was investigated and the science was found to be sound. The worst thing that scientists did was privately threaten to delete emails to thwart people they found to be annoying.

I think we need to have you answer the question above, in order to continue.

[TimG]

that cannot be explained or you're not aware of?

Cannot be explained.

first the MWP was not global, it was northern hemisphere and the causes were above average solar radiation and below average volcanism, throw in a warmer than normal gulf stream from the those causes and you have the MWP.

First, there is no conclusive evidence that it was only a northern phenomena. Second, if you want to explain it away with hand waving then you can do the same with the current warm period. The claim that 'only' CO2 can explain the current warming is nothing but an opinion since other have shown that 'ocean currents, clouds and urbanization' could also explain the current warming.

[TimG]

Ok - but ... I asked the question. Just answer it. Or better yet, if you don't agree that AGW is at least likely, then go back and read the threads...

Sure. AGW is going on but the answer to that question is largely irrelevant. Agreeing that AGW is happening does not imply that that we should 'do something' about it.

The worst thing that scientists did was privately threaten to delete emails to thwart people they found to be annoying.

That is your opinion. You are entitled to it but many disagree. Personally, I think threats to boycott journals because they published works a scientist did not like is a pretty unethical thing to do and the scientist who suggested it does not deserve to keep his job. Same goes with the one who said he would abuse his power as a IPCC lead author to suppress papers he did not like.

Also, deliberately breaking FOI laws (i.e. deleting emails subject to FOI) is actually crime in the UK but they could not prosecuted due to a technicality. I consider breaking laws to be extremely unethical but it appears you have no problem with because annoying people have no right to make FOI requests in your world.

Edited September 29, 2010 by TimG

[PeterFoxy]

You must be kidding... How can global warming be a legend when it's SO obvious??!

[Michael Hardner]

Sure. AGW is going on but the answer to that question is largely irrelevant. Agreeing that AGW is happening does not imply that that we should 'do something' about it.

Ok.

That is your opinion. You are entitled to it but many disagree. Personally, I think threats to boycott journals because they published works a scientist did not like is a pretty unethical thing to do and the scientist who suggested it does not deserve to keep his job. Same goes with the one who said he would abuse his power as a IPCC lead author to suppress papers he did not like.

The investigation didn't find that either, but ok...

Also, deliberately breaking FOI laws (i.e. deleting emails subject to FOI) is actually crime in the UK but they could not prosecuted due to a technicality. I consider breaking laws to be extremely unethical but it appears you have no problem with because annoying people have no right to make FOI requests in your world.

Well, if I email you privately and say "If TimG posts on the board again, I'm going to break into his house and trash his rec room..."... then can they charge me with anything ?

[wyly]

Cannot be explained.

First, there is no conclusive evidence that it was only a northern phenomena. Second, if you want to explain it away with hand waving then you can do the same with the current warm period.

now you're in denial, you claim there is no explanation then when one is offered you dismiss it.. the solar radiation cause for all warming was championed by the denier world as evidence that "it's the sun" that causes warming periods, now that it's used for verifying the MWP suddenly it's no longer the sun!

The claim that 'only' CO2 can explain the current warming is nothing but an opinion since other have shown that 'ocean currents, clouds and urbanization' could also explain the current warming.

show us the peer reviewed papers that back up your claims, blogs on denier sites are not evidence...CO2 has mountains of data and peer reviewed papers in support, all other explanations are merely grasping at straws...

[TimG]

Well, if I email you privately and say "If TimG posts on the board again, I'm going to break into his house and trash his rec room..."... then can they charge me with anything ?

I mentioned nothing about the email threating violance. This is about the emails asking collegues to delete emails which were sent shortly after an FOI request was received. This has been documented here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/uea/uea01.htm

In my FoIA request, of 27 May 2008, to which UEA gave the reference FOI_08-31, and which by two days preceded Jones email request that Mann delete any AR4 emails, I specifically asked to be informed of which Expert Reviewers had asked for the "new guidelines". This request is missing from ICCER evidence item 116 7 . The same question was asked of the Met Office, Reading and Oxford.

IOW, it should be clear to any objective observer that the scientists deliberately broke FOI laws yet escaped prosecution. The fact that the largely incompetent inquiries failed to deal with these substative issues is a subject of another parlimentary hearing in the UK.

[TimG]

it's used for verifying the MWP suddenly it's no longer the sun!

I have never said the sun explains the MWP. My opinion is the earth has considerable natural variability and we have yet to exceed that range of natural variability.

show us the peer reviewed papers that back up your claims, blogs on denier sites are not evidence...CO2 has mountains of data and peer reviewed papers in support, all other explanations are merely grasping at straws.

Mountians of data? I think not. Not one shred of data because it is impossible to measure the contribution of CO2 to the current warming. It is value that can only be inferred after accounting for all other factors. The peer reviewed papers claiming that CO2 is to blame all depend on the belief that we know all of things that can affect climate and if that assumption is not true then those papers are only good for bird cage liner.

The biggest problem with this debate are the people that cannot grasp uncertainty. It may be true that CO2 is responsible for 70% of warming to date. It could also be true that it is only responsible 20% of the warming. We simply do not know can cannot know. This uncertainty affects the price people are willing to pay for action.

Edited September 29, 2010 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

IOW, it should be clear to any objective observer that the scientists deliberately broke FOI laws yet escaped prosecution. The fact that the largely incompetent inquiries failed to deal with these substative issues is a subject of another parlimentary hearing in the UK.

Ok, well let's see how it falls out.

Back to the point, we're both thinking AGW is real right ?

How do we deal with it ?

Edited September 29, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[TimG]

Back to the point, we're both thinking AGW is real right ?

No dispute from me.

How do we deal with it ?

Grow the economy (richer people are better able to deal climate change). Spend money on R&D into alternate energy sources (no mandates unless viable without subsidies). No carbon trading (simply an excuse for scams). No emission targets (will never be met). No international treaties (can't trust governments like China to live up to their promises). Modest carbon tax. Adapt as required. Edited September 29, 2010 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Grow the economy (richer people are better able to deal climate change). Spend money on R&D into alternate energy sources (no mandates unless viable without subsidies). No carbon trading (simply an excuse for scams). No emission targets (will never be met). No international treaties (can't trust governments like China to live up to their promises). Modest carbon tax. Adapt as required.

After all that, why bother with a 'modest carbon tax' ?

Grow the economy means, likely create more C02, so you're betting on the problem to be solved by... the problem ?

You might as well say "let's just hope it works out"... that makes more sense...

[TimG]

Grow the economy means, likely create more C02, so you're betting on the problem to be solved by... the problem ?

Not quite. CO2 is not the problem. Climate change is the problem. Richer economies are better able to adapt so emitting more CO2 will reduce the harm caused by any climate change induced by the CO2 (or anything else for that matter).

The trouble with CO2 is many people assume it is a toxin that harms life. It is not. It simply causes changes which will be partially good and partially bad. What we need to do is reduce the harm to human society and there is no reason to assume that emitting less CO2 is the best way to reduce that harm.

You might as well say "let's just hope it works out"... that makes more sense...

I would describe as the only plan that has a remote chance of working. I do not believe in doing something that I know will fail simply for the sake of "doing something". I am adamantly opposed "doing something" that will likely cause more harm than good (which is the case for most anti-CO2 measures). Edited September 29, 2010 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

TimG - how about doing nothing then ?

[TimG]

TimG - how about doing nothing then ?

I would not argue with that approach if you feel it is worthwhile. But you are the one who asked what we should do given the fact that AGW is happening. I gave you my list. Edited September 29, 2010 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

I would not argue with that approach if you feel it is worthwhile. But you are the one who asked what we should do given the fact that AGW is happening. I gave you my list.

That you did.

[jbg]

the point was... you were offering up the PDO as the causal link to global warming... to the global warming impacts mentioned... you were speaking of 30 year cyclical reversals as the causal link for the highlight points Hazeleyes mentioned... glacier retreats, Arctic ice extent/volume, Greenland ice-sheet loss, projected ice-free Northwest Passage. The point was... if you're going to offer up the PDO as the causal link to global warming/impacts, you better be able to step up and substantiate that by providing a like association, a like long-term trend, between the PDO index and global temperature anomolies. Otherwise... all you've proposed is that a, by definition, oscillating temperature pattern (the PDO), a pattern that does not hold within it a long-term warming trend, is the "proof you spoke of" for global warming/impacts. Show the long-term trend correlation... you can show that correlation between the PDO index and global temperature anomolies - right?

Will research and advise but my recollection is that the PDO and global temperatures move in lockstep.

next? you're quite funny... you're wanting to take a localized phenomenon, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a phenomenon centered principally in the North Pacific, and suggest it's significant enough to bring forward global temperature impacts... that it's the cause for global warming, that it will result in, as you stated, 30 year cyclical reversals of global warming impacts; specifically those mentioned by Hazeleyes (i.e. glacier retreats, Arctic ice extent/volume, Greenland ice-sheet loss, projected ice-free Northwest Passage). Teleconnections??? Oh, please... let us have some of that D'Aleo wisdom you so freely dispense - we can have some real fun then, hey?

I appreciate your complimenting my sense of humor.

bully for you! Given my suggestion that this thread be left to hone in on the failings of the political right/Conservative/Republicans (vis-a-vis, the 'war on (climatic) science'), your failings will fit right in - hey?

You're mind is what's failing.

[Saipan]

Now the question is: Where is the global warming?

[lukin]

still no answer, why is that? is it because your entire argument will fall apart if you answer?...

individual properties are very much irrelevant when in a mixture, CO2 by itself is deadly to humans, in an atmospheric mixture it's essential for our survival...pure water normal freezing temp is 0c, a typical seawater solution has a freeze point 1.8c lower...

dodge, no I was being nice...the timeline is the smoking gun for AGW, which you like most in the denier world can't comprehend....temp and CO2 are absolutely linked, temp increase can drive CO2 but the reverse is also true, CO2 can drive temp....in ice core studies previous warmings temps always preceeded a CO2 rise which ties in nicely with milankovitch cycles...in this warming a CO2 rise is preceeding temp, if today's warming was like the previous warmings we should not see a significant rise in CO2 for another 800 years....in this warming CO2 is driving temp...

You seem to be quite proud that you went to Holland this past summer, as you keep mentioning useless details of your trip. I'm very impressed that you went to Europe. I've never met anyone who has gone to Europe before. You're a champ.

Jets produce a fair bit of DEADLY carbon. Maybe people like you should think about the plight of our fragile planet before filling the atmosphere with unnecessary carbon. Practice what you preach buddy.

[lukin]

Remember the famed hockey stick graph which was supposed to prove that human emitted carbon is causing global warming, I mean climate change? Well Dr. Edward Wegman proved how fallacious that theory was.

Then we were told human habits would cause more, and more severe hurricanes. The sheep believed this as fact. Then Dr. Christopher Landsea proved how ridiculous that theory was.

Then we were told that Antarctic icecap was rapidly melting. Then common sense, and Dr. Duncan Wingham proved that theory wrong.

The AGW scientists have been given big bucks to tell the world, not prove, that human emitted carbon is causing climate change. The media jumped on board, and most sheeple fell in ,line believing that humans are causing global warming.

Oh well, the gullible like wyly and waldo, even though they use emoticons like champs, can always rely on the Toronto Star to tell them what they want to hear. Al Gore loves ladies like you.

Edited September 30, 2010 by lukin