Global warming?

[TheMercenary]

"Geoengineering," as in the Waxman-Markey "cap and trade" bill that passed the House and that the conservative Heritage Foundation estimates will lop $9.4 trillion off the economy? The one that President Barack Obama plans to support at next week's U.N. Climate Change Conference? Yes, that "geoengineering."

And every bit of that will be passed on to you lucky people, the consumers.

[piercehawkeye45]

Classic, money means its a conspiracy, and a big one. Not only would they have to fake multiple sets of raw data, they would also have have a more or less global consensus on this.

I do know professors that are well read in the field (environmental engineering and water resources) and they will admit that many professors take it too far, but there is an obvious problem. This is also coming from a very cynical yet principled person who would never fake studies for money or grants. Also, basically can never get fired unless he sleeps with a student or does something on that level.

Also Classic, for your second link, its pure crap. Temperatures showed a 20 year period where there was no warming when we were also spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Which is possible because there are multiple factors that go into climate change.

If you've ever read the IPCC reports, they are all based on probability. So expecting something to happen for certain is misinterpreting the reports.

Originally Posted by jinx

Damage control. Pretty weak at that.

Yes, because raw data is obviously weak...

[classicman]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Classic, money means its a conspiracy, and a big one. Not only would they have to fake multiple sets of raw data, they would also have have a more or less global consensus on this.

Not really - the basic raw data needs to be fucked with and thats about it.

Also Classic, for your second link, its pure crap.

Opinions are like assholes ...

[jinx]

Raw data? In that article full of boo-hooing and political rock throwing ("it's the right-winger's fault, they're suck jerkheads!")

Saying there's 15 ways to prove the earth is getting warmer and that the cause is 'almost certainly' humans isn't raw data.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by classicman

Not really - the basic raw data needs to be fucked with and thats about it.

Yes, it is a conspiracy if you believe all the raw data has been fucked with. It doesn't come from a single source, but multiple ones.

Opinions are like assholes ...

Point taken.

Originally Posted by Jinx

Raw data? In that article full of boo-hooing and political rock throwing ("it's the right-winger's fault, they're suck jerkheads!")

Saying there's 15 ways to prove the earth is getting warmer and that the cause is 'almost certainly' humans isn't raw data.

Yes, it was a quote but it pointed to the fact that there are loads of raw data that still supports climate change. That is a strong argument. One just has to look at the IPCC to see that.

BTW, what is a strong argument against the IPCC? All I've seen are argument flaws and trying to disprove a single person from the entire panel.

[ZenGum]

Thanks Hawkeye. I deal with this stuff at work so I get bored with it quickly, but the CRU hack is 99% a non-issue. Even if there were good reasons to doubt the CRU's findings, there are dozens of other units that have come to similar findings using different methodology. This "expose' " is a scare campaign to interfere with the Copenhagen conference.

We have known since the 1860s that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. (Yes, 1860s).
We have known since the 1960s that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing due to human burning fossil fuels, amongst other things.
We have long known that climate (and weather) are complex phenomena with many interacting causes, so that the effects of any change in one factor will take a while to emerge from the noise of the system.

The *only* room for argument is the possibility that roughly doubling CO2 levels (which we have done) will have a tiny, trivial effect on global climate; however, the experts who do the sums (in peer-reviewed journals) say otherwise.

This being the only habitable planet we know of or can feasibly reach, running potentially disasterous experiments on it would seem very stupid.

As you were, carry on.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

All I've seen are argument flaws and trying to disprove a single person from the entire panel.

Because he's the "hockey stick graph" creator, that so much of their argument is based on.

[TheMercenary]

A link to NASA Maps and graphs.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

[piercehawkeye45]

Classicman, this a quote from your second article

But Trenberth's "lack of warming at the moment" has been going on at least a decade. "There has been no [surface-measured] warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995," observes MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen. "According to satellite data, global warming stopped about 10 years ago and there's no way to know whether it's happening now," says Roy Spencer, former NASA senior scientist for climate studies.

This is from Merc's link:



Not taking uncertainty into account, we went up 0.1 degree since 2000. Even with the maximum uncertainty against high temperatures, we still went up around 0.05 degrees. I wouldn't call that a lack of warming. The following is the only graph that makes sense with the above argument.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Because he's the "hockey stick graph" creator, that so much of their argument is based on.

Most of their sources derived from one person? Maybe its true but the sources page on even one IPCC section has at least 25-50 peer review scholarly sources.

[SamIam]

Its OK. A group of American Samoan hackers have cracked the secret code and proved that it is really the raw data for a study of a population of Huffakers' finches (the little bastards breed like bunnies).

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Most of their sources derived from one person? Maybe its true but the sources page on even one IPCC section has at least 25-50 peer review scholarly sources.

No, not derived from one person. His hockey stick graph gave them the target to aim for, when tailoring the results of their data, when creating their computer models, when writing their grant requests.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

No, not derived from one person. His hockey stick graph gave them the target to aim for, when tailoring the results of their data, when creating their computer models, when writing their grant requests.

That is a good point and his hockey stick graph probably were influential on other studies but that really only affected the view on how extensive global warming has been in the past century and not global warming itself.

[classicman]

so........ you are saying that perhaps the data overstated how extensive the warming was but not that there is global warming?

[piercehawkeye45]

Yes. Even without that guy's input, there is more than enough data to be able to legitimately conclude that the Earth has been warming in the recent century. This guy cannot make glaciers recede, ice sheets melt, or change the temperature from satellite or even ground level data.

Global warming may not be happening as fast as he made it out to be, but there is a lot of data that still supports that it is still happening.

[classicman]

Brings us back to this

Originally Posted by Jinx

Damage control. Pretty weak at that.

What is the cause? We have no idea, and these people make their living off trying to tell us the answer. Is it possible that this warming which is now admittedly not as extreme as originally thought may be from some natural occurrences? Do we, the entire human race need to act immediately on an assumption that it is our fault? Is it true that some glaciers in other areas are actually growing? I can see why some would not want this to be true, but I have read where it is happening and severely under reported. Again - We don't know. This whole episode does not help the case of anyone, it only brings further into question the actual information we had to make decisions from.

Originally Posted by Zen

This being the only habitable planet we know of or can feasibly reach, running potentially disastrous experiments on it would seem very stupid.

Yet that is essentially what we have been doing for decades, if not centuries.
Both environmentally and financially.