Global warming?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

Reality - the numbers - global warming is a serious man made problem. We just do not know how serious the problem is.

Originally Posted by Prof Tsonis

When he published his work in the highly respected journal Geophysical Research Letters, he was deluged with ‘hate emails’.
He added: ‘People were accusing me of wanting to destroy the climate, yet all I’m interested in is the truth.’
He said he also received hate mail from climate change skeptics, accusing him of not going far enough to attack the theory of man-made warming.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

When he published his work ..., he was deluged with ‘hate emails’.

Hate mail is when White House lawyers rewrite science because it disagrees with a political agenda. He got the usual criticism afforded any public statements not relevant to the point of his paper.

"his research team discovered a new mechanism in climate that can account for all the major temperature shifts in the 20th century." It does not account for the previous 600,000 years where his mechanism did not happen.

This sudden climate change was not the point of his paper. Tsonis' paper is about a new simulation technique that maybe only applies to weather changed anthropogenically. Credibility is in the mathematics of his simulation - not in the simulation's result.

Tsonis paper discusses chaos theory. His public declaration that global warming has ended is not supported by facts in his paper. An unproven simulation method made a cooling prediction. His non-linear math explains 20 years of extreme warming followed by a point of inflection. Does not explain why this massive temperature increase has never happened in 600,000 years. And does not prove any sudden cooling. Only suggests cooling can happen if his new simulation is correct.

Originally Posted by Tsonis

No. In fact it appears that the (average) global temperature has at least leveled off if not decreasing.

Which ignores normal cooling that occurs during a La Nina and a traditional dimming of the sun's intensity. Both event occurring simultaneously only kept temperatures steady for the last few years when normally that would cause temperature decreases. Both routine cooling events traditionally end in the next few years.

Global cooling is not why his paper got published. Only its new mathematics earned its publication. Only details – its non-linear mathematical theory - made his paper worthy of publication. Despite its mathematics, his simulation could not explain or predict a sudden and massive climate change from 600,000 years of normal temperature variations.

Originally Posted by Tsonis

If the overall warming is due to anthropogenic sources (and not some unknown very low-frequency feature of our climate system), then a break will indicate that at this point the natural variability signal is stronger than the anthropogenic signal.

His public statements are not supported by facts in his paper. Political extremists simply overlooked that.

Well, if Tsonis is correct, then global temperatures will significantly decrease when La Nina ends and when the sun’s intensity begins its normal increase. Meanwhile a very low- frequency feature of our climate system for the past 600,000 years says we should have never seen such massive temperature increases. Prof Tsonis’ research says nothing about the sudden and unprecedented temperature increases unseen on earth in the past 600,000 years. Another fact that gets ignore by a political agenda.

Tsonis’ paper is about non-linear mathematics in weather simulations – not about a conclusion from an unproven simulation. Funny how a political agenda never bothered to notice the difference.

[classicman]

LA Nina lasts 9-12 months. What percentage of time is that compared to your 600,000 year time span? How would that show up on a graph? Would it even be visible?

His research team developed that which accounts for the 20th century because that is what is germane to the discussion.
What records do we have for the first 599,900 years of your 600,000 years? How were they taken? What validity does this have?

tw, with respect to the political end of the discussion, he could probably have gotten a lot more money by not bringing this theory forward. It would have probably been a better career move as well.

Going against what so many others are claiming as factual and presenting an alternate causal relationship is commendable, if not heroic.
His quote;

"People were accusing me of wanting to destroy the climate, yet all I’m interested in is the truth."

carries more weight than many of the bandwagon jumpers who are riding the gravy train of the fearmongering of imminent global destruction and the end of the human race to line their coffers with BILLIONS of dollars.

Just one more question . . . what if HE is right?

Yes I'm playing Devil's advocate here. Someone has to ask the questions.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by classicman

LA Nina lasts 9-12 months. What percentage of time is that compared to your 600,000 year time span? How would that show up on a graph? Would it even be visible?

Tree rings show differences in climate from one year to the next, as do glacial core samples.

[classicman]

I'm not sure that tree rings are going to be as accurate as we may need. When I think about the mechanical instruments we were using just 40 or 50 years ago, I start to scratch my head about the fractions of a degree raise. Just sayin'

Originally Posted by tw

....Global cooling is not why his paper got published. Only its new mathematics earned its publication. Only details – its non-linear mathematical theory - made his paper worthy of publication. Despite its mathematics, his simulation could not explain or predict a sudden and massive climate change from 600,000 years of normal temperature variations.....

...Tsonis’ paper is about non-linear mathematics in weather simulations – not about a conclusion from an unproven simulation...

I think that sums it up.

I certainly dont see how it makes the current overwhelming consensus among climate scientists about anthropogenic contributions to climate change any less credible (much like the recent "climategate" nonsense).

There wil never be agreement so we're back to making a choice.

Do we act on the basis of the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists?

Do we ignore the consensus in favor of a "new" simulation that is more limited in scope?

Do we keep saying more research is needed and do nothing?

Count me in the corner that says put the politics and extremists aside...send Gore (and the environmental doomsayers) and Inhofe (and the industry naysayers) to their respective corners with a "time out" and a STFU.

And lets begin making a serious effort to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions (billions of tons that we spew into the atmosphere every year) in an environmentally and economically sustainable manner....with the benefit of reducing energy dependency and stimulating more innovative solutions.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

I certainly dont see how it makes the current overwhelming consensus among climate scientists ~snip~

The overwhelming consensus in the '70's was the exact opposite - Where would we be now if we had listened then? Keep in mind that they wanted us to pour MORE Co2 out.

Count me in the corner that says put the politics and extremists aside...send Gore (and the environmental doomsayers) and Inhofe (and the industry naysayers) to their respective corners with a "time out" and a STFU.

I agree - just skip the "time out". And remember many of these people, especially Al Gore, are getting incredibly rich off of this.

Lets make a serious effort to reduce energy dependency on a bunch of shit ass countries that couldn't give a rats ass about us except for the money we provide them and also for stimulating more innovative solutions.

Originally Posted by classicman

The overwhelming consensus in the '70's was the exact opposite - Where would we be now if we had listened then? Keep in mind that they wanted us to pour MORE Co2 out.

Scientists in the 70s wanted to pore MORE CO2 out? Can you cite that, please.

In the 70s, the US was also the leader in the environmental movement with the strongest regulations in the world that led to cleaning up the air, land and water.....despite the claim by industrial polluters that the environment has always "fixed" itself naturally in the past and would continue to do so w/o regulations..and who further claimed that environmental regulations would lead to economic disaster.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by classicman

The overwhelming consensus in the '70's was the exact opposite -

No it wasn't[pdf]. There were some headlines to that effect, but most papers were predicting warming even then.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

The overwhelming consensus in the '70's was the exact opposite.

Tsonis is cited only because his paper (that proves nothing about global cooling) somehow supports myths and lies from a political agenda. Classicman again invents a lie to prove a political agenda. Overwhelming consensus was not global cooling. I was there when Firestone was intentionally killing people and the victims were blamed for being killed by aluminum wire. Wackos will even rewrite that history to prove a point.

Overwhelming consensus was air pollution so massive as to threaten to mankind. That consensus was correct. So we innovated. Addressed and solved that problem. Wackos opposes solutions at every step. Innovation and the advancement of mankind is not found in preachings from Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and that political agenda.

A consensus proved mankind was destroying the ozone layer. So wackos invented science to dispute that reality. Science is a threat to their political agenda - which is why White House lawyers must rewrite science papers. Wackos will not apologize for perverting science. That would expose their objective: extremism. Meanwhile, innovation is solving an ozone depletion problem before a disaster ensues.

Wackos opposed auto mileage standards using lies and myths. Even blamed liberals for having us all driving Pintos. When will extremists apologize for that lie? Meanwhile American patriots are why full size Accords and Camrays do 30 MPG.

The overwhelming consensus from those who use facts, numbers, and reality to learn: global warming is a manmade problem. A problem so easily solved when we address reasons for that problem. Ten gallons of gasoline burned. Over eight do nothing but create heat and global warming gases. Well over eight of ten gallons totally wasted. Extremist call this good. Even wrote a political paper saying we must unilaterally attack (“Pearl Harbor) other nations to "protect our oil". When do they apologize for that lie?

Wackos promoted hydrogen as a solution. A political agenda inventing facts to pervert and distort reality. Extremist hate doing hard work; to learn science and reality. Easier to regurgitate political myths, soundbytes, and lies.

Tsonis’ paper is about non-linear math as demonstrated in his simulator. An unproven simulator predicted global cooling. That becomes 100% proof of global cooling – when the political agenda is more important that reality and science? How ironic. Extremists used same reasoning to prove Saddam had WMDs and that Saddam was planning to attack America. When do extremists apologize for that lie?

Another lie – a mythical overwhelming consensus of global cooling. Reading news every day back then - nobody discussed global cooling. When do extremist apologize for that lie? Lies for a political agenda. No different from what Hitler did to prove Jews as evil.

Why must White House lawyers rewrite science papers? When do extremists apologize for that lie? What is good for a their political agenda is good for science? An underlying reasoning in classicman’s global cooling claims.

Classicman is what doing extremists did to deny 1960 air pollution, ozone depletion, safety equipment in cars, blame the unions, blame the Japanese, stifle stem cell research, and invent Saddam’s WMDs. When do extremists apologize for intentionally lying about Saddam’s WMDs and intent to attack America? Oh. Invading other nations to protect “our oil” is even justified? Mission Accomplished.

That Tsonis paper does nothing to prove global cooling. Global cooling claims are invented by extremists such as Limbaugh and Beck. They must be right … now that White House lawyers are no longer rewriting science papers. Extremsist will not even apologize for inventing Saddam’s WMDs and the 4,500 American serviceman they had killed.

Multiple myths about global cooling are posted. Extremists will even distort what Tsonis’ paper says to promote their agenda. So we are all driving Pintos? The term extremist paraphrases the word liar. People who cannot bother to first learn facts, numbers, or even simple science. Extremists so dumb as to even advocate hydrogen as a fuel – now invent myths about global cooling.

How many times must they lie before the conclusion is automatic: global cooling is just another lie. How many Jews had to die because so many believed the exact same propaganda techniques. The overwhelming consensus should be that classicman has intentionally and overtly posted more lies - in the tradition of extremism.

Happy Monkey is 100% correct.

[xoxoxoBruce]

From Monkey's pdf;

Could the [cold] winters of the late 1970s be the signal that
we were returning to yet another ice age? According to many
outspoken climate scientists in the late 1970s, the answer was
absolutely yes—and we needed action now to cope with the
coming changes . . . However, some scientists were skeptical,
and they pointed to a future of global warming, not cooling,
resulting from a continued build up of greenhouse gases.
These scientists were in the minority at the time.

According to Horner (2007), the massive funding of
climate change research was prompted by “ ‘consensus’
panic over ‘global cooling’.” This was “three decades
ago—when the media were fanning frenzy about global
cooling” (Will 2008) or, as Will (2004) succinctly put it,
“the fashionable panic was about global cooling.” “So,
before we take global warming as a scientific truth, we
should note that the opposite theory was once scientific
verity” (Bray 1991).

“Just think how far we have come!” Henley said. “Back in
the 1970s, all the climate scientists believed an ice age was
coming. They thought the world was getting colder. But once
the notion of global warming was raised, they immediately
recognized the advantages. Global warming creates a crisis,
a call to action. A crisis needs to be studied, it needs to be
funded . . .”

Thirty years ago there was much scientific discussion
among those who believed that humans inf luenced
the . . . reflectivity [which would] cool the earth, more
than . . . increasing carbon dioxide, causing warming. Back
then, the “coolers” had the upper hand because, indeed, the
planet was cooling . . . But nature quickly shifted gears . . .
Needless to say, the abrupt shift in the climate caused almost
as abrupt a shift in the balance of scientists who predictably
followed the temperature.

Yet only about 25 or so years ago, orthodox scientific opinion
was that the world was in a phase of global cooling. Much the
same evidence that was deployed to support the hypothesis
of global cooling is now brought into play to bolster that of
global warming — heat waves, cold spells, unusual types
of weather.

You don't need a weatherman to see which way the funds flow.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

You don't need a weatherman to see which way the funds flow.

Do you have data on funding....government funding, industry funding and/or foundation funding?

Or are you just assuming?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Get the fuck outta here. You know goddamn funding is political.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Get the fuck outta here. You know goddamn funding is political.

But you didnt answer my question yet.

I do know that big oil contributes $millions to foundations/think tanks that coincidentally undertake "independent" research that attempts to claim human induced climate change is a myth.....and that research is rarely peer-reviewed and subsequently not published in scientific journals.

Not to mention to $100+million in political contributions by oil/gas industry to members of Congress in the last 10 years....3-1 to those who are on the "its a myth" side of the aisle.

[xoxoxoBruce]

No. and I won't lower myself to either.