Slashdot Mirror

Scientists didn't "change the name". Global Warming and Climate Change are two different things. One causes the other. Both are happening, and have been talked about consistently in the scientific literature for decades.

The fact that deniers can't figure this out says nothing about science, and everything about deniers.

Here is an overview of Antarctic ice with references to studies. There are references to scientific papers on the subject there. Measurements indicate Antarctica is losing 100-300 Gt/year from the ice sheets and the rate is accelerating.

I like that site and I appreciate the link you've provided; Robert Way covers the arguments for and against in depth with lots of references and current dialogue.

The interesting thing, though, is that the state of current knowledge, especially regarding Antarctica and continental ice-sheet measurement is anything but straight-forward and anything but settled. The means for measuring yearly ice-melt versus ice-gain on the South pole is really rather sketchy and open to biased interpretation.

I was also fascinated to learn that in his rebut of the "It's the Sun" argument, it is noted that the Sun is indeed doing some strange things. This is consistent with the idea that the solar system itself is undergoing a change due to outside forces and that the Earth and other planets are similarly affected. The theory being that the dark star, or so-called, "Nemesis" is grounding the whole system, pulling energy out and resulting in numerous effects system-wide.

I think you're making a lot of assumptions about how easy it would be to bring together all of the data necessary to do what you want and as I said above what the NSIDC produces is probably a better representation of the situation anyway.

I think you're partly correct. I think my assumptions about NASA's databases are entirely reasonable given what we know about computer systems and the kinds of systems reported to be in use there, etc. But I must admit, I didn't realize that Antarctica was completely ice-covered with no edges of the actual land itself showing from beneath the ice sheets. I can understand why photographs of top-views wouldn't be terribly useful since there is nothing to measure in terms of retreat/expansion.

It's a shame that the other means of measurement and the results are so weak. It would be interesting to know what is actually happening. Reading some of the essays and discussions indicates a varying lack of objectivity and a fairly wide expanse of uncertainty (in spite of what Mister Way claims).

If someone comes out with a revolutionary new theory that explains the current climate better current theory then I'll accept that (after some research) but until such a time I accept the current science.

I agree. The revolutionary new theory isn't 100% there, but rather is a collection of ideas which make me scratch my head. James McCanney, (interviewed in the two links in my original post) offers some of those ideas. Though, he's also a bit of a crazy-man suggesting some other things which I find hard to swallow, but then many of history's most famous and productive scientists have shown similar qualities.

Other aspects are hard-to-ignore points of interest which suggest larger forces at work than simple climate change models. One of those points of interest I noted earlier is the story about Greenland seeing first Sunrise two days too early. The accepted theory being that the horizon line melted due to global warming, but this is patently ridiculous for several reasons, not the least of which being that sunrise isn't measured over ice sheet and which leaves us with the question of, "What the heck is going on?"

In any case, I think it might be prudent to wrap this up here.(?) If you agree, then I want to thank you for being intelligent and for offering a good resistance to my thinking, proving once again that Slashdot can be a fine knowledge crucible. I don't have all the answers, but I feel more informed and stronger in mind today than before we started to dialogue.

Cheers!

-FL

So anyway, yes, ice certainly freezes in the winter time. I didn't check September, just January and June, hot and cold six months apart, right? That gives a pretty good spread. And yes, 2007 was a hot year up North! In fact, it is the year most quoted on the web in comparative models, and I can see why that is if somebody is trying to make a strong point.

Well, the point of looking at September is that is when the yearly minimum ice occurs (although occasionally it may happen in early October). If you want to see maximum ice you would look in March or April generally. January and June are both transition periods, not when the ice sees it min/max extent. And rather than simple Arctic sea ice extent you should try looking for information about Arctic sea ice volume too. The multi-year sea ice that holds most of the volume has been disappearing and 2010 is considered the lowest Arctic sea ice volume ever. Taken as a whole every year from 2007-2010 has lower Arctic sea ice extent than any year before 2007 so choose any of them for your comparison. There is no evidence that Arctic sea ice is making much of a recovery and the long term trend is down.

Of course the reason the record only goes back to 1979 is because that's when the first satellite to measure sea ice was launched. Before that you have to use records gathered on the ground to estimate it. Before the 1950's those records were pretty spotty.

Really? I'm having a difficult time verifying that one way or the other.

Here is an overview of Antarctic ice with references to studies. There are references to scientific papers on the subject there. Measurements indicate Antarctica is losing 100-300 Gt/year from the ice sheets and the rate is accelerating.

That's a lovely rationalization, but it doesn't answer my original question; Why only in Antarctica? Do fluid and saline dynamics only work south of the equator?

There is a fundamental different between the Arctic and the Antarctic. That is that the Arctic is a relatively shallow ocean surrounded by land but Antarctica is land surrounded by relatively deep ocean. So some things do work quite differently between the two. See the SkepticalScience ling above for cites on papers about the scientific basis of what you call a rationalization.

... specifying, "Sea Ice Scientists" rather than, "Climate Change Scientists" is a little evasive.

Sea ice scientists are a subgroup of climate scientists which covers a broad range of scientific fields from the central radiative transfer physics field to paleoclimatologists to physical oceanographers and many others I could name. Sea ice scientists are describing an expected symptom of global warming in the decline of Arctic sea ice but the changes in albedo they find due to the decline have an effect on GW due to less reflection/more absorption of incoming solar radiation. In turn the oceanographers get involved as the Arctic Ocean warms from the increased absorption.

Please remember that the media tells us that thousands of scientists have come forward to assure us that Global Warming is a crisis issue requiring immediate government intervention. For changes of that magnitude, I do in fact think that we deserve all the evidence we can get, and that satellite photo-evidence would go a long way to supporting the claim.

I don't think scientists say much about government intervention. If something is to be done about the problem of global warming then government is the most obvious mechanism to enable taking action. Private enterprise generally doesn't look far enough into the future to take it into account although it's becoming a factor in the insurance industry lately. The problem with the magnitude of change from global warming is that there are built in buffers

You have an artificial guilt complex like so many that follow religions.

No, I have an understanding of science, the ability to read and analyse for myself, and the capacity to think beyond my own selfish ends - both in the present and extrapolated to mine, and my descendents' futures.

The hard facts

Oh dear, here we go again...

that the arctic summer holes are now closing

Are you talking about ozone? Because that has absolutely nothing to do with climate.

If you're talking about arctic sea ice, you're completely wrong.

the south pole overall has been cooling for over 30 years

Wrong. On average, antarctic monitoring stations on land have seen warming. The ocean temperatures around antarctica are absolutely clear.

You may be confused because antarctic ice is thickening. That's entirely consistent with predictions, though. A warmer planet does not mean everywhere changes in the same way. Warm air causes more evaporation from oceans, and more precipitation in places (in the case of the antarctic, more snow makes thicker ice). However, that gain is nothing compared to losses elsewhere.

You simply cannot extrapolate from individual local phenomena to the global climate, you have to look at the entire picture, which is very clear.

This article explains the science well:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-is-Antarctic-sea-ice-increasing.html

that sea level rise has been going on for thousands of years since the last ice age

That's a logical fallacy. One cause (the end of an ice age) having resulted in sea level rise in the past does not discount another cause (anthropogenic emissions) resulting in sea level rise now.

If you're actually interested in educating yourself (which I'm starting to doubt) the NYT ran an accessible feature that got the science right last November:

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/science/earth/14ice.html

that more glaciers are growing than retreating

Categorically wrong. There are always localised fluctuations, but globally, we're losing glacier mass at an astonishing rate.

that mount killimanjaro's ice shrinkage is entirely a local phenomenon driven by land use

Remember what I said about local fluctuations? Look at the global picture and open your eyes. Possible localised causes around KMJ do nothing to change the extremely clear pattern of global glacier loss due to temperature rise.

are lost on you because you have a self-destructive and society-destructive false belief, fueled by hucksters with an agenda for money and power, in the "sin" of man using his mind to better his life.

Way to open and close with an ad-hominem.

You have an artificial guilt complex like so many that follow religions.

No, I have an understanding of science, the ability to read and analyse for myself, and the capacity to think beyond my own selfish ends - both in the present and extrapolated to mine, and my descendents' futures.

The hard facts

Oh dear, here we go again...

that the arctic summer holes are now closing

Are you talking about ozone? Because that has absolutely nothing to do with climate.

If you're talking about arctic sea ice, you're completely wrong.

the south pole overall has been cooling for over 30 years

Wrong. On average, antarctic monitoring stations on land have seen warming. The ocean temperatures around antarctica are absolutely clear.

You may be confused because antarctic ice is thickening. That's entirely consistent with predictions, though. A warmer planet does not mean everywhere changes in the same way. Warm air causes more evaporation from oceans, and more precipitation in places (in the case of the antarctic, more snow makes thicker ice). However, that gain is nothing compared to losses elsewhere.

You simply cannot extrapolate from individual local phenomena to the global climate, you have to look at the entire picture, which is very clear.

This article explains the science well:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-is-Antarctic-sea-ice-increasing.html

that sea level rise has been going on for thousands of years since the last ice age

That's a logical fallacy. One cause (the end of an ice age) having resulted in sea level rise in the past does not discount another cause (anthropogenic emissions) resulting in sea level rise now.

If you're actually interested in educating yourself (which I'm starting to doubt) the NYT ran an accessible feature that got the science right last November:

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/science/earth/14ice.html

that more glaciers are growing than retreating

Categorically wrong. There are always localised fluctuations, but globally, we're losing glacier mass at an astonishing rate.

that mount killimanjaro's ice shrinkage is entirely a local phenomenon driven by land use

Remember what I said about local fluctuations? Look at the global picture and open your eyes. Possible localised causes around KMJ do nothing to change the extremely clear pattern of global glacier loss due to temperature rise.

are lost on you because you have a self-destructive and society-destructive false belief, fueled by hucksters with an agenda for money and power, in the "sin" of man using his mind to better his life.

Way to open and close with an ad-hominem.

It has been proven that C02 follows temperature increases not the other way around. Even though the AGW theory flies in the face of this fact the AGW faithful are not dissuaded

You are absolutely right! (Except for the last part which doesn't quite follow) Higher temperatures means more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere from the oceans. This is one of the (many) positive feedbacks that have scientists worried.

You need to show how your theory works and make it falsifiable.

It is basic physics. Crack open a university textbook and this will be explained. This has been well understood since 1824. Fourier was the pioneer in this field.

They have been right every decade since.

They have been wrong every decade since. They have predicted uncontrollable warming. This has not come to pass.

Warming has been consistent with a forcing of 3C/doubling of CO2. This is the expected warming.

Even Phil Jones conceded there has been no warming in the last 15 years.

I'm sure you understand that statistical significance in a noisy signal cannot be obtained over a short period. This does not mean that the last decade was not warmer than the previous one - it was. The trend is clear.

Ehrlich, an AGW proponent, said in the 70's that "England would not exist in the year 2000". You can't really believe that "they" have been right every decade since. I'm going to need a citation of a AGW proponent in the 70's that predicted the climate we have today. And while you're at it explain how you, or anyone, knows with any certainty how the climate works. I'm anxiously awaiting your reply.

If you really want to understand a scientific field you would do well to ignore what any one person says and focus on the literature. You would also do well to ignore any one paper and focus on the picture that emerges from the sum of the findings.

Most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century has been caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, which result from human activity such as the burning of fossil fuel and deforestation.

Even if it were so, correlation != causation. You need to show how your theory works and make it falsifiable. If you cannot do that you should start to ask yourself why you believe it. In the next 10 years is there any force of nature that would cause you to question your faith in AGW?

They have been right every decade since.

They have been wrong every decade since. They have predicted uncontrollable warming. This has not come to pass. Even Phil Jones conceded there has been no warming in the last 15 years. Ehrlich, an AGW proponent, said in the 70's that "England would not exist in the year 2000". You can't really believe that "they" have been right every decade since. I'm going to need a citation of a AGW proponent in the 70's that predicted the climate we have today. And while you're at it explain how you, or anyone, knows with any certainty how the climate works. I'm anxiously awaiting your reply.

You'll have to show me evidence that ice mass is rebounding from a 2007 year low. The latest I've heard is that the area of ice coverage has increased a bit, but the ice is thinning. Overall, there's been less ice mass worldwide every year. Here's data from Greenland, Canada, and the Antarctic.

Tell him to go here.

Actually
Both Climate Change and Global Warming are unique terms that have specific meanings.

To put it simply:
Cause: Global Warming
Effect: Climate Change
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html

If anything, we should be talking about Global Warming more.
Because it's amazingly simple when you boil it down to it's bare constuients.

**"Is it the sun?"** Sometimes but definently not for the past half century.
http://greyfalcon.net/solar0.png

**"Are we certain that less and less infrared radiation is exiting out into space, almost entirely in the wavelength we'd expect CO2 and CH4 to block?"**
Yes
http://greyfalcon.net/greenhouse

**Is the rate of warming significant?**
Yeah, I'd say 100x faster than you'd expect from changes in earth's orbit alone is significant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bftcWQiZPPg
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-to-explain-Milankovitch-cycles-to-a-hostile-Congressman-in-30-seconds.html
http://greyfalcon.net/climate2
(^^ I need a better source for this comment)

**"Do we know that the CO2 is from fossil fuels. i.e. "Manmade CO2"**
Yes
http://greyfalcon.net/carbon3
http://greyfalcon.net/c14
http://greyfalcon.net/carbon2

DONE. That's all you need to know.

With absolute certainty "manmade CO2" is the main cause global warming.

Actually
Both Climate Change and Global Warming are unique terms that have specific meanings.

To put it simply:
Cause: Global Warming
Effect: Climate Change
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html

If anything, we should be talking about Global Warming more.
Because it's amazingly simple when you boil it down to it's bare constuients.

**"Is it the sun?"** Sometimes but definently not for the past half century.
http://greyfalcon.net/solar0.png

**"Are we certain that less and less infrared radiation is exiting out into space, almost entirely in the wavelength we'd expect CO2 and CH4 to block?"**
Yes
http://greyfalcon.net/greenhouse

**Is the rate of warming significant?**
Yeah, I'd say 100x faster than you'd expect from changes in earth's orbit alone is significant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bftcWQiZPPg
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-to-explain-Milankovitch-cycles-to-a-hostile-Congressman-in-30-seconds.html
http://greyfalcon.net/climate2
(^^ I need a better source for this comment)

**"Do we know that the CO2 is from fossil fuels. i.e. "Manmade CO2"**
Yes
http://greyfalcon.net/carbon3
http://greyfalcon.net/c14
http://greyfalcon.net/carbon2

DONE. That's all you need to know.

With absolute "manmade CO2" is the main cause global warming.

suggested ways for changes in the sun to affect earth

is the sun causing global warming?. Short answer: No.

It's ironic that you cite co2science.org after raising doubts about using Wikipedia as a source. First, co2science evidently wants to hide who's behind them:
      http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/co2science.org

Second, the website is funded by Exxon/Mobil and by the Mellon oil fortune through the Sara Scaife foundation:
      http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24
      http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change/funders

Co2science's latest focus of obfuscation is the "medieval warm period". For better, and more honest context on that topic, see
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

Like this one

You may have stepped back a little too far to grasp what the human problem is. It's not that the end result is going to an uninhabitable planet (we hope) it's that a lot of people are going to die from the effects of climate change on the way there.

According to what I understand, the previous higher CO2 levels coincided with lower levels of solar output. Combining higher solar output and the same levels of CO2 would likely produce different results.

You've got a lot of ranting and suppositions in there, but not much of use.

1) Even in the 70s most of the research indicated Global Warming not cooling. You need to understand that what the media says scientists are saying and what scientists are saying are not always the same thing.

2) Al Gore isn't the main leader of climate change, he's most likely just the person you are most aware of being associated with it.

3) I consider it highly unlikely that anyone could really afford to pay off that many scientists without leaving a clearly visible money trail.

4) The point isn't to damn the economy or take away anyone's technology. The point is to reduce our reliance on a limited supply of petroleum which is having an effect on the global climate which is going to be harmful to many people.

5) Frankly, I'm not pursuing any policies.

6) I think you are likely overstating the negative consequences of taking actions to reduce carbon emissions

7) I would be skeptical about the results of any such a laws. I strongly suspect it would be used to enslave people regardless of the outcome of climate change. I'm strongly reminded that in there have been many times when disaster was averted only to have people immediately declare that was never any danger because disaster didn't happen.

8) Juries routinely face the question of how much evidence is enough. It's their primary job to determine whether the evidence presented is sufficient to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt.

9) You are making a huge jump to reach the conclusion that I think "we don't need to be fully informed". I'm merely pointing out that you can always claim there isn't enough evidence. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if every defense lawyer who ever practiced law routinely used that claim in their closing arguments. It's a claim that requires justification.

10) People like me do not come out and say the scientists were paid off or anything like that. You might notice that I said nothing of the sort. I hope these researchers are right, it would be good for everyone if they were.

11) Also people like me do not unthinking back catastrophic predictions of climate change. People like me usually assume that it's an idiot reporting making the claims and that they are not backed up by the underlying science. Then we check to see what the real story is. It's partly of really actually being skeptical.

12) I don't blindly support any side. I'd really rather than climate change wasn't occurring, but like you said, I can't blindly agree with you when the evidence indicates it is occurring.

13) As long as you continue to believe that everyone who disagrees with you is an unthinking zealot, you will find agreement difficult to reach on any issue.

Well, the problem was "Ice Age, we're all doomed, give me political power" when I was in school

Frankly, that's simply not true.

Human activity is just not on the same scale as these changes (which also likely means the feedback mechanisms that keep CO2 in line don't act in human timescales).

You are correct here in that human activity is not on the same scale as the changes that cause ice ages. Human activity is faster and stronger. We're not heading back into an ice age any time soon.

Well, the problem was "Ice Age, we're all doomed, give me political power" when I was in school

Frankly, that's simply not true.

Human activity is just not on the same scale as these changes (which also likely means the feedback mechanisms that keep CO2 in line don't act in human timescales).

You are correct here in that human activity is not on the same scale as the changes that cause ice ages. Human activity is faster and stronger. We're not heading back into an ice age any time soon.

1) Is the climate warming or cooling?
2) Are humans responsible?

Addressed by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Working Group I.

3) What's going to happen that's so bad we have to "do something about" now?
4) When is that going to happen?

Addressed by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Working Group II.

WGI establishes the physical basis of anthropogenic climate change. AFAIK this is has not been convincingly challenged. WGII attempts to quantify the results, which is of course harder to pin down (and included a notorious inaccuracy or two). This new study will doubtless help refine the WGII predictions further.

1934 - hottest year on record
"In August 2007, Steve McIntyre noticed a strange discontinuity in US temperature data, occurring around January 2000. McKintyre notified NASA who acknowledged the problem as an 'oversight' that would be fixed in the next data refresh. The warmest year on US record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place." (Daily Tech).
  Link to Research. You are wrong, please try again.

More likely is that it always was a mixture of zone 9 and zone 10 plant life, but you didn't notice until you started looking for things to validate your belief system.

Untrue. Banyan trees could not survive in St. Pete when I was a kid, but could south of Tampa Bay. They now grow 35 miles north of St. Pete. That Passiflora (you DID click the link, right?) is not a subtle indicator, either. Furthermore, the gardening world is full of people who try to push the limits with interesting stuff, looking for microclimates where they can find them. My dad tried to grow papayas, and failed because they froze. They survive now, in the very same neighborhood. Your claim of a zone 9/10 mix also contradicts the climate charts; there are indeed plants that can grow in multiple zones, but for each zone (and even each half-zone) there are indicator species, that grow in one zone, but not the next. If you've got banyan trees, papayas, and passiflora alata, your zone is not 9, it is 10.

A second datapoint, not plant related, is the water supply. There's also been recent predictions of widespread drought in the 20-40 year future, based on climate models. We can "fix" this with population migration. Tampa, FL, is looking into recycling sewage into drinking water.

I also note you conveniently snipped out the bit about the trees. It is well known that annual weeds are happy colonizers; trees are a good deal slower. If climate zones are really moving 100 miles every 16 years in the Southeast (I actually doubt that, I think the 1990 baseline was not kept up to date), I think that some tree crops may cease to be viable economically because of the long "investment" time.

As to the matter of "waiting for certainty is too late", that derives from two things. #1,the excess CO2 will be with us for a long time (centuries -- see, was that so hard?). #2, the temperature increase lags the CO2, because so much heat is sunk into the oceans. #3, as someone noted, you cannot turn an economy on a dime, so even once we decide to cut back, it will take years to do so. So, whatever observed temperature rise it takes for us to decide to put on the brakes, it will take us years to activate the brakes, AND we will have that higher level of CO2 for a century or so, AND the temperature will continue to rise for decades.

The one place I don't have good data, is on what constitutes "certainty", nor on how fast we could actually turn the economy. If our threshold for "certain" is actually not that far from where we are now, then I am wrong, assuming we flipped from skeptic to certain (as a society) in the space of five years (and stayed there). But as near as I can tell, that is not how things are -- you are certainly an example of someone who has taken the tribal approach (to an insulting level, I might add) and cloaked it in a bogus reverence for Science.

More likely is that it always was a mixture of zone 9 and zone 10 plant life, but you didn't notice until you started looking for things to validate your belief system.

Untrue. Banyan trees could not survive in St. Pete when I was a kid, but could south of Tampa Bay. They now grow 35 miles north of St. Pete. That Passiflora (you DID click the link, right?) is not a subtle indicator, either. Furthermore, the gardening world is full of people who try to push the limits with interesting stuff, looking for microclimates where they can find them. My dad tried to grow papayas, and failed because they froze. They survive now, in the very same neighborhood. Your claim of a zone 9/10 mix also contradicts the climate charts; there are indeed plants that can grow in multiple zones, but for each zone (and even each half-zone) there are indicator species, that grow in one zone, but not the next. If you've got banyan trees, papayas, and passiflora alata, your zone is not 9, it is 10.

A second datapoint, not plant related, is the water supply. There's also been recent predictions of widespread drought in the 20-40 year future, based on climate models. We can "fix" this with population migration. Tampa, FL, is looking into recycling sewage into drinking water.

I also note you conveniently snipped out the bit about the trees. It is well known that annual weeds are happy colonizers; trees are a good deal slower. If climate zones are really moving 100 miles every 16 years in the Southeast (I actually doubt that, I think the 1990 baseline was not kept up to date), I think that some tree crops may cease to be viable economically because of the long "investment" time.

As to the matter of "waiting for certainty is too late", that derives from two things. #1,the excess CO2 will be with us for a long time (centuries -- see, was that so hard?). #2, the temperature increase lags the CO2, because so much heat is sunk into the oceans. #3, as someone noted, you cannot turn an economy on a dime, so even once we decide to cut back, it will take years to do so. So, whatever observed temperature rise it takes for us to decide to put on the brakes, it will take us years to activate the brakes, AND we will have that higher level of CO2 for a century or so, AND the temperature will continue to rise for decades.

The one place I don't have good data, is on what constitutes "certainty", nor on how fast we could actually turn the economy. If our threshold for "certain" is actually not that far from where we are now, then I am wrong, assuming we flipped from skeptic to certain (as a society) in the space of five years (and stayed there). But as near as I can tell, that is not how things are -- you are certainly an example of someone who has taken the tribal approach (to an insulting level, I might add) and cloaked it in a bogus reverence for Science.

You are confused about who is claiming what, though it is likely that I, too, have reduced my CO2 footprint by about a ton per year.

"Gradual" is in the eye of the beholder. My childhood home was a zone 9, now it is a zone 10; I have seen the changes with my own eyes. Plant zones have moved about 100 miles north in 16 (?) years. (The baseline might be from earlier, so perhaps it is longer.) Assuming this continues, this should put pressure on peaches and pecans in Georgia and South Carolina in a few decades -- those are two crops that I know don't do especially well in zone 9. We can, of course, move our orchards north, but we had better start soon; some trees take a long time to grow to full production. Other annual crops, we can move more quickly.

My "feelings" are backed by scientific evidence, I merely did not include links. An earlier version of this is what first caught my attention, back in the early 1990s. That does not establish a causal link, but it does establish both an increase in CO2 and a hemisphere-wide warming trend. This is a nice discussion (with references) of direct measurements of predicted CO2 greenhouse effects; so it is a greenhouse gas, both in the lab, and in the atmosphere.

SO. Do you have scientific evidence that (a) it is not getting warmer or (b) there is not more CO2 in the air or (c) CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? I am quite familiar with all the usual claims about water vapor, alternate sources of CO2, solar radiation, etc, and would rather not preemptively post links to debunking sites, but seriously, what is the case for your position? Could you, perhaps, define "gradual", "long", and "adaptable"? Those are mighty squishy words from someone who insists on the use of Science.

What model or data is there that shows that having the temperature of the planet increase a few degrees, overall, would be a bad thing for our species or any other?

look here for a basic idea

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Comparing-IPCC-projections-to-observations.html - a nice summary.

Let's put this simply so you can understand:

1) Warming is slow but steady.
2) Years are highly variable with several multi-year cycles.
3) Pretty much every year since 1995 has been warmer than 1995.
4) The statement there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 hasn't been true since 1995.
5) 2010 is on track to be the warmest year on record.

That's just a few quick notes on what's wrong with what you said you can get more in-depth explanations here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

"The worse prediction are for a sea level rise of an inch or so over a 100 years. "

How much will sea levels rise in the 21st Century?

"For the lowest emission rate, sea levels are expected torise around 1 metre by 2100. For the higher emission scenario, which is where we're currently tracking, sea level rise by 2100 is around 1.4 metres. "

And it gets worse for the centuries beyond 2100. 2100-2199 ~+3 meters, and 2200-2299 ~+5 meters..
Needless to say.. but the the The Coast Is Toast: Take the Money and Run ..

PS.. For you mathematically challenged deniers, one(1) meter is 39.37 inches..

Indeed that is true. But still, it's bollocks, isn't it? Hasn't Lindzen already shown a correlation between outgoing radiation and temperature? Isn't the mid-troposphere "hot spot" missing? Haven't all of the model predictions been wrong? Isn't sea level rising at its historical trend? Aren't current temperatures inside the bounds of natural variation? Isn't the hurricane count at a 30 year low? What the fuck are we arguing about?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen-Choi-2009-low-climate-sensitivity.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

Indeed that is true. But still, it's bollocks, isn't it? Hasn't Lindzen already shown a correlation between outgoing radiation and temperature? Isn't the mid-troposphere "hot spot" missing? Haven't all of the model predictions been wrong? Isn't sea level rising at its historical trend? Aren't current temperatures inside the bounds of natural variation? Isn't the hurricane count at a 30 year low? What the fuck are we arguing about?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen-Choi-2009-low-climate-sensitivity.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

Indeed that is true. But still, it's bollocks, isn't it? Hasn't Lindzen already shown a correlation between outgoing radiation and temperature? Isn't the mid-troposphere "hot spot" missing? Haven't all of the model predictions been wrong? Isn't sea level rising at its historical trend? Aren't current temperatures inside the bounds of natural variation? Isn't the hurricane count at a 30 year low? What the fuck are we arguing about?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen-Choi-2009-low-climate-sensitivity.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

And, BTW, ice cover has increased since 2007... is that a sign of Global Cooling?

The extent of the ice cap is not the only way to measure the ice cover in the arctic. Probably more important is the quality and the volume of the ice at the polar cap.

By the way, ice 'extent' is different than the 'area' covered by ice. 'Extent' is what is often quoted, not 'area'. Extent is measured like this: If a grid square being examined has more than 15% ice then it is considered ice covered. So if you had two grids being examined of say 10 sq km each, one being covered 80% by ice and the other being 16% covered by ice, the measurements would say that the ice extent or extent of ice coverage is 20 sq km, when the area would be more like 9.6 sq km. Because this is measured by satellite, grids for study are normally more like 25 or more sq km. Argument can be made to use extent over area since sometimes melt water over ice can be interpreted by the analysis software as being open water. Not always but sometimes; so they use extent to be on the safe side.

What many leave out is analysis of data from satellites that provide measurement of ice thickness. The linked web site addresses this somewhat. I have read about and seen information mentioned more and more on this for at least the last five or six years (and to be sure, the real experts have been looking at this for years). It looks like even if the ice extent is greater this year than in 2007, it is still about 1.6 million sq km less than the 1979 to 2000 average; and more importantly, the current volume of arctic ice is the lowest on record.

You are talking about the guys who go around taking photos of temperature measurement stations. Their goal seems to be to create doubt about the reality of the warming trend in the temperature record by showing pictures of "poorly sited" stations. Notably, they have carefully avoided doing any actual analysis. But others have

It turns out that using the "good" sites leads to basically the same results (i.e. showing warming) that are obtained when correcting for "heat island" effects by other methods

This won't surprise anybody who has thought seriously about the issue, since a badly sited measurement station will measure the same trend as a well-sited station, plus or minus a constant bias. An error in the trend will occur only when a station goes from poorly-sited to well sited, or the reverse.

And if there is still any doubt, the warming trend shown by land stations is corroborated by ocean measurements, satellite measurements, and weather balloon measurements, none of which are subject to the same sources of error.

As shown by this guy [wordpress.com], weather stations are positioned next to asphalt parking lots and air conditioner units which produce an unnaturally high reading. So until these monitors are placed elsewhere we will be getting reading that can be several degrees higher than the actual temperature [wattsupwiththat.com], which will skew the results upwards.

Except

1) a detector next to a parking lot won't give you temperature increase over time unless the parking lot is getting hotter.
2) correcting for this effect doesn't make the warming go away.
3) satellite, weather balloon, and ocean measurements also show warming, despite the absence of parking lots.
4) restricting analysis to well-sited measuring stations doesn't make the warming go away

Short answer: Climate feedbacks. Long answer: You need to read more about it, I recommend http://skepticalscience.com/

(And BTW yes, they are running computer models to model historical data.)

And again, you are simply repeating the same old denialist talking points, such as the silly CO2 lags temperature nonsense.

The sites accurately and nicely refute the good old denialist talking points. The sites (or articles) do not pretend to be more than what they are: Lists of responses to denialist propaganda. Just like TalkOrigins and other sites contain lists of responses to creationist propaganda. If you feel like a victim because your old and tired talking points are being met with lists that refute those common talking point, then that's your problem. You still aren't a victim!

A serious theory I have never seen discredited (other than saying people are a crackpot for suggestion it) is that the cause of warming is basically the excess heat from burning (think of the atmosphere as your house and all the fossil fuel as your heater).

Do you really think scientists are this fucking stupid? That they don't take these things into account? Christ.

Ah, I see you're a fan of "Watt's Up With That". At least, I have to assume that as I think Watt's the only one still spewing the "one sensor" argument. To rebut, one merely has to look at what the published data actually says. To quote from this page "Sea levels are measured by a variety of methods that show close agreement - sediment cores, tidal gauges, satellite measurements. What they find is sea level rise has been steadily accelerating over the past century." Note GAUGES. Plural. But, also note other methods as well that aren't subject to local variation bias.

but id wager that its the sea floors changing

You do realize you're wagering everyone else's future on that bet, right? You should probably hedge your bets a little better by reading the actual science involved.

Ah, I see you're a fan of "Watt's Up With That". At least, I have to assume that as I think Watt's the only one still spewing the "one sensor" argument. To rebut, one merely has to look at what the published data actually says. To quote from this page "Sea levels are measured by a variety of methods that show close agreement - sediment cores, tidal gauges, satellite measurements. What they find is sea level rise has been steadily accelerating over the past century." Note GAUGES. Plural. But, also note other methods as well that aren't subject to local variation bias.

but id wager that its the sea floors changing

You do realize you're wagering everyone else's future on that bet, right? You should probably hedge your bets a little better by reading the actual science involved.

Another good links about reliability of models are:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ModelsReliable.html

I can only wish that economic models were at least order of magnitude less reliable than climatology ones.. Funny that nobody attacks economic models for that.

you have confused the issue by leaving out the part about CO2 concentrations always occurring after the temperature rise

Great. That old creationist, I mean, denialist canard. Educate yourself.

I don't know why I would respond to this kind of name-calling and attempt to paint me with some broad brush of "unwashed ignorant masses", but... That article confirms what I said, it doesn't refute it. I simply stated facts without interpretation. Your article attempts to interpret the facts, but doesn't refute them.

Anthropogenic concentrations of CO2 amount to about 3 - 4% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor). To me, that's small.

Yet another creatiodenialist canard. Educate yourself.

Once again, the article does not address the percentage of human-generated CO2's affect on global warming. You're trying to create straw men out of what I said, and then calling me names and associating me with "creationists" and "holocaust deniers" ("creatiodenialist" - cute).

And somehow because it's about global warming, this kind of propaganda seems perfectly acceptable - even encouraged - on /.

You are obviously deeply ignorant. Why don't you educate yourself instead of mindlessly parroting denialist talking points?

You are mistaken, but I won't stoop to name-calling and ad-hominems.

you have confused the issue by leaving out the part about CO2 concentrations always occurring after the temperature rise

Great. That old creationist, I mean, denialist canard. Educate yourself.

I don't know why I would respond to this kind of name-calling and attempt to paint me with some broad brush of "unwashed ignorant masses", but... That article confirms what I said, it doesn't refute it. I simply stated facts without interpretation. Your article attempts to interpret the facts, but doesn't refute them.

Anthropogenic concentrations of CO2 amount to about 3 - 4% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor). To me, that's small.

Yet another creatiodenialist canard. Educate yourself.

Once again, the article does not address the percentage of human-generated CO2's affect on global warming. You're trying to create straw men out of what I said, and then calling me names and associating me with "creationists" and "holocaust deniers" ("creatiodenialist" - cute).

And somehow because it's about global warming, this kind of propaganda seems perfectly acceptable - even encouraged - on /.

You are obviously deeply ignorant. Why don't you educate yourself instead of mindlessly parroting denialist talking points?

You are mistaken, but I won't stoop to name-calling and ad-hominems.

you have confused the issue by leaving out the part about CO2 concentrations always occurring after the temperature rise

Great. That old creationist, I mean, denialist canard. Educate yourself.

Anthropogenic concentrations of CO2 amount to about 3 - 4% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor). To me, that's small.

Yet another creatiodenialist canard. Educate yourself.

You are obviously deeply ignorant. Why don't you educate yourself instead of mindlessly parroting denialist talking points?

you have confused the issue by leaving out the part about CO2 concentrations always occurring after the temperature rise

Great. That old creationist, I mean, denialist canard. Educate yourself.

Anthropogenic concentrations of CO2 amount to about 3 - 4% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor). To me, that's small.

Yet another creatiodenialist canard. Educate yourself.

You are obviously deeply ignorant. Why don't you educate yourself instead of mindlessly parroting denialist talking points?

Michael Mann is distancing himself away from the hockey stick.

Really? When did he do that? Sources, please!

Real Scientists would predict Global Weirding or Climate Strange

What do you mean by that?

not this tabloid info-deficient Global Warming or Climate Change

It is an observed fact that the climate is changing - getting warmer. Why would it not be named after what the observed facts are?

And the comments in the emails and the comments in the SOURCE CODE admit the truth. But you fan boys can't bother to review those yourselves can ya? "Hide the Decline!"

Oh dear. Yet another sheep mindlessly parroting the "hide the decline" nonsense. It does not mean what you think it means. Fail.

It's not a conspiracy theory. It's an orthogonality problem. If you have a Medieval Warming Period (MWP) -- then temperatures *aren't* unprecedented and become mathematically decoupled from CO2. Mann's "Hockeystick" graph erased the MWP -- problem is, the approach is worthless, and while Mann may believe it (again not conspiracy theory), it isn't true. Thus we still have the MWP (and the RWP, the Minoan, and the Holocene optimum) -- all of which were warmer than today and none of which had AGW contributions.

Well, yeah! The Medieval Warm Period, which was probably local, and restricted to Europe, but with a lower global average temperature... You could at least try to read a bit before spouting talking points...

A challenge to the geeks at slashdot -- read "HARRY_README.txt". If you believe a single thing that comes out of CRU after that, I've got a bridge to sell.

Though you haven't actually linked it, I'll try to answer.

First, let RealClimate speak (scroll down a little)...

HARRY_read_me.txt. This is a 4 year-long work log of Ian (Harry) Harris who was working to upgrade the documentation, metadata and databases associated with the legacy CRU TS 2.1 product, which is not the same as the HadCRUT data (see Mitchell and Jones, 2003 for details). The CSU TS 3.0 is available now (via ClimateExplorer for instance), and so presumably the database problems got fixed. Anyone who has ever worked on constructing a database from dozens of individual, sometimes contradictory and inconsistently formatted datasets will share his evident frustration with how tedious that can be.

Second, how is this any different from major, even mission critical code in so many other domains? Even in places which could cost thousands of lives (nuclear reactor safety systems, for example... Ever done a code audit on the software for those safety systems)?

Keep in mind that these people aren't professional coders; they're scientists using IDL and Fortran (90, I presume), and probably other languages like Matlab. The code is an implementation of their hypothesis. It's usually ugly, and the first one that works the way they want it. Maintainability? Hah! (note: here, I speak as one who has had to translate "scientist" code into "real" code).

Spouting talking points is hardly critical thinking, which is why you people are called "deniers" and not "skeptics".

Calling your opponent a fucktard hardly helps make your case. In fact, reasonable undecided readers will likely write you off for using the word.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

http://www.ecosalon.com/top-10-global-warming-denier-arguments-debunked-part-2/

http://earthfirst.com/desmogblog-debunks-the-global-warming-skeptics-handbook/

http://mediamatters.org/research/200601250007

Hope this helps.

Calling your opponent a fucktard hardly helps make your case. In fact, reasonable undecided readers will likely write you off for using the word.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

http://www.ecosalon.com/top-10-global-warming-denier-arguments-debunked-part-2/

http://earthfirst.com/desmogblog-debunks-the-global-warming-skeptics-handbook/

http://mediamatters.org/research/200601250007

Hope this helps.

Learn to be check the numbers when you hear outrageous claims like this.

Learn to be check the English too :-)

[who is going] to tax all the volcanos around the world for their CO2 production?

The CO2 out gassed by active volcanoes comes to about one percent of anthropogenic emissions.

Learn to be check the numbers when you hear outrageous claims like this.

Your right... We should Tax the Oceans!

I mean with That Terrible Greenhouse gas Dihydrogen monoxide that is being emitted by world's Ocean's just have to be stopped.

[who is going] to tax all the volcanos around the world for their CO2 production?

The CO2 out gassed by active volcanoes comes to about one percent of anthropogenic emissions.

Learn to be check the numbers when you hear outrageous claims like this.

You see, now you've got the essence of the Church of Global Warming -> humans are supernatural beings that can affect the global climate in significant ways by altering a trace atmospheric gas measured in parts PER MILLION!

You are the one who is saying that humans are supernatural. Also, your amazing ignorance is really something. The "humans are too insignificant to affect global climate" lie keeps being repeated by dishonest and ignorant denialists. That's because you and other denialists are religious, and willfully reject the science.

Sure you are. You've identified evil humanity and the trace gas and plant food CO2 as the cause of the world's woes in the most arbitrary and capricious manner.

What on earth are you rambling about? Oh yes, yet another dishonest straw man and red herring from a denialist. Who'd have thought!

The thought that it is even possible for you to be wrong is but a fantasy, since you make no predictions that can be falsified by observations. If that isn't arbitrary, then nothing is.

Actually, I used to be an AGW skeptic myself. That was before I actually bothered to educate myself. So I have indeed been wrong in the past, and accepted that I had been wrong. You, on the other hand, are religious. And AGW is indeed falsifiable. The problem is that it hasn't been falsified.

Say a couple of Hail-Gore's at your Church of Global Warming, and you'll get over it though :)

Ah yes, the Al Gore references. I don't give a crap about Al Gore. He is not a scientist. But it is obvious that you don't give a crap about science, since all you do is to push your political agenda.