Most of the ice sheets that are melting are only 5-10 thousand years old. that means 10,000 years ago it was warm enough that they didn't fucking exist. We also know in the past the earth was a lot warmer than it is now.
So how come it is humans warming up the planet when the planet not only has been warmer in the past without humans, but has done so in the last 10,000 years before humans even had domesticated animals.
Because we know why it was warmer then.
And those mechanisms are not the cause for this warming.
I can believe our burning CO2 into the atmosphere is bad. the smog is a great example of that.
We aren't burning CO2!
However that doesn't mean that this isn't part of a normal warming and cool trend the planet goes through.
Because the normal cycle is not what is happening now - in fact the normal cycle should be causing cooling now
In fact not a single person who supports Global warming will even look at such data.
No, exactly wrong. We know it's warming now and we know why because we've studied past climate change.
So water levels increase? It will be disastrous, but the majority will survive.
Sez who? Do you expect to be among the survivors? If you live on high ground how do you feel about the hundreds of millions of new neighbours you'll be getting?
Do you think we don't know that the planet has been warmer in the past than it is now? Is that supposed to be supprising? People who worry about climate change worry about it because they know it has happened before.
What's different this time is the speed of change, not the change itself.
A "lowered output of petroleum" wouldn't be enough - it's not the only fossil fuel. A lowered anthropogenic CO2 output with a continuing rise in atmospheric CO2 over a large enough period would do it, I thought that would be obvious to any reasonable person.
Duh, I mean't a lowered human CO2 output would be expected to produce a slower rise in CO2 levels. Human CO2 output from fuel burning fell fell a tiny amount between 2008 and 2009 (down from 30,493.23Mtons CO2 to 30,398.42 MTons CO2, or by 0,3%). Trying to spot a 0,3% change in the rise of the CO2 concentration is left as an exercise for the reader.
You're making assertions, not offering a falsifiable hypothesis.
Wordplay. Boring.
Take for example:
2. The rise is due to burining of fossil fuels.
What *observation* would contradict that assertion? Say, a lowered output of petroleum in a given year, but CO2 levels *still* rising? If you observed that (let's say, during some sort of recession where energy use dropped), would you give up your hypothesis?
A "lowered output of petroleum" wouldn't be enough - it's not the only fossil fuel. A lowered anthropogenic CO2 output with a continuing rise in atmospheric CO2 over a large enough period would do it, I thought that would be obvious to any reasonable person.
Hasn't happened though. (Despite your inuendo about recessions).
5. No other mechanism has been found for the temperature rise.
Argument from ignorance -> just because we haven't specified what unknown drivers push temperature (say, atmospheric dynamics, cloud formation, solar variability), doesn't mean that the default is "it must be human CO2".
No,we've checked all those and they don't appear to be the cause, so the theory hasn't been falsified, (and could have been).
All theory is argument from ignorance. That's what falsifiability is about.
Then co-authored a paper that shows the same result.
Odd.
I do believe that Judith Curry was in the position of having objections to one or more of the BEST papers that she was listed as a co-author on.
Come on, you've fucked up once, don't do it again. I've shown that your "beliefs" don't always correspond to reality. (You may be right - Curry is such a hack it's possible she does object to one of her own papers, but lets have a link).
But even though 97% of the world's scientists feel that such proof does exist,
In science, it is more important to understand why the 3% is wrong that to know that 97% agrees with you. If you don't understand the counter-argument, then your opinion doesn't have much weight.
But there is no counter argument.
There are N counter arguments, which are contradictory.
Don't be ridiculous. The point that a warmer ecosystem corresponds closely with a more active and diverse biosphere is not some 'talking point' in some conspiracy. It's a historical fact you can learn from studying the fossil record.
When the Hutu Interahamwe militia were driven out of Rwanda by the invading Tutsi RDF they in turn drove many Congolese villagers out into the lush tropical forest.
Nice hot wet forest.
Six million people died of starvation. Yes, a hot biosphere can be nice and active. But not necessarily edible.
However if you disagree with any part, you get labeled a denalist. So you can say "I think the Earth is getting warmer, and I think manmade CO2 is the cause. However my examination of the evidence leads me to believe it is not a bad thing, in fact it'll be just fine so we shouldn't do anything," and you get shouted down as "denying climate change." Or you can say "I think it is happening, manmade, and a bad thing. However I think reducing CO2 production is the wrong approach. I think we should do geoengineering because it is cheaper/more effective/etc," and you get shouted down as a "denialist."
But this isn't what happens.
What does happen is that we find people saying "AGW remediation would be inconvenient for me so the temperature isn't rising" or "AGW remediation would be inconvenient for me so the temperature rise isn't anthropogenic".
AGW believers first, since you're the ones that want massive wealth redistribution, crippling of industries and economies, and massive lowering of modern Western lifestyle quality.
The science must be wrong because you don't want it to be true.
Slashdot Mirror
Let them eat lettuce.
Think I'll stick to the Brioche, Marie Antoinette.
it climate change now not global warming, I guess you didn't get the Email~
That would be the email from 1988 wen the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed?
Fucking denialist talking points - do they get any stupider?
Most of the ice sheets that are melting are only 5-10 thousand years old. that means 10,000 years ago it was warm enough that they didn't fucking exist. We also know in the past the earth was a lot warmer than it is now.
So how come it is humans warming up the planet when the planet not only has been warmer in the past without humans, but has done so in the last 10,000 years before humans even had domesticated animals.
Because we know why it was warmer then.
And those mechanisms are not the cause for this warming.
I can believe our burning CO2 into the atmosphere is bad. the smog is a great example of that.
We aren't burning CO2!
However that doesn't mean that this isn't part of a normal warming and cool trend the planet goes through.
Because the normal cycle is not what is happening now - in fact the normal cycle should be causing cooling now
In fact not a single person who supports Global warming will even look at such data.
No, exactly wrong. We know it's warming now and we know why because we've studied past climate change.
So water levels increase? It will be disastrous, but the majority will survive.
Sez who? Do you expect to be among the survivors? If you live on high ground how do you feel about the hundreds of millions of new neighbours you'll be getting?
I think you missed the sacasm tags.
I don't know. What do you think he has done?
Do you think we don't know that the planet has been warmer in the past than it is now? Is that supposed to be supprising? People who worry about climate change worry about it because they know it has happened before.
What's different this time is the speed of change, not the change itself.
Sorry, doesn't work.
Denialists work by spamming all threads with all arguments - especialy when the arguments are contradictory
Can somebody explain why error estimates did not change since 1880 on Figure 2?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/
Please see an opthamologist.
Yes, but the point is that most of the light from the sun is visible and UV.
While pretty much all the photons coming off the earth are IR.
Surely you know this? It's called the greenhouse effect.
So, without CO2 100% of spacebound photons go to space.
And with CO2 some percentage of them get sent back down again.
What part of this don't you understand?
well, CO2 does absorb infrared light, but in very,very short time it emits another IR photon :) in some random direction
And if that direction happens to be down?
in fact IPCC has been consistently wrong, even with their more conservative predictions ?
Untrue.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/
A "lowered output of petroleum" wouldn't be enough - it's not the only fossil fuel. A lowered anthropogenic CO2 output with a continuing rise in atmospheric CO2 over a large enough period would do it, I thought that would be obvious to any reasonable person.
Duh, I mean't a lowered human CO2 output would be expected to produce a slower rise in CO2 levels. Human CO2 output from fuel burning fell fell a tiny amount between 2008 and 2009 (down from 30,493.23Mtons CO2 to 30,398.42 MTons CO2, or by 0,3%). Trying to spot a 0,3% change in the rise of the CO2 concentration is left as an exercise for the reader.
You're making assertions, not offering a falsifiable hypothesis.
Wordplay. Boring.
Take for example:
What *observation* would contradict that assertion? Say, a lowered output of petroleum in a given year, but CO2 levels *still* rising? If you observed that (let's say, during some sort of recession where energy use dropped), would you give up your hypothesis?
A "lowered output of petroleum" wouldn't be enough - it's not the only fossil fuel. A lowered anthropogenic CO2 output with a continuing rise in atmospheric CO2 over a large enough period would do it, I thought that would be obvious to any reasonable person.
Hasn't happened though. (Despite your inuendo about recessions).
Argument from ignorance -> just because we haven't specified what unknown drivers push temperature (say, atmospheric dynamics, cloud formation, solar variability), doesn't mean that the default is "it must be human CO2".
No,we've checked all those and they don't appear to be the cause, so the theory hasn't been falsified, (and could have been).
All theory is argument from ignorance. That's what falsifiability is about.
Sorry you are correct, I was confusing that paper with Menne et al's On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record, submitted Aug 2009, which credits Watts not co-authors him.
Yup, Watts bitched about Menne et al.
Then co-authored a paper that shows the same result.
Odd.
I do believe that Judith Curry was in the position of having objections to one or more of the BEST papers that she was listed as a co-author on.
Come on, you've fucked up once, don't do it again. I've shown that your "beliefs" don't always correspond to reality. (You may be right - Curry is such a hack it's possible she does object to one of her own papers, but lets have a link).
This is /.
Loads of anonymous cowards.
Whoops, sorry.
The science must be wrong because you don't want it to be true.
Actually, I'm still waiting for some science. Actual science. With verifiable hard data and repeatable empiric experimental results.
You're never going to find it. Your definition of "verifiable hard data" is "things that agree with the way I want things to be".
Watts objected to the publication of the paper and was disregarded.
Watts objected to the publication of a paper he is co-author of?
Citation fucking needed.
Watts own site, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/11/the-long-awaited-surfacestations-paper/ contains no objections that I can see.
Now take into account that all climate research is done at one place, the CRU in England.
WTF!
You cannot be serious.
But even though 97% of the world's scientists feel that such proof does exist,
In science, it is more important to understand why the 3% is wrong that to know that 97% agrees with you. If you don't understand the counter-argument, then your opinion doesn't have much weight.
But there is no counter argument.
There are N counter arguments, which are contradictory.
Don't be ridiculous. The point that a warmer ecosystem corresponds closely with a more active and diverse biosphere is not some 'talking point' in some conspiracy. It's a historical fact you can learn from studying the fossil record.
When the Hutu Interahamwe militia were driven out of Rwanda by the invading Tutsi RDF they in turn drove many Congolese villagers out into the lush tropical forest.
Nice hot wet forest.
Six million people died of starvation. Yes, a hot biosphere can be nice and active. But not necessarily edible.
However if you disagree with any part, you get labeled a denalist. So you can say "I think the Earth is getting warmer, and I think manmade CO2 is the cause. However my examination of the evidence leads me to believe it is not a bad thing, in fact it'll be just fine so we shouldn't do anything," and you get shouted down as "denying climate change." Or you can say "I think it is happening, manmade, and a bad thing. However I think reducing CO2 production is the wrong approach. I think we should do geoengineering because it is cheaper/more effective/etc," and you get shouted down as a "denialist."
But this isn't what happens.
What does happen is that we find people saying "AGW remediation would be inconvenient for me so the temperature isn't rising" or "AGW remediation would be inconvenient for me so the temperature rise isn't anthropogenic".
So far, the IPCC predictions have all [under]estimated the temperature increase,
FTFY. HTH. HAND.
AGW believers first, since you're the ones that want massive wealth redistribution, crippling of industries and economies, and massive lowering of modern Western lifestyle quality.
The science must be wrong because you don't want it to be true.
Interesting.
One person's profits is another person's next meal. For such a person it's not unreasonable to be sceptical.
Bad reasoning. Whether or not AGW is happening is independent of your needs and desires.
4 - Instrumentation. Anthony Watts has demonstrated the pathetic state of some of our temperature records.
Sadly, no.
Watts is co-author of a paper - Fall, et al, 2011 that shows that there is no major problem with the siting of weather stations in the US:
overall mean temperature trends are nearly identical across site classifications