Who here is a global warming skeptic?

[John Cuthber]

Here's a quote from the foundation Chairman of the Australian Research Council that was published in todays Australian newspaper (about flawed science and the government owned Australian Broadcasting Commission) .

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/19/us/politics/house-gop-agrees-to-lift-debt-ceiling-for-3-months.html?hp

WTF?

You refer to a question about Australian weather, then you cite a review from another continent.

Worse, it's about this "

In Reversal, House G.O.P. Agrees to Lift Debt Limit"

[LaurieAG]

Its a big world John, how's global warming climate change going in your neck of the woods?

[iNow]

Its a big world John, how's global warming climate change going in your neck of the woods?

Fairly consistently trending upward in terms of global average annual temps, frequency of droughts, intensity of storms, etc... I know you were asking John, but whatever.

 

[John Cuthber]

Its a big world John, how's global warming climate change going in your neck of the woods?

Cold, as expected.

Global warming does not mean that everywhere gets warmer.

 

Anyway, could you please answer my earlier questions

Why do you think I should start my own thread so you can explain an apparently off- topic post which you made in this thread?

Why do you think Australian weather variations from day to day have anything much to do with the net energy flux of the whole earth?

Do you understand that the heat that people use is tiny compared to that received from the sun?

[SamBridge]

I am a global warming skeptic. I think it is not only plausible to have doubts, but essential, especially if we wish to honour the memories of Bacon and Galileo and Newton. We should doubt the data gathering techniques, we should doubt the analytical processes, we should doubt the conclusions. We should doubt the researchers, we should doubt their motives, we should doubt the peer review process.

 

Doubt is a cornerstone of good science. Skepticism is an essential part of the scientific method.

 

I agree with you to an extent, but if I do an experiment and find y=x and repeatedly do the experiment and find y=x and can predict results using y=x, there's no debating that, whether people like it or not, it is a fact that the relationship can be modeled by y=x.

 

There are of course periods in Earth's history where it has been cooling, in fact even in recent history, but it's also been warming too. This seems to contradict itself, but there's an easy explanation.

From February to July, Earth was warming up, global warming already? Not quite, but we'll get there. Now we look at from late July to late January and it's cooling. Now it's global cooling? Well, this brings up an important point which is that often graphs will be manipulated. You could argue that Earth is cooling OR warming by saying "hey, look at this graph", but what's important isn't the look of the graph so much as it is the scale or how much time it shows. When I see graphs manipulated, it's usually over a period of a few decades or even 1. Both sides sometimes use one decade as a few to say what's happening. Even though only 3% of climatologists say the Earth is cooling compared to the 97% that say it's warming, they are right, but they are only right during smaller time intervals, and they will often say "look at this graph, Earth is cooling obviously . But if that graph is scaled in 7 years of a typical 10 year cycle for Earth's climate, that's all you'd see. Now, if you look at the average temperature increase over the last few HUNDRED years, you will find that the average temperature is in fact increasing, but that increase is only a small part of an even larger cycle of cooling and warming, as seen here.

So why is it that 97% of climatologists think the Earth is warming up?

That spike which starts at around the 1900s not only corresponds to when humanity started heavily industrializing, but that increase is a lot greater than a normal temperature spike, at least form what I had gathered by comparing the slopes of graphs at different points when looking at a 1 million year timeline of temperature increase

 

 

Oh yeah, that also reminds me to research that much of Earth's temperature increase corresponds to higher or lower CO2 levels, but I'm too tired to research that right now, this will have to suffice.

 

Whether or not it is man made is somewhat of a debate, I would have to research more specific information, but based on my recollection, it is not entirely nature as this is a particularly large temperature spike that corresponds nearly exactly with the amount of green-house gases that have been dumped in the atmosphere since industrialization and even heavy farming.

Personally, I think it's a little bit of both. On one hand it seems we are in fact caught in a natural cycle of temperature increase, but on the other hand it's happening too fast and it's never happened this fast before (except during the very early stages of Earth of course), and recent temperature increases correspond with the CO2 that has been estimated to have been generated from man-made complexes and technology, what's happening is the temperature of the Earth is increasing too fast for ecosystems to naturally adapt, which is why we see them failing. If we had more time, ecosystems could adapt and evolution could at least have some benefit for animals adapting to things such as rising ocean acidity and deforestation, and in the past ecosystems did have that opportunity, but now that humans showed up, they don't, so at least some of the active effects have to be an-made.

[Ophiolite]

I agree with you to an extent, but if I do an experiment and find y=x and repeatedly do the experiment and find y=x and can predict results using y=x, there's no debating that, whether people like it or not, it is a fact that the relationship can be modeled by y=x.

Which is why I went on to say in the part of my post you omitted:

 

Having doubted all of these things in relation to global warming I am left with the distinct impression that global warming is very real and very serious. However, as a good skeptic, there is one area in which I have no doubt. I do not doubt the possibility that new research could turn our current understanding on its head - its just that that possibility is, on the balance of the evidence, extremely remote. In the meantime we should proceed on the basis that global warming is a real and present danger.

 

 

[SamBridge]

Which is why I went on to say in the part of my post you omitted:

 

Having doubted all of these things in relation to global warming I am left with the distinct impression that global warming is very real and very serious. However, as a good skeptic, there is one area in which I have no doubt. I do not doubt the possibility that new research could turn our current understanding on its head - its just that that possibility is, on the balance of the evidence, extremely remote. In the meantime we should proceed on the basis that global warming is a real and present danger.

 

 

Yeah I omitted that because that quote didn't pertain to my point that I was trying to make. You Personally doubted a bunch of things and after a lot of time researching it you've decided it is a problem but maybe there's some other explanation down the line, that's fine, I don't have a problem with that.

[esbo]

Your personal incredulity and ignorance of the topic is not really relevant, though, now is it?

 

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm

 

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-advanced.htm

 

 

Detailed lists of pros and cons of warming available at each link above.

 

 

 

Unfortunately the links you provide are inadaquate to prove your point.

For example one point to some over deatailed and confusing waffle about reduced rice yields

Howver the actually evidence show rice production increases with temperature.

Which is why they try and replace the real evidence with over complicated waffle and misleading statement and down right lies.

 

If what they were climing were true this graph would be goig from top left to bottom right, however unfortunately for the

global warming decievers and liars it is going fromo botttom left to top right, destroying their false claims totally.

 

 

 

 

Soperhaps one of the global warming scare mongers can tell me why this graph is going in the wrong direction?

Edited February 9, 2013 by esbo

[iNow]

I'm so done dealing with idiots on this subject.

[Moontanman]

Unfortunately the links you provide are inadaquate to prove your point.

For example one point to some over deatailed and confusing waffle about reduced rice yields

Howver the actually evidence show rice production increases with temperature.

Which is why they try and replace the real evidence with over complicated waffle and misleading statement and down right lies.

 

If what they were climing were true this graph would be goig from top left to bottom right, however unfortunately for the

global warming decievers and liars it is going fromo botttom left to top right, destroying their false claims totally.

 

 

 

 

Soperhaps one of the global warming scare mongers can tell me why this graph is going in the wrong direction?

 

 

Scientific advances in agriculture....

[iNow]

... More people growing it... More rainfall in rice growing lands... etc etc etc

Unfortunately the links you provide are inadaquate to prove your point.

My point was that there ARE downsides to a warming planet contrary to your assertion otherwise, and the links I shared supported that claim more than adequately. I suspect your next assertion will be that global warming is a lie because it's snowing right now in the northeastern US.

[esbo]

Scientific advances in agriculture....

 

But that is not good enough, the global warming alarmists have to show global warming is doing some kind of real

measureable damage that matters, problem is for them is they can't because food yields of all kinds have increased

during the warmingperiod. They have more than trebled depite the 'harmful effects' of global warming.

That is why they have to cherry pick statistics and leave out the vast majority of the statistical information.

That is why the are always banging on about the north pole which is melting a little but never mention the

increase in ice around the south pole. That is also why they never mention the great benefit of frozen land ie

that tyou can live there and grow food there, No they never mention that. I wonder why???

 

 

... More people growing it... More rainfall in rice growing lands... etc etc etc

 

My point was that there ARE downsides to a warming planet contrary to your assertion otherwise, and the links I shared supported that claim more than adequately. I suspect your next assertion will be that global warming is a lie because it's snowing right now in the northeastern US.

 

 

But your links do not support your claim, one of your links mentions rice yields declinging as the temerpateure rises

howver the actually evidence shows rice yields have sky rocketed.

That is the problem iwth your links, they are wrong because they are based on false and biased analysis so why should I waste time

unraveling the twisted lies when I have already exposed one massive lie?

And of couse the opposite of what you claim is true, it is he global warming alarmist who chery pick days and study the melting

north pole pole and ignore the freezing south pole. The same people who concentrate on the decline of the polar bear

but ignore the *massive* increase in the fih population and the increase in the number of brown bears who do not like

ice.

It's all bullshit, selective manipulation of the truth to present a lie as the truth.

[iNow]

Do you also think leprechauns are real?

[esbo]

Do you also think leprechauns are real?

 

Well as there is no evidence for them I expect the global warming alarmists do.

[swansont]

But that is not good enough, the global warming alarmists have to show global warming is doing some kind of real

measureable damage that matters, problem is for them is they can't because food yields of all kinds have increased

during the warmingperiod.

 

No, you made (or implied) a simplistic claim that the increase in production was the result of increasing temperatures, on the basis of a graph that showed an increasing trend. There was no effort to compare this to the temperature, nor any effort to account for the other variables that production depends on. The bottom line is that you can't validly draw the conclusion you drew. It's crappy science.

 

Further, an increase in yield does not negate the possibility that damage has been done, because damage does not equate to reduction. For example, if agricultural advances should have yielded a 25% increase in yield but we only saw 15%, then there was "damage" in the form of a missing 10% improvement. You have not cleared the bar of the level of proof you need to support your claim.

 

The question of whether someone else has met their burden of proof for their claim is a separate question. It does not absolve you of your obligation.

 

Well as there is no evidence for them I expect the global warming alarmists do.

 

Also, smarmy responses are not a substitute for evidence.

[John Cuthber]

Well as there is no evidence for them I expect the global warming alarmists do.

That would make sense if the measurements did't show evidence of a temperature rise.

They do.

Why did you say it?

[overtone]

 

But that is not good enough, the global warming alarmists have to
show global warming is doing some kind of real measureable damage that matters,
problem is for them is they can't because food yields of all kinds have
increased during the warmingperiod. They have more than trebled depite the
'harmful effects' of global warming.

You might as well argue that malaria is not harmful to black people – you can find all kinds of graphs
showing how increased incidence of those two diseases accompanies – even leads- large increases in the populations of black people, consistently all over the planet.

 

Actually, your argument is even worse: the threat of global warming is largely a future threat, and even if the effects of the current warming were beneficial to rice in the short run, the longer term risks of major disasters such as widespread delta salination from rising sea levels remain. Those are the main issue, here - we are worried about what we can see coming, recognize as ever more likely possiblities.

 

That is why the are always banging on about the north pole which is
melting a little but never mention the increase in ice around the south pole.

That is false. The global warming people mention the increases in ice cover in some places near and on Antarctica all the time – they are the ones measuring the ice cover, talking about it,
publishing the data, taking it seriously. That’s the only reason you ever heard about it.

Edited February 10, 2013 by overtone

[esbo]

No, you made (or implied) a simplistic claim that the increase in production was the result of increasing temperatures, on the basis of a graph that showed an increasing trend. There was no effort to compare this to the temperature, nor any effort to account for the other variables that production depends on. The bottom line is that you can't validly draw the conclusion you drew. It's crappy science.

 

Further, an increase in yield does not negate the possibility that damage has been done, because damage does not equate to reduction. For example, if agricultural advances should have yielded a 25% increase in yield but we only saw 15%, then there was "damage" in the form of a missing 10% improvement. You have not cleared the bar of the level of proof you need to support your claim.

 

The question of whether someone else has met their burden of proof for their claim is a separate question. It does not absolve you of your obligation.

 

 

Also, smarmy responses are not a substitute for evidence.

 

 

No lets get the fact straight, My opponents made the claim tha rice yields declined with temperature based upon some rather dubious 'research'.

 

 

We analyzed weather data at the International Rice Research Institute Farm from 1979 to 2003 to examine temperature trends and the relationship between rice yield and temperature by using data from irrigated field experiments conducted at the International Rice Research Institute Farm from 1992 to 2003

 

These were based on experiment of rice grown in one field in one location!!!

Absolute rubbish!! They noticed a drop in yield as night time temperature rose ( there seem to be some particular mentionof night time temperature for

some reason) it's a very complex article making it hard to read and easy for them to hide the truth.

For example easy to miss where they say.

 

 

Furthermore, the occurrence of typhoons in the wet season caused crop

lodging in some years, which could weaken the relationship between yield and climatic parameters.

 

So the decline could have been due to typhoons or indeed any number of other varibles, ie bad farming

failing to rotate crops, disease pests and ll sorts of other things, (including down right cheating).

 

And of course a different strain of rice igh have grown better and had the grown the rice in a cooler place the temperature

increase might have shown an increase in rice yields. Indeed there are a lot of place where the increase in temp would

have made it posible to grow rice where it was previously to cold to grow rice.

Hence the whole experiment is in layman's terms "total bollocks".

 

One wonder why they were even allowed to was money on such a uselee experiment. Surely anyone with half a brain

(and I expect you have at least half a brain) could have see the experimet was a waste of time.

 

I mean did they try growing rich in areas nearer to the artic, if they had they would have seen an increase

in yields, expecially where the ground changed form frozen solid to a temperature above zero where things can grow.

 

THe whole thing is laughable, there is no exidence of anything in the experiment save that those running the experiment were either

retarded or deliberatelyl seting out to decieve.

 

Perhaps they should hve tried growing palm oil instead

 

 

 

 

Not much evidence of a decline there!!!

 

 

 

 

You might as well argue that malaria is not harmful to black people – you can find all kinds of graphs

showing how increased incidence of those two diseases accompanies – even leads- large increases in the populations of black people, consistently all over the planet.

 

Actually, your argument is even worse: the threat of global warming is largely a future threat, and even if the effects of the current warming were beneficial to rice in the short run, the longer term risks of major disasters such as widespread delta salination from rising sea levels remain. Those are the main issue, here - we are worried about what we can see coming, recognize as ever more likely possiblities.

 

 

That is false. The global warming people mention the increases in ice cover in some places near and on Antarctica all the time – they are the ones measuring the ice cover, talking about it,

publishing the data, taking it seriously. That’s the only reason you ever heard about it.

 

 

 

Yes you can find all sort fo graphs

 

 

 

 

 

Lots of graphs, but what to they show?

 

THe show global warming is not a problem, we are producing food at an every increasing rate hence there is no problem for mankind

from global warming. It is not wonder we have a problem with obesity.

Perhaps is warming reduced the food supply we would have a healthier population?

 

So as you can see all the evidence for the 'problem' of GW is bullshit, it is not a problem.

 

Indeed all our fossil fuels come from times when it was much warmer.

 

I do not even know why I am wasting my time proving the blatently obvious.

[iNow]

Average annual temperatures are rising and have been for some time, and they will continue to do so largely as a result of humans burning hydrocarbons and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere in massive quantities. Why all the peripheral distractions from that central truth?

[SamBridge]

Average annual temperatures are rising and have been for some time, and they will continue to do so largely as a result of humans burning hydrocarbons and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere in massive quantities. Why all the peripheral distractions from that central truth?

Cause it's happening while the Earth is caught in a natural cycle of warming, so it's harder to distinguish, but to e there does seem to be a clear pattern because normally the natural cycles take longer, although we are very close to a periodic spike according to timelines about every 100,000 years, we are still technically in an ice age but obviously we are coming out of it, and we were coming out of it before industrialization.

[overtone]

 

Lots of graphs, but what to they show?

THe show global warming is not a problem, we are producing food at an

every increasing rate hence there is no problem for mankind

And by the same argument, with similar graphs, malaria is not a problem for black people, and icebergs were not a problem for the Titanic - for while.

 

 

Cause it's happening while the Earth is caught in a natural cycle of warming,

The planet is probably in a natural cycle of cooling, not warming. We came out of the last Ice Age eight thousand years ago, and by ordinary accounts we're due to be heading into the next one.

[iNow]

Cause it's happening while the Earth is caught in a natural cycle of warming

This is false. The suggestion that it's a "natural cycle" was studied, considered, and ruled out long ago because it is not accurate.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm

[swansont]

No lets get the fact straight, My opponents made the claim tha rice yields declined with temperature based upon some rather dubious 'research'.

 

I will reiterate: the question of whether someone else has met their burden of proof for their claim is a separate question. It does not absolve you of your obligation. IOW, you can't post a graph and draw a valid conclusion from it if the scientific reasoning behind it is crap. Which it was. It doesn't matter if that was a rebuttal or an original claim.

 

These were based on experiment of rice grown in one field in one location!!!

Absolute rubbish!! They noticed a drop in yield as night time temperature rose ( there seem to be some particular mentionof night time temperature for

some reason) it's a very complex article making it hard to read and easy for them to hide the truth.

 

Ah, a conspiracy.

 

Anyway, the experiment at least held variables constant so that you could see the effect of temperature alone. It was not one location, it was 227 sites in six countries, and gave the answer is terms of yield per site. A graph of worldwide yield does not control for any variables at all, and is total yield, which is not the same. Offering it as a rebuttal is crappy science.

 

For example easy to miss where they say.

 

 

So the decline could have been due to typhoons or indeed any number of other varibles, ie bad farming

failing to rotate crops, disease pests and ll sorts of other things, (including down right cheating).

 

That damn conspiracy again.

 

And of course a different strain of rice igh have grown better and had the grown the rice in a cooler place the temperature

increase might have shown an increase in rice yields. Indeed there are a lot of place where the increase in temp would

have made it posible to grow rice where it was previously to cold to grow rice.

Hence the whole experiment is in layman's terms "total bollocks".

 

 

You're missing the point of the experiment.

 

One wonder why they were even allowed to was money on such a uselee experiment. Surely anyone with half a brain

(and I expect you have at least half a brain) could have see the experimet was a waste of time.

 

And since you can't see the point, where does that leave you, brain-occupation-wise?

[Consistency]

I haven't read the whole thread however I am not convinced entirely on global warming. Is the temperature rising? Yes but whether a higher temperature is good or bad is where I am sitting on the fence.

 

There is other factors to take into account.

 

1) We know that the Sun use to be much larger in the past. Hence higher global temperatures.

 

2) Dinosaurs use to be much bigger than current land animals, had lizard skins for the protection of higher amounts of UV radiation and the herbivorous ones required more vegetation daily.

 

My hypothesis based on the evidence.

 

Yes the planet is getting hotter but it could be mainly because we are cutting down large amounts of vegetation, hence less carbon fixation and that herbivorous animal don't have the liberty to do what they are meant to do. That is, eat grass, migrate and poop in less fertile lands and by doing so.. converting unhealthy lands/deserts into healthy grasslands. Healthy soil rich in microorganisms. There is scientific evidence with what I am saying and I will post it once I find it again.

 

More ruminant dung = more vegetation = more carbon fixation = more oxygen = lower/cooler temperature.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Consistency

[Moontanman]

I haven't read the whole thread however I am not convinced entirely on global warming. Is the temperature rising? Yes but whether a higher temperature is good or bad is where I am sitting on the fence.

 

Higher temps will be bad for some good for others but ultimately it will not be possible to predict who it will be good or bad for other than to say the areas where food production is highest seem to be the most vulnerable.

 

 

There is other factors to take into account.

 

1) We know that the Sun use to be much larger in the past. Hence higher global temperatures.

 

Absolutely not true, the sun was dimmer in the past and is demonstrably getting warmer, size is not an issue either way...

 

 

2) Dinosaurs use to be much bigger than current land animals, had lizard skins for the protection of higher amounts of UV radiation and the herbivorous ones required more vegetation daily.

 

Again, since your basic premise is false this makes no sense.

 

 

My hypothesis based on the evidence.

 

Yes the planet is getting hotter but it could be mainly because we are cutting down large amounts of vegetation, hence less carbon fixation and that herbivorous animal don't have the liberty to do what they are meant to do. That is, eat grass, migrate and poop in less fertile lands and by doing so.. converting unhealthy lands/deserts into healthy grasslands. Healthy soil rich in microorganisms. There is scientific evidence with what I am saying and I will post it once I find it again.

 

More ruminant dung = more vegetation = more carbon fixation = more oxygen = lower/cooler temperature.

 

This too is false, vegetation growth is more driven by rainfall than animal excrement, a desert is a desert no matter how much manure you place there and rotting manure results in more CO2 not less...

 

During the time of the dinosaurs the temps were warmer on average, more active volcanoes equal more CO2 which of course equals higher temps, the poles were subtropical with short cold winters and no ice caps. Yes vegetation is thought to have been more prolific then but due to CO2 levels and higher sea levels. Possibly oxygen was slightly higher then as well. Continental drift had the continents in different positions as well and that had an effect on the climate too.

 

There were some draw backs to this scenario, stratified oceans with a thin oxygenated layer over anoxic conditions. This would be a problem for us today. I am quite sure that life can adapt to higher temps but humans maybe not so much.