Natural Climate Change - Can someone debunk this?

[puppypower]

 

 

And what would that one data point be?

 

Once again, I will ask you to back this up with citations.

 

Al Gore is not a scientist. But I'm curious, just in the spirit of rigor: provide a citation for these claims. Not someone quoting someone who's paraphrasing something. Where and when did he make these predictions? provide link(s)

 

 

Awkwardness of the metaphor aside(angle through the data point? WTH does that even mean?), this sounds like you are claiming that predictions are not, in fact, based on science. Can you back that up? More importantly, even if you can, will you?

 

 

Partly because simpletons and charlatans alike interpreted this to mean a monotonic increase in temperature everywhere on the planet. Partly because temperature is not the whole story — changes in e.g. precipitation patterns would also occur.

 

Since you've presented no hard data, I'm just going to flat-out not believe this. Given your pattern, you lose benefit of the doubt. You're assumed wrong until you establish you're right, as far as I'm concerned.

 

The one data I was talking about is manmade global warming. If man made global warming is true, for the sake of argument, this would be the first time in the history of the earth that man/humans have caused the global temperature to rise. This is a unique event. This is not like natural warming and cooling, which has occurred many times in the earth's history. Can you show me another time in the earth's history that man caused global warming? If not, this is a unique data point in terms of a cause and effect for global warming. Being unique means we do not know the future for sure.

 

Say man made global warming had happened a thousands years ago, for the sake of argument, we could compare the two different occurrences and use a straight line between the points, to get the proper angle in terms of anticipated cause and effect. We would have a history to compare. But since this is a unique cause and effect event/data point, which has only manifested itself over the past 100 years, any angle can be drawn and still touch that one point. The angle chosen is doom and gloom, since fear sells. The media uses this angle since people stay tuned fear longer with, than with hope, thereby selling more soap.

 

Gore is not a scientist, yet few scientist in the consensus refuted him. Why is that? He was selling doom and gloom and even if he was wrong science would benefit by the fear=more resources needed to appease fear. You never read Gore's take on man global warming to see how much came true? Here is a link to the original 2006 speech that fueled your movement. Did you accept this original as true and go though the next decade in a fantasy?

 

/truth-out.org/archive/component/k2/item/65599:al-gore--global-warming-is-the-immediate-crisis

 

The main doom and gloom prediction of manmade global was the poles caps melting. Do you remember the conference that went to the Antarctica to look at the melted ice, who got trapped in the ice?

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2014/01/02/global-warming-researchers-rescued-from-arctic-ice/

 

About a decade ago we had some major hurricanes that were conveniently blamed on manmade global warming. The doom and gloom predictions saw this a future trend. The very next year, to the present, hurricanes occurrences decreased. Now they split the difference to cove all angle and say there will be fewer but stronger.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/22/global-warming-to-bring-s_n_471227.html

 

If seems disingenuous for you and others to act like you never heard any of this and then claim I am making this up using a threat of science based censor to scam the minions. These conclusions, which never panned out, are based on science, but science conclusions are only as good as their underlying assumptions. Something is wrong.

 

Climate change is more nebulous than global warming, since anything that the models don't predict properly, like hurricanes, gets to be lumped into climate change, as though saying, we did our best, but climate change is fickle. So we need more money to appease the fear of the added element of the fickle climate.

 

Climate change can be correlated to natural events, since the earth has done this before without man. The link between man and climate change is not as easy as a possible link between global warming and man, due to the contradictory complexity that is used to justify many things. This is not yet a full data point; cause and effect correlation. That is unscientific, since it uses a weak foundation without precedent on which science is to built so it can justify more doom and gloom.

 

If you look at Gore's predictions, which were not refuted, point by point, by the consensus of science, what has happened in reality is the bulk earth appears to be absorbing the change into less dramatic global adjustments. This is hard data based on observation that compare prediction to the reality of the the 20 years. Doom and gloom is not scientifically based, compared to what we see happening on the global scale. Smaller pockets have had drastic events, but the bulk earth is maintaining continuity.

Edited October 7, 2015 by puppypower

[swansont]

The one data I was talking about is manmade global warming. If man made global warming is true, for the sake of argument, this would be the first time in the history of the earth that man/humans have caused the global temperature to rise. This is a unique event. This is not like natural warming and cooling, which has occurred many times in the earth's history. Can you show me another time in the earth's history that man caused global warming? If not, this is a unique data point in terms of a cause and effect for global warming. Being unique one does not know the future for sure.

 

 

Ok. That's like saying that for the first person being pushed off a cliff, we can't be sure that it was gravity that caused them to plummet to their death, because that specific incident had never been studied. Which is ridiculous. We can independently study the various effects on climate, and also track the effects that humans have, and also what is happening naturally (and see that these natural effects can't account for the warming we observe)

 

The "uniqueness" you claim is a completely manufactured objection that has no merit.

[puppypower]

 

 

Ok. That's like saying that for the first person being pushed off a cliff, we can't be sure that it was gravity that caused them to plummet to their death, because that specific incident had never been studied. Which is ridiculous. We can independently study the various effects on climate, and also track the effects that humans have, and also what is happening naturally (and see that these natural effects can't account for the warming we observe)

 

The "uniqueness" you claim is a completely manufactured objection that has no merit.

 

 

We can also fly to the moon. This first journey will settle all doubt that this was even possible. It will also allow us to know things, which were only speculation, until the deal was closed. Going to the moon is more in proportion to predicting climate change, than falling off a cliff.

 

The doom and gloom angle sells, whether it is right or wrong. If we used a more of the same angle, this would not create the same incentive for funding. But had Gore used the more of the same angle, he would have been right, today.

 

Did you take the Gore hook? And did you believe what he said of the future, which would be shown to be a fantasy? I was not fooled. Many who fell for this feel a need to double down.

[Strange]

What is it about climate change deniers and this Gore character? I gather he is some sort of ex-politician, so why does he get all the attention instead of looking at the science?

[Phi for All]

What is it about climate change deniers and this Gore character? I gather he is some sort of ex-politician, so why does he get all the attention instead of looking at the science?

 

Gore is to climate change what Darwin is to creationists. Arguments using examples like these are basically pretending no new knowledge has come forth since the time of Gore/Darwin.

[iNow]

What is it about climate change deniers and this Gore character? I gather he is some sort of ex-politician, so why does he get all the attention instead of looking at the science?

Gore is to climate change what Darwin is to creationists. Arguments using examples like these are basically pretending no new knowledge has come forth since the time of Gore/Darwin.

It's so common that there is a term for it. It's called Gore's Law.

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gore's_Law

[swansont]

 

Gore is to climate change what Darwin is to creationists. Arguments using examples like these are basically pretending no new knowledge has come forth since the time of Gore/Darwin.

 

It's more than that, even. Gore is akin to an encyclopedia/wikipedia article — it's not a primary source of information. If you're critiquing that, you've immediately set the bar at "This is below the level of discourse we would expect from someone who has graduated middle school" (along the lines of iNow's link)

We can also fly to the moon. This first journey will settle all doubt that this was even possible. It will also allow us to know things, which were only speculation, until the deal was closed. Going to the moon is more in proportion to predicting climate change, than falling off a cliff.

 

 

You're massively underselling the ability of scientists and engineers. It's likely that very few technical people doubted we could get to the moon; the technical aspects were in place. It was a matter of when (the pressure of :"within the decade" that JFK had put in place), rather than being like "let's launch this and pray" that your position seems to imply. Like a lot of science where we have the theory already, it's a matter of figuring out exactly how to do an experiment. It's not a wild stab of hoping something will work, it's squeezing some factor of improvement out of your suite of equipment so that you reach the point where it can work.

 

The doom and gloom angle sells, whether it is right or wrong. If we used a more of the same angle, this would not create the same incentive for funding. But had Gore used the more of the same angle, he would have been right, today.

You can assert that all you want, but there's no evidence that it's true. Can you provide one iota of evidence that Al Gore, as a private citizen, has influenced funding agencies' decisions to underwrite climate research?

 

The thing is (and this touches on what JohnS had said earlier) that it's not like funding would stop if the community had concluded that climate change was not being influenced much by humans. We would still want to know what's going on, and ways we might anticipate and mitigate the effects that we see, because there are so many impacts on humans. Drought in California, for example. The economic damage from that alone has been around $2.5 billion per year. If it could have been anticipated (and people listened to the scientists) then farmers could have shifted to other crops that don't require as much water. South Carolina might have been able to reduce the damage from its recent flooding, which has has resulted in more than $1billion in damage.

 

The science wouldn't stop, because performing it is not predicated on a particular result.

[overtone]

The main doom and gloom prediction of manmade global was the poles caps melting.

And they are - faster than predicted.

 

 

 

This is not like natural warming and cooling, which has occurred many times in the earth's history. Can you show me another time in the earth's history that man caused global warming? If not, this is a unique data point in terms of a cause and effect for global warming.

It's about a hundred data points so far - one for every year since the mid-1800s.

 

 

Climate change can be correlated to natural events, since the earth has done this before without man.

Not this. This CO2 boost is larger and faster, the warming more rapid, that we find in the geological record.

 

 

Did you take the Gore hook? And did you believe what he said of the future, which would be shown to be a fantasy? I was not fooled.

So far Gore's presentation in the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" has matched the subsequent events pretty well. What's this "fantasy" you are talking about? Edited October 7, 2015 by overtone

[MigL]

There is accepted and proven science.

Greenhouse gases have a particular molecular arrangement such that certain frequencies of radiation are reflected.

Carbon dioxide is one such gas, and it is trivial to prove that increased concentrations will trap heat.

That part we are absolutely sure of.

 

This added heat, however, can affect a multitude of properties of the Earth.

And all these properties are further interconnected.

 

The 'error bars' on any predictions can, then, be quite large depending on the number of these properties being considered.

And the predictions reflect this with worst case and best case predictions.

 

So by all means, take the predictions with 'a grain of salt', but, atmospheric CO2 concentration is increasing at an unprecedented rate due to human action, and globally average temps are increasing in step.

[puppypower]

Here is an interesting study out of Germany that measured the impact of aerosols on the atmsophere.

 

 

A study by scientists at Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology found that man-made aerosols had a much smaller cooling effect on the atmosphere during the 20th Century than was previously thought. Why is this big news? It means increases in carbon dioxide emissions likely cause less warming than most climate models suggest.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/31/scientists-say-new-study-is-a-death-blow-to-global-warming-hysteria/#ixzz3oOfohRPT

 

[iNow]

Here is an interesting study out of Germany that measured the impact of aerosols on the atmsophere.

 

Yes, more context here:

 

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04/03/climate-scientist-no-my-study-is-not-a-death-bl/203166

Conservative media are grossly distorting a recent study on aerosols' climate impact as a "death blow to global warming hysteria." But the study's author himself stated in response that his research does not contradict the scientific consensus on global warming.

 

A recent study provided new estimates for the rate at which aerosols -- tiny particles of matter suspended in the atmosphere -- deflect the sun's rays, measuring what is known as aerosol "radiative forcing." The study from Germany's Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, which analyzed data from 1850 to 1950, found that the level of radiative forcing from aerosols is "less negative" than commonly believed, suggesting that aerosols do not cool the atmosphere as much as previously thought.

<snip>

According to right-wing media, the study represents a "death blow to global warming hysteria." The reasoning behind the claim, which originated in a Cato Institute blog post, is that climate models rely on aerosols to offset much of the projected greenhouse gas effect from carbon dioxide. So if aerosols offset less warming than commonly believed, Cato claims "the amount of greenhouse gas-induced warming must also be less" and "we should expect less warming from future greenhouse gas emissions than climate models are projecting." The Cato blog post was picked up by the Daily Caller, American Thinker, Alex Jones' Infowars, Investors' Business Daily, and Rush Limbaugh. Daily Caller even claimed that the recent study directly disputes the scientific findings of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, writing: "Basically, the IPCC says aerosols deflect a lot of warming -- the opposite of the Max Planck study's finding."

And from the author of that study:

 

http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/grafik/presse/News/AerosolForcing-Statement-BjornStevens.pdf

Others have used my findings to suggest that Earth's surface temperatures are rather insensitive to the concentration of atmospheric CO2. I do not believe that my work supports these suggestions, or inferences.

<snip>

[E]ven a warming of only 2ºC from a doubling of CO2 poses considerable risks for society. Many scientists (myself included) believe that a warming of more than 2ºC from a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide is consistent with both my new study and our best understanding.

<snip>

So contrary to some reports that have appeared in the media, anthropogenic climate change is not called into question by my study. I continue to believe that warming of Earth's surface temperatures from rising concentrations of greenhouse gases carries risks that society must take seriously, even if we are lucky and (as my work seems to suggest) the most catastrophic warming scenarios are a bit less likely.

Interestingly, your source is rather frequently debunked and shown to be lying. From my first link:

 

This is not the first time right-wing media have distorted a scientist's research to fit their narrative that global warming is nothing to worry about. One outlet that has been particularly guilty of misrepresenting science is the Daily Caller, whose flubs have been debunked by scientists time and time again, for journalistic malpractice such as "cherry picking" numbers to claim that penguins aren't being harmed by climate change and publishing "a complete distortion" of a study in order to claim that global warming is "increasing biodiversity."

[overtone]

 

 

Here is an interesting study out of Germany that measured the impact of aerosols on the atmsophere.

One thing you can notice, if the thorough debunking of that site and that blog entry by others is from sources contaminated in your view,

 

is that the numbers they report don't seem to support their claims, even right there. They use the very top end of the IPCC prediction range, for example - 4.5 C from another doubling of the CO2 - and compare it to what appears to be (they don't say) the midrange or even lower prediction by the new aerosol study of 1.8C. If they had used the lower end of the IPCC range, 1.5C, they would have no adjustment to make at all - no conflict. So the entire point - the headline and everything - rests on which number they chose from the IPCC range.

 

According to what they themselves printed.

[puppypower]

Climate models use both CO2 and aerosol parameters to calculate the net temperature change, since these two things impact temperature in opposite directions. The aerosols reflect light and lower T while CO2 traps heat and raise T. The computer models have all been using the old higher aerosol numbers and thereby estimate the countering effect of CO2 as being higher to account for the observed temperatures. This new study lowers those aerosol numbers, this year, which means the impact of CO2 needs to come down or else T will be estimated higher than observed. There has not been a rise in 15 years but the models still say the temperature is going up, due to using the wrong aerosol and CO2.

 

Aerosols were important when the globe appeared to show global cooling in the 1970's. This was a possible smoking gun and was quantified. This was revisited and found to have been over estimated. I would guess they were hoping for the opposite results for aerosols, since now the truth will make them outsiders due to political science. Political science is where emotional smoke will be used to cool people against them by shielding the warmth of the sun; truth.

[Strange]

Political science is where emotional smoke will be used to cool people against them by shielding the warmth of the sun; truth.

 

Ironic as your posts seem to be purely based on political opinion rather than any science.

[swansont]

There has not been a rise in 15 years

 

Using incorrect data and/or analysis is going to impede your ability to arrive at the correct answer.

 

Feel free to look at the graph and try to substantiate your claim. The statement "not been a rise in 15 years" carries with it the implication that you can statistically exclude a rise over that time, which is laughable.

http://i.imwx.com/web/news/may-global-temp-anomalies-bars.jpg

 

But regardless, the so-called pause/hiatus was not real

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/04/global-warming-hasnt-paused-study-finds

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-pause-in-global-warming/