What Global Warming?

[Coast2CoastHoya]

I really didn't like NYC much until my mid-20s. Something about it gets better with age. Now I love it. DC just gets better and better every year - when you were here it was a way different city, not as conducive to having a good time outside the tourist set of activities.

I've heard Austin is money. Never been, but everything I've heard is great (with the exception of ubiquitous burnt orange).

[hifigator]

tothebeach said:

I really didn't like NYC much until my mid-20s. Something about it gets better with age. Now I love it. DC just gets better and better every year - when you were here it was a way different city, not as conducive to having a good time outside the tourist set of activities.

I've heard Austin is money. Never been, but everything I've heard is great (with the exception of ubiquitous burnt orange).

Yeah, but that's alright, because when I was in D.C., I was too young to have a good time anyway. I was 13 and 14.


Incidentally, I have been to Chicago twice as well. I actually enjoyed both of those trips, but I had so little free time that I really didn't get to see much of the city.


You know, the more I think about it, the more I think there might be a connection there. I didn't have a lot of free time, so I didn't go to very many different places ... ergo, I didn't sit in traffic much.

[EasyEd]

From today's Washington Times Inside the Beltway column:

D.C. resident John Lockwood was conducting research at the Library of Congress and came across an intriguing Page 2 headline in the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt."

The 1922 article, obtained by Inside the Beltway, goes on to mention "great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones," and "at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared."

[Bando]

ed said:

From today's Washington Times Inside the Beltway column:

D.C. resident John Lockwood was conducting research at the Library of Congress and came across an intriguing Page 2 headline in the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt."

The 1922 article, obtained by Inside the Beltway, goes on to mention "great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones," and "at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared."

Well, that does it, Ed, you've completely demolished all the evidence for global warming. Those climate scientists will be hanging their heads in shame in the morning.

</snark>

[EasyEd]

Another interesting read by Samuelson in the Washington Post:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/14/AR2007081401331.html

[EasyEd]

bando said:

ed said:

From today's Washington Times Inside the Beltway column:

D.C. resident John Lockwood was conducting research at the Library of Congress and came across an intriguing Page 2 headline in the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt."

The 1922 article, obtained by Inside the Beltway, goes on to mention "great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones," and "at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared."

Well, that does it, Ed, you've completely demolished all the evidence for global warming. Those climate scientists will be hanging their heads in shame in the morning.

</snark>

And you, Bando, should join them in hanging your head for failing to see the humor of a 1922 article saying exactly what 2007 articles are saying.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

So let me get this right ed - you bash a biased article by posting an article biased in another direction and an article bashing the original article for its bias? Hmmmm

Got a good laugh from the 1922 article.

In all seriousness though, what you might be missing is that evidence of glacial retreat in 1922 and 2007 are not out of sequence or inconsistent with the overall theory of climate change. Global warming/climate change is not a linear march toward a particularly defined eventuality (that we know of). At base (this is my definition) it's a departure from baseline climatic conditions in terms of frequency and amplitude due to changed environmental (air, soil, water, etc.) conditions due to inputs. Since data shows that temperatures have shown a general trend toward warming over the last 250-odd years, it's not inconsistent for evidence of warming via observations of glaciers to show up in the last 85 years. After all, the first Western scientific hypotheses about human-induced global warming came in the 1890s.

[EasyEd]

tothebeach said:

So let me get this right ed - you bash a biased article by posting an article biased in another direction and an article bashing the original article for its bias? Hmmmm

Got a good laugh from the 1922 article.

In all seriousness though, what you might be missing is that evidence of glacial retreat in 1922 and 2007 are not out of sequence or inconsistent with the overall theory of climate change. Global warming/climate change is not a linear march toward a particularly defined eventuality (that we know of). At base (this is my definition) it's a departure from baseline climatic conditions in terms of frequency and amplitude due to changed environmental (air, soil, water, etc.) conditions due to inputs. Since data shows that temperatures have shown a general trend toward warming over the last 250-odd years, it's not inconsistent for evidence of warming via observations of glaciers to show up in the last 85 years. After all, the first Western scientific hypotheses about human-induced global warming came in the 1890s.

Sounds like "climate change" can take credit for rise, fall, no change, etc. That way there is no way any scientific evidence can disagree with the theory.

[Bando]

ed said:

tothebeach said:

So let me get this right ed - you bash a biased article by posting an article biased in another direction and an article bashing the original article for its bias? Hmmmm

Got a good laugh from the 1922 article.

In all seriousness though, what you might be missing is that evidence of glacial retreat in 1922 and 2007 are not out of sequence or inconsistent with the overall theory of climate change. Global warming/climate change is not a linear march toward a particularly defined eventuality (that we know of). At base (this is my definition) it's a departure from baseline climatic conditions in terms of frequency and amplitude due to changed environmental (air, soil, water, etc.) conditions due to inputs. Since data shows that temperatures have shown a general trend toward warming over the last 250-odd years, it's not inconsistent for evidence of warming via observations of glaciers to show up in the last 85 years. After all, the first Western scientific hypotheses about human-induced global warming came in the 1890s.

Sounds like "climate change" can take credit for rise, fall, no change, etc. That way there is no way any scientific evidence can disagree with the theory.

"Climate" does not equal "weather", Ed. Climate refers to averages over time, meaning that yes, individual years can see temps go up and down in different locations, but average temperature goes up over time. Obviously, I'm simplifying things, but that's the gist of it.

I know you think citing newspaper articles constitutes evidence, but you should actually take a look at the data and analysis involved here, rather than drifting into denialism because of ideological predispositions.

[EasyEd]

"I know you think citing newspaper articles constitutes evidence, but you should actually take a look at the data and analysis involved here, rather than drifting into denialism because of ideological predispositions."

And you should stop guessing at my "predispositions".

[Bando]

ed said:

Another interesting read by Samuelson in the Washington Post:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/14/AR2007081401331.html

From the very op-ed you cite, Ed:

Global warming has clearly occurred; the hard question is what to do about it

I have no problem with people having opinions that differ from the more regulation-heavy prescriptions being proposed to stem global climate change. Opinions will differ on policy matters, and that's wholly legitimate. My problem is when people seek to undermine the science that prompts these policy questions.

The scientific consensus holds that climate change is happening, and that human activity has contributed to such. If you think it's completely uneconomical to do anything about it, that's a legitimate argument. To posit that's it's not happening at all by cherry picking facts is not; it's a denialist tactic pure and simple.

[EasyEd]

bando said:

ed said:

Another interesting read by Samuelson in the Washington Post:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/14/AR2007081401331.html

From the very op-ed you cite, Ed:

Global warming has clearly occurred; the hard question is what to do about it

I have no problem with people having opinions that differ from the more regulation-heavy prescriptions being proposed to stem global climate change. Opinions will differ on policy matters, and that's wholly legitimate. My problem is when people seek to undermine the science that prompts these policy questions.

The scientific consensus holds that climate change is happening, and that human activity has contributed to such. If you think it's completely uneconomical to do anything about it, that's a legitimate argument. To posit that's it's not happening at all by cherry picking facts is not; it's a denialist tactic pure and simple.

Bando, maybe we should take this offline but I take offense with you for labeling those who disagree with you the way you do. I don't give a ___ if some group of people label something as being a consensus; and I think it's counter-productive for you to label people that don't agree with that consensus as deniests or question their motives. To you the issue is closed but to others, it's not, including some reputable scientists. Of course you would tag them as being not credible.

I wonder why people get their backs up when I cite a newspaper quotation in 1922 that says the exact same thing you are saying today; or when someone posts a magazine article of about 30 years ago citing reputable scientists who said we were heading to a new ice age. I wonder why they react negatively when I cite that Mars is heating up four times as fast as earth. I wonder why they brush off that NASA has twice had to correct its temperatures because a layman discovered the errors. I wonder why it's unimportant that four of the hottest years on record in the U.S. were in the 1930s. I wonder why it's gospel that humans are causing warming when history shows large cycles of heating and cooling. But most of all I wonder why it is necessary to call people names or accuse them of not studying the data if they refuse to fall in line with the "consensus". And why symposia and other "climate change" gatherings never seem to be willing to have any speakers who disagree.

In earlier posts I have outlined what I consider to be large questions about the accuracy of temperature measurements, the extension of those measurements to an "average" earth temperature and the models used to predict future temperatures. These do nothing to enhance my ability to have any confidence in the science that's being advertised.

I'm not sure if we are actually warming or not. The earth has been around for millions of years and we are trying to draw conclusions based on a minute fraction of those years. It's akin to looking at the stock market the last week and saying the market is going down and projecting it will hit zero if the trend continues for the next couple of years.

I'm also not sure if human activity is causing any significant warming. There are theories that say it is; there are also theories that disagree and say any warming is caused by natural events.

I don't call you names or question your motives which, I believe, are honorable and intent on seeking what's closest to the truth. I will continue to post things I think are relevant to the issue whether or not it falls into your apparent belief that the only things that matters in this issue are the scientific data, as published and advertised by the "consensus".

[Coast2CoastHoya]

ed said:

Sounds like "climate change" can take credit for rise, fall, no change, etc. That way there is no way any scientific evidence can disagree with the theory.

Not really. Clearly "no change" does not fit with "climate change." If there was no change, or insignificant change, there would be little or no scientific evidence of change, and therefore no theory. Actually, "no change" is the perfect example to illustrate why scientific evidence gave rise to the theory, not the other way around.

The theory arose in light of decades of data and observation. It's not like Einstein's theory of relatvity, something one super-smart guy came up with that's been tested since. Nobody said "I think I'll try to prove that humans are warming the globe today," but thousands of scientists all over the globe made observations, shared research, and made linkages to come up with the theory. That's one of the things that's made it so powerful. This comes from lots of scientists, researchers, and regular citizens who've observed changes and pulled together a theory to explain how those changes may be linked and what may be causing those changes.

[EasyEd]

From the comic strip Prickly City today: "Let's fight global warming with a cold war".

[hifigator]

ed said:

bando said:

From the very op-ed you cite, Ed:



I have no problem with people having opinions that differ from the more regulation-heavy prescriptions being proposed to stem global climate change. Opinions will differ on policy matters, and that's wholly legitimate. My problem is when people seek to undermine the science that prompts these policy questions.

The scientific consensus holds that climate change is happening, and that human activity has contributed to such. If you think it's completely uneconomical to do anything about it, that's a legitimate argument. To posit that's it's not happening at all by cherry picking facts is not; it's a denialist tactic pure and simple.

Bando, maybe we should take this offline but I take offense with you for labeling those who disagree with you the way you do. I don't give a ___ if some group of people label something as being a consensus; and I think it's counter-productive for you to label people that don't agree with that consensus as deniests or question their motives. To you the issue is closed but to others, it's not, including some reputable scientists. Of course you would tag them as being not credible.

I wonder why people get their backs up when I cite a newspaper quotation in 1922 that says the exact same thing you are saying today; or when someone posts a magazine article of about 30 years ago citing reputable scientists who said we were heading to a new ice age. I wonder why they react negatively when I cite that Mars is heating up four times as fast as earth. I wonder why they brush off that NASA has twice had to correct its temperatures because a layman discovered the errors. I wonder why it's unimportant that four of the hottest years on record in the U.S. were in the 1930s. I wonder why it's gospel that humans are causing warming when history shows large cycles of heating and cooling. But most of all I wonder why it is necessary to call people names or accuse them of not studying the data if they refuse to fall in line with the "consensus". And why symposia and other "climate change" gatherings never seem to be willing to have any speakers who disagree.

In earlier posts I have outlined what I consider to be large questions about the accuracy of temperature measurements, the extension of those measurements to an "average" earth temperature and the models used to predict future temperatures. These do nothing to enhance my ability to have any confidence in the science that's being advertised.

I'm not sure if we are actually warming or not. The earth has been around for millions of years and we are trying to draw conclusions based on a minute fraction of those years. It's akin to looking at the stock market the last week and saying the market is going down and projecting it will hit zero if the trend continues for the next couple of years.

I'm also not sure if human activity is causing any significant warming. There are theories that say it is; there are also theories that disagree and say any warming is caused by natural events.

I don't call you names or question your motives which, I believe, are honorable and intent on seeking what's closest to the truth. I will continue to post things I think are relevant to the issue whether or not it falls into your apparent belief that the only things that matters in this issue are the scientific data, as published and advertised by the "consensus".

You are wasting your time ed. The facts really don't matter. Just as in the evolution thread, where I merely said that I don't think macro-evolution is yet proven enough to take its place alongside the laws of physics for example, Bando essentially replied "sure it is, you're an idiot if you don't believe that," here he does the same thing. The fact that we don't know that a: the global climate as a whole is in fact warming, and b: even if it is, that we are the cause, doesn't matter. Yet, he is 100% convinced and anyone who is skeptical is merely deceived.

I have already said that it's my opinion that we should act responsibly, and act as if global warming as it is currently known, is in fact a reality. In addition to this it is simply prudent and wise to explore alternative fuels and to promote efficiency. But this isn't the same as acting as if those of differring beliefs are simply wrong or ignorant.
*************************************************

As for the issue itself:

I think that the indications of warming in the twenties or thirties are totally consistent with a potential man made cause. I have heard some suggest that it isn't specifically the automobiles and the sort, but rather the industrial revolution as a whole.

[hoyatables]

hifigator said:

You are wasting your time ed. The facts really don't matter. Just as in the evolution thread, where I merely said that I don't think macro-evolution is yet proven enough to take its place alongside the laws of physics for example, Bando essentially replied "sure it is, you're an idiot if you don't believe that," here he does the same thing. The fact that we don't know that a: the global climate as a whole is in fact warming, and b: even if it is, that we are the cause, doesn't matter. Yet, he is 100% convinced and anyone who is skeptical is merely deceived.

Wow. The evolution thread was closed to end this flame war, and instead of letting it extinguish, you just rekindle it here. Flame on, HiFi, flame on.

[Bando]

hifigator said:

ed said:

Bando, maybe we should take this offline but I take offense with you for labeling those who disagree with you the way you do. I don't give a ___ if some group of people label something as being a consensus; and I think it's counter-productive for you to label people that don't agree with that consensus as deniests or question their motives. To you the issue is closed but to others, it's not, including some reputable scientists. Of course you would tag them as being not credible.

I wonder why people get their backs up when I cite a newspaper quotation in 1922 that says the exact same thing you are saying today; or when someone posts a magazine article of about 30 years ago citing reputable scientists who said we were heading to a new ice age. I wonder why they react negatively when I cite that Mars is heating up four times as fast as earth. I wonder why they brush off that NASA has twice had to correct its temperatures because a layman discovered the errors. I wonder why it's unimportant that four of the hottest years on record in the U.S. were in the 1930s. I wonder why it's gospel that humans are causing warming when history shows large cycles of heating and cooling. But most of all I wonder why it is necessary to call people names or accuse them of not studying the data if they refuse to fall in line with the "consensus". And why symposia and other "climate change" gatherings never seem to be willing to have any speakers who disagree.

In earlier posts I have outlined what I consider to be large questions about the accuracy of temperature measurements, the extension of those measurements to an "average" earth temperature and the models used to predict future temperatures. These do nothing to enhance my ability to have any confidence in the science that's being advertised.

I'm not sure if we are actually warming or not. The earth has been around for millions of years and we are trying to draw conclusions based on a minute fraction of those years. It's akin to looking at the stock market the last week and saying the market is going down and projecting it will hit zero if the trend continues for the next couple of years.

I'm also not sure if human activity is causing any significant warming. There are theories that say it is; there are also theories that disagree and say any warming is caused by natural events.

I don't call you names or question your motives which, I believe, are honorable and intent on seeking what's closest to the truth. I will continue to post things I think are relevant to the issue whether or not it falls into your apparent belief that the only things that matters in this issue are the scientific data, as published and advertised by the "consensus".

You are wasting your time ed. The facts really don't matter. Just as in the evolution thread, where I merely said that I don't think macro-evolution is yet proven enough to take its place alongside the laws of physics for example, Bando essentially replied "sure it is, you're an idiot if you don't believe that," here he does the same thing. The fact that we don't know that a: the global climate as a whole is in fact warming, and b: even if it is, that we are the cause, doesn't matter. Yet, he is 100% convinced and anyone who is skeptical is merely deceived.

I have already said that it's my opinion that we should act responsibly, and act as if global warming as it is currently known, is in fact a reality. In addition to this it is simply prudent and wise to explore alternative fuels and to promote efficiency. But this isn't the same as acting as if those of differring beliefs are simply wrong or ignorant.
*************************************************

As for the issue itself:

I think that the indications of warming in the twenties or thirties are totally consistent with a potential man made cause. I have heard some suggest that it isn't specifically the automobiles and the sort, but rather the industrial revolution as a whole.

You're criticizing me for not having facts? I nominate this for Post of the Year, solely for massive unintentional comedy value. HiFi's cluelessness has been officially upgraded to weapons-grade.

[hifigator]

Sorry, I am not trying to open that can of worms, but I do think that a similar style of thinking is being employed by Bando. Keeping it on subject, there is certainly some evidence of global warming. There are very sound theories which model our part in such warming. I think it is wise to study all aspects of the issue and regardless of whether we can "prove" global warming and that we are the cause or at least contributor to it, I think we should act as if it is and we are.

Fair enough?

But, I don't think that is the same thing as saying that we have now proved warming. The issue of many of the hottest years being some 70 years ago could certainly call into question that idea.

[Bando]

But, I don't think that is the same thing as saying that we have now proved warming. The issue of many of the hottest years being some 70 years ago could certainly call into question that idea.

Sigh. "Climate" does not equal "weather", HiFi.

[hifigator]

I understand your premise B, and I also understand the premise of outliers for example.

Illustration: suppose the average temperature was a half a degree warmer every five years for a fifty year period. By the end of the fifty years, the average temperature would be a full 5 degrees warmer than the beginning of the period. That would most likely indicate a warming trend. However it would still be possible for the ten hottest years to be ten different random years scattered over the hundreds of earlier years. I think that is what you are suggesting. That is a valid point, but not THE ONLY valid point. Maybe that is where we keep having confusion. You keep thinking that your point, even when valid, is the only such one.

Getting back to the climate, when there are 4 of the hottest years on record concentrated in such a small span (the 1930's), then viewing these as coincidences or outliers is certainly debatable. Might they more represent part of a global cycle? OF course they could. Do they? None of us know for sure.

I think in this case, the key is that some people keep trying to ask the one question, when in point of fact, there are multiple questions.

Is the global climate progressively getting warmer, aside from typical/traditional warming and cooling cycles?

What if anything are we doing to affect either the temperatures or the cycles?

What can we do to halt or reverse these impacts?

These are all valid quesitons.



Now, that being said, with a relatively short period of history to analyze, can we conclusively arrive at a scientific decision? In other words, with only a couple hundred years of records with which we have a high confidence level in the data, can we assess patterns or do we need more information? Some could easily argue that with millions of years as the background, even a couple hundred years could represent nothing but a small part of just one global cycle. Does it? I don't know, nor do you.

Again, I think it is both prudent and wise to look into any past and potential future results of our actions. And for this reason among others, I think looking for alternative fuel sources as well as encouraging efficiency is the right thing to do. Just be careful with the certainty and veracity with which you present the underlying arguments for these conclusions. I think we would both pretty much agree in premise with the proper actions, we just might not be using the same path to get there.