DIY Electric Car Forums banner

The Climate Change Debate Thread

628K views 5K replies 108 participants last post by  duremars 
#1 ·
If you would like to debate the various tenants of Climate Change, here is the only place to do so. If you are easily offended then you should probably avoid this thread but we urge all members to civil and respectful. DIY Electric car doesn't have an official stance on this issue but please limit discussion to this thread only so that we can all get on with the job of building EVs. Both sides of the debate are here to build electric cars, so don't forget what unites us here.
 
#43 ·
Again, thank you Jeff for responding to Phantom. There is no doubt that there will always be someone who will try and take advantage of a situation (read: the politicians) however, that doesn't invalidate the underlying science. Nor should it cast aspersions on the motives of the scientists who won’t be getting rich.

And as far as the 200 year argument, I think I’d rather have my children’s, children’s, children thank me for leaving them a nice place to live rather than have them hate me for leaving them with a problem and not doing anything about it because it cost me some money.
 
#44 ·
All of us, in any country, should participate in the debate on the appropriate policies that we should implement to deal with AGW. That is the essence of democracy.

It's silly (though I participate in it) at this point in history to continue to debate the science of whether or not global warming is happening.
 
#54 ·
I am aware of the 1979 start date of satellite data. Perhaps that was presumptuous of me to assume you picked that date deliberately.

What it shows is the global temperature in recent recorded history peaked in 1998. You can plot the trend where ever you like and that won't change.

2009 is not tracking any warmer either (unless you look at flawed surface data). If there is a cooling trend it is a minor one. I'll admit that. Maybe we will still see some minor warming in the next few years, who knows.

The point is the warming rate is tapering off, not increasing into a thermal runaway despite increases in CO2 emissions. Something doesn't add up here. Same is true for sea levels. The change (if any) is too small to detect within any margin of error and doesn't come anywhere near the predictions.

The UN also claimed that extreme weather would increase because of CO2 emissions, but that is also on a decline.

On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence to show that this could very likely be a case of natural climate variability since we know global temperatures have been here before.
 
#55 ·
Fair enough, certainly a valid position backed by (some :)) data and reasonable arguments. I'm certainly not as skeptical as you are about the the surface temperature data (could you guess? :D). If the UAH data continues to show a downward trend over the next few years and the surface and RSS data continues to show an upward trend, it will be interesting to see how the scientists explain the discrepency.

Got to bow out of the debate for a while, big work project is taking too much time. Enjoyed the back and forth.
 
#58 ·
Hey phantom. Not sure if jeff is still around, but he seemed to be the only one enclined to argue the AGW side even if there were others that shared his view. If there were any others that could actually make a half decent argument, they didn't feel like showing up I guess.

Pretty good video, though I'm sure many would find it offensive. The stuff I regognize in it is true since I've seen a lot of it before (Reminds me a bit of "who killed the electric car"). They even had a spot for Roy Spencer, and his negative feedback findings for clouds. As far as the economic forcasts go, carbon taxes are a bad idea in all their forms.

I'm still very surprised at how hard it is to find any public debates on this issue. Skeptics seem willing to raise the issue, but alarmists will only reply in newspapers and blogs of their own. Never face to face in a moderated discussion out in the open.
 
#59 ·
Well, it's all being overshadowed by newer scams like Socialized Health Care disguised as "Co-ops" and "Bailouts." The big numbers never lie, and it's getting harder for the liars to hide the $10 trillion debt.

It will all implode soon, and it will be very hard times for the average American when that happens.

:(
 
#60 ·
Last I checked obama's rating was below 50%. That won't easily be reversed. Its possible that his health care and carbon emission plans are also about to collapse because the republicans feel the polls are on their side and may decide hold their ground.

Now to really throw a barb out there, I think a debate is being avoided in the public spotlight because they know they can't win it. This is probably the best known public debate on AGW and the alarmists lost....

Part1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6t2D74UcrY
Part2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz8KiA-YMt8&feature=related
Part3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reV7bVhhcto&feature=related
Part4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzTPPl05Wok&feature=related
Part5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGa6_k00Cus&feature=related
Part6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtPDuZzfzhw&feature=related
Part7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UERzOB2CWQg&feature=related
Part8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD8RI0tRcNs&feature=related
Part9: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNttO8rAJNE&feature=related
Part10: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VU0BwGdeoq8

Gavin Schmidt later said after the debate that he would probably not agree to another one. So far this has been the case and he instead hides behind the "RealClimate" blog where he can control the message and censor any critical comments while attacking any that question the movement. Like the folks ar climate audit for example.
 
#61 ·
Still here, still feel that the science supporting AGW makes the most compelling case, still busy with work.

I try to avoid political arguments on the 'Net, they tend to be futile and tend to devolve into name calling.

Got any new data or papers from the major scientific journals that we could discuss?
 
#62 ·
Nope - not on the theory of GW itself. I think I was fairly clear in my post that my focus was on the arrogance and destructiveness of politicians. And, I'm not and never claimed to be a climatologist - just someone with a modicum of reason and common sense.

However, the announcement of gadgets such as this (which some day, probably sooner than later, will be able to suck heat out of the air and convert it to electricity) serve to reinforce the position I've held all along - that being that EVEN if GW is true (and I'm skeptical, but not a "denier") letting politicians tell us the "solution" is like hiring arsonists into the fire department.

By the way, I watched the entire video and disagree with some of their "conclusions." As you inferred, in any political debate the first casualty is usually the truth. There are kooks on every end of an argument.

Back to my premise: We can choose to change the earth's temperature using current technology. GW won't be a serious problem for 100 years even under the most pessimistic assessment of scientists. Today's solutions are expensive, but WORKABLE if indeed we have a problem. Therefore, with 100 years' lead time to develop new technologies I cannot give an ounce of credence to the doom-sayers. I honestly don't know what the "real truth" is about GW, and honestly suspect NO ONE does. The only thing I am convinced of is that it does not constitute a "real problem" (meaning one which we need to take immediate action pouring 5% of our global GDP into).

And, I win no matter what. If oceans rise, I get the beach nearby to Atlanta. If it gets cooler, our summers become nicer.

Cheers!

:D
 
#63 ·
I'm not saying I believe all the skeptics in that debate either. Cosmic rays are still a controversial and I haven't read enough about the idea to decide one way or another if they play a role in cloud formation.

Jeff, I know it always comes down to the "peer reviewed" argument, but thats not really the end of the story. Yes, I found papers that call into question the very theory of the greenhouse effect itself (along with plenty of other founding principles of AGW), but peer review in itself does not mean that its sound science. Something very disturbing that I am reading about now on "climate audit" is that source data, procedures, and mathematical algorithms used to make things like the Michel Mann Hockey stick(s) are often kept under lock and key.

What is the reason for this? The very heart and sole of science is for anyone to come along later on and be able to repeat the results of the first report. If its not repeatable, its not science. No source data makes repetition impossible.

This is a report that Steve McIntyre prepared after he was called before the US house of representatives to discuss this very matter:
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/07192006hearing1987/McIntyre.pdf

Steve has made repeated requests to the CRU in the UK and all have so far been denied for all sorts of different (bogus) reasons. More recently, he revealed that he had a "mole" on the inside and had acquired the info through him/her. The response was to purge all the data on the CRU database (which is a violation of the FOI law since a request was pending at the time). This is the same data source that was used in several IPCC reports. We all have a right to see and scrutinize this data no matter what our back round is. Public policy is being based on these reports and as such we should be allowed to see the data that goes into them. This is why I used evidence by John Christy and Roy Spencer in previous debates, because all of their data is shown without omission or restriction.

More digging has shown that there may even be huge gaps in the IPCC source data calling into question many of the things they have told us over the years.

If you are not aware of who Steve McIntyre is, he is the man that recently forced NASA to revise its hottest year on record in the USA from being in the last decade to 1939. He found the error because the source data was available. He also sat on IPCC panels just like Dr Christy and Dr Spencer.

I love quote from Jones at the end of the presentation:D

OK Jeff, Here's the page on climate audit pertaining to McIntyre and McKitrick regarding their "hockey stick studies" as they call them:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=354

Published papers are right at the top. Presentations and other non published follow below.
 
#65 ·
David,
Thanks, but I have neither the time nor interest in arguing the scientific credentials, motivations, or accuracy of Steven McIntyre (or Anthony Watts for that matter). Nor am I interested in discussing conspiracy theories (is Phil Jones of CRU possibly a member of the Illuminati?)

I don't know how wide your reading of the climate "debate" blogs is, but one that I would point out that addresses many of the issues you have raised here (including the hockey stick) is Tamino at Open Mind. Also, if you don't read it, I would suggest RealClimate?
 
#66 ·
I know about real climate Jeff, but since you don't want to talk about motivations or reputation, I will say no more about them.

You asked for a peer reviewed paper/data, and I gave it to you. Did you read it?

Here it is again:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=354

So which papers have you read so far?
 
#67 ·
News release from National Center for Atmospheric Research which summarizes the paper, 9/3/2009:

Arctic Warming Overtakes 2,000 Years of Natural Cooling
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/arctic2k.jsp


Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling
Science 4 September 2009:
Vol. 325. no. 5945, pp. 1236 - 1239
DOI: 10.1126/science.1173983

Abstract:
The temperature history of the first millennium C.E. is sparsely documented, especially in the Arctic. We present a synthesis of decadally resolved proxy temperature records from poleward of 60°N covering the past 2000 years, which indicates that a pervasive cooling in progress 2000 years ago continued through the Middle Ages and into the Little Ice Age. A 2000-year transient climate simulation with the Community Climate System Model shows the same temperature sensitivity to changes in insolation as does our proxy reconstruction, supporting the inference that this long-term trend was caused by the steady orbitally driven reduction in summer insolation. The cooling trend was reversed during the 20th century, with four of the five warmest decades of our 2000-year-long reconstruction occurring between 1950 and 2000.
 
#68 ·
Welcome back Jeff, are you able to find/post a link to the complete paper? Can't be sure, but at a first glance they seem to be recycling old data (would really like to know what those temperature proxies are).
 
#69 · (Edited)
Sorry about that.

The Science paper is not avaible for free, here's the link to the Abstract.

Here's a link to a page at NOAA where you can download the data; 2,000 Year Decadal Scale Arctic Temperature Synthesis.

The paper is based on research from the Arctic2K Project; "This project is a coordinated response to the pressing need for new high-quality proxy-climate records from high latitudes." Much of the work from the project was published in the Journal of Paleolimnology's Special Issue: late Holocene climate and environmental change inferred from Arctic lake sediment (January 2009). You can download the proxy datasets from the NOAA Paleoclimatology Program website at Late Holocene Climatic and Environmental Change Inferred from Arctic Lake Sediments .

HTH
 
#70 · (Edited)
#71 ·
The earth warms and cools all by itself. Man has nothing to do with global warming.

Whenever there's a 'crisis,' I always look to see who benefits from it by gaining money or power. If there's no one, then it's truly a crisis. This, clearly, isn't a crisis.
 
#72 ·
Hi meat. Welcome to the forum.

I agree with what you are saying, but Jeff thinks scientists are right and we are wrong.
What can you say to that??
 
#73 · (Edited)
To that, I can say: science is theory that is based on repeatable results. As global warming has proven that it's not only not repeatable, but differing results indicate that there really isn't any cohesive theory to support it. Nor is it in any way provable that man has anything to do with the natural rising and falling of the planet's temperature. That's like saying that dust mite determines the temperature of a mattress.

Perhaps - in the future - we'll be able to come up with a way to predict what the earth is going to do, but at this point I don't believe that we have enough data to figure out what it's already done in the past ... so prediction or discussion what is currently happening to the earth and the solar system is WAY off into the nonforeseeable future.

Which leads me to the conclusion that any scientist who has determined whether we're globally warming or globally cooling or who has come up with a model based on currently available inconclusive data is wrong.

That doesn't mean we're right, it just means that we haven't leaped to the wrong conclusion.
 
#75 ·
You're right Jeff. My statement was an intentional sarcastic over generalization on many levels. More of a joke than much else. For one thing, many (perhaps most) scientists do not accept AGW theory as fact anyway. Buy you probably don't agree with that either. The reason I am a skeptic is not because I am 100% convinced of my own opinions, but rather because how shady much of the consensus and science really is once you take the time to dig deeper.

To the paper that you posted...

Are you aware of how those temperature proxies are actually used?

You can be forgiven for assuming that each proxy is used equally, and through out the period of the graph. This would mean that each proxy produces the same hockey stick profile and the average of all of them (used equally) is shown in the graph. This would be relatively convincing even for a climate hieratic like myself.

In fact this is not how proxies are used in reports like this. If they were, there would be nothing but noise and no trend either way. If you were to see a "spaghetti graph showing all the different proxies used in there entirety with overlapping, but completely separate paths, you could see no trend or general pattern. Instead, the graph is a composite that uses different proxies for different periods. Some proxies actually would have produced a negative trend instead of the runaway at the end that all HS graphs have. Those proxies are not used to the same degree, but since some info is used from them in a very limited manner, the report authors can still say that they used "X" number of proxies to lead the reader to believe that all the proxies were fully utilized to corroborate the graph in its finished form. Repeatability is science, right? Thats what they are trying to do with these graphs, but the way in which the data us used to produce the graphs is unscientific.

This means that if you play within these rules, you could get the paper published even if it showed a completely different temperature trend. In fact some proxies were omitted for the very reason that they produced a negative HS pattern. So who decided which proxies are used and which are not. How do we know what proxies produce a negative trend bias and which produce a positive bias? How much do you trust these fellow scientists of yours, Jeff?

Even it it wasn't for apparent cherry picking of data, the proxies do not have the resolution to detect temperature changes this sensitive anyway. You might as well look at a pile of chicken bones and call that a proxy. Indeed even satellite data is not very accurate even though its the best we have right now. I think its irresponsible to rely on proxies like this to show such a small rise in relative average temperature.

Please note that there are several tree ring proxies listed in the report, and there is no way to now how much the paper relied on them compared to the proxies from sediments.
 
#77 ·
You're right Jeff. My statement was an intentional sarcastic over generalization on many levels. More of a joke than much else. For one thing, many (perhaps most) scientists do not accept AGW theory as fact anyway. Buy you probably don't agree with that either. The reason I am a skeptic is not because I am 100% convinced of my own opinions, but rather because how shady much of the consensus and science really is once you take the time to dig deeper.
Interesting that when those of us who accept the theory of AGW point to the number of climate scientists and scientific organizations that accept AGW we are told; "science does not work by consensus". And now you are arguing that "many (perhaps most) scientist do not accept AGW theory as fact anyway". Do you have data to back that up? Preferably data based on scientists working in the Earth sciences?

In support of the premise that most Earth scientists accept the basic AGW theory I will point to work by Peter T . Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a summary of which was published in EOS in January, 2009; Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. The full 250 page study with all methodology and data can be found at Kendall Zimmerman.

The summary addresses the two primary questions; "1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" The invitation to participate in the survey was sent to "10,257 Earth scientists". Details on the selection of this pool are contained in both the summary and the study. A total of "3146 individuals" completed the survey and "90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees." The survey participants were asked to select a single category of expertise; "the most common areas of expertise reported were geochemistry (15.5%), geophysics (12%), and oceanography (10.5%). General geology, hydrology/hydrogeology, and paleontology each accounted for 5–7% of the total respondents. Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists, and 8.5% of the respondents indicated that more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change." Although names were kept private, "the authors noted that the survey included participants with well-documented dissenting opinions on global warming theory." Results showed that "overall, 90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2." When the data was disaggregated, "those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total)...96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2."

To the paper that you posted...

Are you aware of how those temperature proxies are actually used?

You can be forgiven for assuming that each proxy is used equally, and through out the period of the graph. This would mean that each proxy produces the same hockey stick profile and the average of all of them (used equally) is shown in the graph. This would be relatively convincing even for a climate hieratic like myself.
I am not a climate scientist, paleolimnologist, nor a statistician, but the little that I have read on this subject would lead me to NOT make the assumption you are stating. In my (limited) understanding of the science, temperature proxies are just that, proxies and not temperatures, and thus must be selected, adjusted, and analyzed based on the proxy’s actual degree of correlation to temperature as well as other factors.

In fact this is not how proxies are used in reports like this. If they were, there would be nothing but noise and no trend either way. If you were to see a "spaghetti graph showing all the different proxies used in there entirety with overlapping, but completely separate paths, you could see no trend or general pattern. Instead, the graph is a composite that uses different proxies for different periods. Some proxies actually would have produced a negative trend instead of the runaway at the end that all HS graphs have. Those proxies are not used to the same degree, but since some info is used from them in a very limited manner, the report authors can still say that they used "X" number of proxies to lead the reader to believe that all the proxies were fully utilized to corroborate the graph in its finished form. Repeatability is science, right? Thats what they are trying to do with these graphs, but the way in which the data us used to produce the graphs is unscientific.

This means that if you play within these rules, you could get the paper published even if it showed a completely different temperature trend. In fact some proxies were omitted for the very reason that they produced a negative HS pattern. So who decided which proxies are used and which are not. How do we know what proxies produce a negative trend bias and which produce a positive bias? How much do you trust these fellow scientists of yours, Jeff?

Even it it wasn't for apparent cherry picking of data, the proxies do not have the resolution to detect temperature changes this sensitive anyway. You might as well look at a pile of chicken bones and call that a proxy. Indeed even satellite data is not very accurate even though its the best we have right now. I think its irresponsible to rely on proxies like this to show such a small rise in relative average temperature.

Please note that there are several tree ring proxies listed in the report, and there is no way to now how much the paper relied on them compared to the proxies from sediments.
Most of what you are stating is just quoting or paraphrasing McKendrick, et. al. at Climate Audit. And is simply a rehash of the same arguments made against the original Mann, et. al. “hockey stick” paper. If those arguments and analyses had any validity, then they a) would have been published in the scientific literature, not just on a blog, and b) scientists would have changed the way they do such multiproxy analyses. The only reason that that has not happened must be because either there is a conspiracy among most Earth scientists, policy makers (or “politicians”), Al Gore, liberals, one-worlders, and environmentalists to take over the world and tax everyone into poverty, or, “the scientists are right and [CA, et. al.] are wrong”. Ockham’s Razor forces me to accept the latter.

You ask me if I trust “these fellow scientists”. On climate issues, yes I trust climate scientists. On evolutionary issues yes, I trust evolutionary biologists. On particle physics issues I trust particle physicists. But trusting “scientists” is not the issue. I put my trust in the scientific method of observation, hypothesis, experimentation and data collection, and analysis that has worked so well in developing our modern understanding of the physical world.
 
#79 ·
Um...Jeff, the paper I posted earlier was published, and peer reviewed. It was also on a blog too if that makes any difference:p

No, I am not using the consensus argument. All I am saying is there are qualified people that do not agree 100% with AGW theory. Is it more than 50% of all scientist? Maybe, but I can't prove that and neither an you. The point is there are more than a small handful on the fringes.
 
#82 ·
Selected Global Highlights for August 2009

For the year to date, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature of 14.5 °C (58.3 °F) tied with 2003 as the fifth-warmest January-August period on record. This value is 0.55°C (0.99°F) above the 20th century average.
From the NOAA State of the Climate report for August 2009
 
#83 ·
Do you realize that 0.5 degrees is down from the peak of 0.7? (assuming the data can even be considered that accurate)
 
#85 ·
If we are to believe the raw data, all years later than 98 were cooler.... not just 2009.

The real question becomes, how long do temperatures have to cool off before some one like you might consider that to be a climate cooling trend?

I am also wondering what the normal temperature should really be if the "scientific consensus" really thinks the world is too warm by an earth shattering 0.5C.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top