Anthropogenic Global Warming 101

[MDM]

...

MDM and Middleground: You can apologize any time you want, but I’m not holding my breath waiting on it.

I'm sorry for poking fun at you; hope I didn't hurt your feelings too much.

You're still wrong.

 

[jfuh]

Further study shows you have no original thoughts on this movement, you merely cut and paste whatever you think will bolster your need to feel like you are superior to those that disagree with "AGW".

Because unlike the deniar crowd that pulls crap from thin air and suggests it to be "valid science". Proponents actually have read up on the matter and understand the science and post according to the science.

The one key, to anyone that cares about getting it right, finding the science behind it all... is that your side claims the issue is settled.

It has been for the last decade

Science doesn't work that way. Einstein's theory of relativity is STILL being challenged, and debated to this day. The fact that you fight against those that question AGW, the fact that we are told "We must act now or else! No no no need to question anything, you deniers! We must ACT!!"

Yes, being challenged by scientists through a scientific medium - peer reviewed scientific literature - where's your side's work on this?

The more a fanatical group demands you quit questioning the basis of their demands and act, the more you need to put the brakes on.

What acts have been taken already?
The actions suggested have been to make changes so as to avoid disaster.
If we are to use the brake analogy it would be applying brakes so as to not run into a wall. You're suggesting hell, step on the gas and hope the wall is thin enough so we can run right through it.

 

[Renae]

Settled for a decade, a decade in which the opposite of the "settled science" said would happen... happens. I love that.

 

[jfuh]

Settled for a decade, a decade in which the opposite of the "settled science" said would happen... happens. I love that.

What of the settled science has not happened?

 

[Heretic]

Einstein's theory of relativity is STILL being challenged, and debated to this day.

So's evolution. Remind your doctor of that the next time you go in for a flu shot.

 

[Renae]

So's evolution. Remind your doctor of that the next time you go in for a flu shot.

But scientists cannot challenge the AGW theory, because it's settled science.

Right.

 

[Heretic]

Well, they certainly could if they choose to. But incidentally, skeptics choose to "dispute" AGW theory in the same way "skeptics" choose to argue evolution...

In hilarious documentaries, magazines, books, op-eds, or online forums; directly to the public. They rarely publish in scientific journals where scientists from the related fields would actually check their work.

It's the trademark of pseudoscience.

 

[Renae]

Well, they certainly could if they choose to. But incidentally, skeptics choose to "dispute" AGW theory in the same way "skeptics" choose to argue evolution...

In hilarious documentaries, magazines, books, op-eds, or online forums; directly to the public. They rarely publish in scientific journals where scientists from the related fields would actually check their work.

It's the trademark of pseudoscience.

I see, you would welcome dissenting opinions and even counter theories but golly... the scientist raising concerns just don't pass muster right?

Maybe they should make a movie about it.. get Dick Cheney to promote it and schools to show it, he might even get a Noble Prize...

 

[Heretic]

I see, you would welcome dissenting opinions and even counter theories but golly... the scientist raising concerns just don't pass muster right?

Yup. Crank science is crank science. Sorry...

 

[MDM]

Maybe they should make a movie about it.. get Dick Cheney to promote it and schools to show it, ...

I think Ben Stein would help with that.

he might even get a Noble Prize...

Sure, why not. A Nobel Prize though.. not likely.

 

[Renae]

Yup. Crank science is crank science. Sorry...

So why do you support th myth of man made catastrophic impending global warming?

 

[Renae]

I think Ben Stein would help with that.



Sure, why not. A Nobel Prize though.. not likely.

Algore got one for playing chicken little and loose with facts...

 

[jfuh]

I see, you would welcome dissenting opinions and even counter theories but golly... the scientist raising concerns just don't pass muster right?

Maybe they should make a movie about it.. get Dick Cheney to promote it and schools to show it, he might even get a Noble Prize...

There we go with the usual nonsense of - you're suppressing healthy debate.
As has been told to you many times vic. There's nothing wrong with scientific dissent. It's encouraged, however when none of the dissent is in any scientific medium of peer reviewed scientific literature and only in opinion articles of news media, television appearances, conferences or online sourcing, there's simply no legitimacy for them whatsoever.
If the "opposition" is truly scientific then it shouldn't be a problem for them to produce just a single paper that flat out calls on AGW being farce. Yet 35 years of research, and unsurprisingly not a single study, not even one, disputes AGW. Not one.
In fact all the scientific literature converges on the same exact conclusion - AGW is real.
There is a healthy debate going on to how much effect AGW will have, that matter is not settled or finalized by any extent.
However all scientists agree that we must address this daunting issue, and sooner rather than later.

 

[Gill]

Hardly. Lyman fully acknowledged that there were still problems with the data sets as well as acknowledging the year-to-year variability in surface ocean temps. While the warming so far hasn't been demonstrated to be as high as I thought, trend analysis and the continuing sea level rise seems to suggest that the oceans are still warming.

Judging by the fact that the entire scientific community, from the Pentagon down to the NWS and everything in between, has yet to issue a "WE SOREE!! WEEZ LIBERUL LYERZ!!" report yet in light of Lyman's research, I think its far more likely that you're analysis is still wrong than the entire scientific community trying to deceive us.

Yes, there are still problems, but we know for a fact that the ocean's have not been warming since at least 2003 don't we? And yes, the seal level is rising, but according to many in the climate alarmist camp, the increase is sea level rise in the past decade is due to melting glaciers.

It's not MY analysis, it's the analysis of several renowned scientists as published in a peer reviewed publication.

 

[Gill]

I'm sorry for poking fun at you; hope I didn't hurt your feelings too much.

You're still wrong.

I can assure you that you are not capable of hurting my feelings.

Perhaps you could point out where I was wrong. Are the oceans still warming since 2003. If you believe they are, maybe you should present your thoughts to a scientific publication for peer review as Lyman, et al did.

 

[Heretic]

So why do you support th myth of man made catastrophic impending global warming?

That would depend on what your definition of the "myth of man made catastrophic impending global warming" actually is. Does it differ from the analyses provided by your government?

 

[MDM]

.. And yes, the seal level is rising, but according to many in the climate alarmist camp, the increase is sea level rise in the past decade is due to melting glaciers..

What do you believe, then is the cause for rising sea level (I'll assume you are including polar icecaps in with those glaciers)?

I can assure you that you are not capable of hurting my feelings.

Oh that's good. Apology retracted then.

Perhaps you could point out where I was wrong.

You are wrong in your ultimate conclusion.

Are the oceans still warming since 2003. If you believe they are, maybe you should present your thoughts to a scientific publication for peer review as Lyman, et al did.

I don't believe they are. I haven't seen enough data or analysis on ocean temps to make a conclusion on that. I wouldn't think that they would since the increase in energy would be offset somewhat by the increase in volume and because of the high heat capacity of water, it would take a very large amount of energy (and time) to increase the temperature. Plus (and I think this is minor, but..) if the increase in volume is from ice melting, then the ice being lower temperature would draw energy out of the water in order to be melted.

Of course that's all just speculation based on a few years of physics, hydrology, thermodynamics, environmental engineering courses, etc.
Isn't really my field; I'm more of a surface fresh water guy, so I'll leave climate stuff to the experts.

 

[Heretic]

Yes, there are still problems, but we know for a fact that the ocean's have not been warming since at least 2003 don't we?

And yes, the seal level is rising, but according to many in the climate alarmist camp, the increase is sea level rise in the past decade is due to melting glaciers.

No, we don't know for a fact. Willis didn't find a negative steric contribution when he looked. And he highlights the errors even further. Something's up with the ocean measurements, so I guess we'll see what further research shows.

 

[Gill]

What do you believe, then is the cause for rising sea level (I'll assume you are including polar icecaps in with those glaciers)?

The only polar region showing long term melting is the Arctic and any melt there will not contribute to rising sea levels since the ice there is already floating in the water.

Sea level has been rising for well over a hundred years.

You are wrong in your ultimate conclusion.

Which is??

 

[Gill]

No, we don't know for a fact. Willis didn't find a negative steric contribution when he looked. And he highlights the errors even further. Something's up with the ocean measurements, so I guess we'll see what further research shows.

But the contention that the oceans have not warmed for the past five years was published in a peer reviewed scientific publication.

You are not admitting that peer reviewed data and theories might be incorrect are you??

 

[Heretic]

But the contention that the oceans have not warmed for the past five years was published in a peer reviewed scientific publication.

And then they admitted there were errors present in the data, so we really don't know for sure.

You are not admitting that peer reviewed data and theories might be incorrect are you??

Did that at the very beginning, d00d. As well as pointing out the correction to Lyman's research.

Great Teachers: Translation, Replication and Credibility of Research Findings

So, yes. I'm aware. Please try and pay attention.

 

[jfuh]

Yes, there are still problems, but we know for a fact that the ocean's have not been warming since at least 2003 don't we? And yes, the seal level is rising, but according to many in the climate alarmist camp, the increase is sea level rise in the past decade is due to melting glaciers.

Alarmist would be unneccesary screaming and yelling over nothing.
Rising sea levels is not nothing, in particular if you live in the netherlands, NO or Venice.
And in as much as the reports have concluded that there hasn't been any warming since 2003 nor has it cooled at all. However, the oceans have warmed significantly for the past 100 years since the industrial revolution - all that a short 5 year neither warm nor cool proves is that the oceans don't change on a hairpin - but seeing as they have warmed over the last hundred years all the less credibility to your indignant argument.

It's not MY analysis, it's the analysis of several renowned scientists as published in a peer reviewed publication.

Really? They concluded that the AGW crowd was alarmist? They concluded that AGW was bogus?
I'd absolutely LOVE to see these publications that allegedly exist, might for the first time lean at least some credibility to your insistence that AGW is bull****.

 

[Gill]

And then they admitted there were errors present in the data, so we really don't know for sure.

You're right, the ocean's could be cooling more than they originally thought.

Did that at the very beginning, d00d. As well as pointing out the correction to Lyman's research.

That's good to know. Many alarmists like jfuh demand peer reviewed data, then ignore it when provided.

 

[Heretic]

You're right, the ocean's could be cooling more than they originally thought.

But most likely not. If there has been a negative steric contribution over the past few years, then there would be an increase in glacier melt to compensate the rising sea levels. And that would really throw a wrench in your "we're cooling" nonsense.

Many alarmists like jfuh demand peer reviewed data, then ignore it when provided.

Wow. Project much?

 

[Gill]

But most likely not. If there has been a negative steric contribution over the past few years, then there would be an increase in glacier melt to compensate the rising sea levels. And that would really throw a wrench in your "we're cooling" nonsense.

Not necessarily.

Wow. Project much?

No projection needed, just years of experience.