The “hockey stick” theory is now discredited: How fanaticism substitutes for science

Perhaps the liberals will now want the EPA to cover all the lakes and streams to reduce the concentrations of water vapor in the global atmosphere?

 

I am still waiting for you to show me what facts and theories are wrong. I am still waiting for you to show me that your opinions are credible by showing me you understand basic physics. So far it is a fail on your part.

Nice attempt at deflection. Let us stick to your claim that the ""The Science of Doom" is a personal blog. It contains nothing but opinions by people who are non-scientists. " Explain which facts he gets wrong and why.

 

I am waiting for you to tell me what evidence you have that, "WV is removed from the atmosphere in a matter of days".

If you understand atmoshperic physics (which you don't) you will be able to explain this statement.

 

Good luck with your credibility. Let me know if you decide to answer my question.

 

Oh, I see.

We are now down to "double-dare" are we?

Sorry, but I don't play that game with children.

 

This is a excellent point, Dan40.

There is one liberal in this group who actually believes, "Water vapor is removed from the atmosphere in a matter of days".

She also believes of all the greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide is the only one that produces global warming.

You cannot correct this kind of ignorance.

 

You're right, I was sloppy in the way I phrased it, and wound up understating the time that CH4 spends in the atmosphere. However, my basic point is correct - CH4 leaves the atmosphere much more quickly then CO2, the levels of CH4 in the atmosphere are much lower then CO2, and the levels of CH4 have not been changing drastically, while the levels of CO2 very definitely have.

And since when has Time Magazine been a highly respected peer reviewed scientific journal? In the 70's, there was one book in the popular press and a handful of articles in the news media (such as that one in Time) about possible global cooling. There was no scientific consensus, there was not a mountain of peer reviewed studies showing clear and unequivocal evidence that it was real and happening now, there were no international treaties to deal with the problem, and there were no historic and unprecedented position statements from the most prestigious professional scientific organizations in the world.

In short, there's simply no comparison.

Incidentally, the basic idea of the coming Ice Age is correct - it's just not due for many millennia.

I meant that the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is well known. More CO2 will mean higher temperatures.

The basic physics involved are fluid dynamics and spectroscopy, neither of which are in dispute. It is true that there's a lot about the detailed workings of the climate that we do not understand and are being actively researched, and there is vigorous debate about many of the ideas emerging. This is a normal part of the scientific process. Trying to use that fact to imply that there is any real doubt about the overall picture of the climate and what impact human activities are having is just dishonest.

Micheal Mann has been extensively investigated by the universities he worked for, by the journal Nature, by professional scientific organizations, and even by a District Attorney's office. And all of those turned up no evidence of any wrong doing of any kind. Mann's results were not fabricated or tampered with and they were not politically motivated. The only problems of any kind found with his work is some fairly minor errors in statistical analysis that do not change the conclusion at all. And more to the point, Mann's work has been confirmed by dozens of independent studies using a wide varieties of data sources and methodologies. The fact is that even if you threw out everything that Micheal Mann has ever done, that would hardly effect the case for climate change at all.

You are correct that most human CO2 emissions are absorbed by natural sinks, the largest of which are the oceans. This should worry you, not reassure you. These sinks are a masking effect that mitigates the effects of human activities. And all sinks have an only finite capacity to absorb CO2. And generally speaking, we have little idea what that capacity is. Actually, a large portion of that CO2 is going into a sink that we have absolutely no idea what it is, to say nothing of what its capacity might be. At some point, those sinks are going to stop absorbing CO2 and all of our emissions are going to go straight into the atmosphere.

LOL That's funny. A denier says, "The entire discussion of global warming has been so polluted by political and activist frenzy that it has become very hard to dig into it to reach the science." That's absolutely hilarious. You are quite correct that the political discussion has been polluted by activists. Denier activists. How many studies have been found to be fraudulent? None. How many scientists have been found to manipulating their data? None. How many professional scientific organizations question the conclusion that anthropogenic climate change is real and a major threat? None. The FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) is coming entirely from Fox News and the Koch brothers and the like. There is no scientific debate. Science is as certain about warming as science is ever sure about anything. The only people pushing the denier cause are those whose political, ideological, or financial interests are threatened by action on climate change.

Amazingly enough, you're actually right about that. The overall state of the climate is overwhelmingly due to natural forces. The fact that water can exist as a liquid on the surface of Earth is due to natural factors. The fact that there's O2 in the atmosphere is due to natural causes. The fact that Earth's axis is not tilted at 90 degrees to the ecliptic like Uranus is due to natural causes. The fact that Earth's climate is even remotely close to being able to support life of any kind, to say nothing of humans, is due to natural causes. Take Venus as an example. In terms of bulk properties - mass, radius, composition, density, orbit, etc - Venus is nearly identical to Earth. And it is due to natural causes that we don't have a climate that will melt lead like Venus does.

You're also right that the current changes in the climate are small compared to some of the natural changes that have occurred in the past. The solidification of the crust was a much bigger change. So was the formation of the oceans. And the oxygenation of the atmosphere.

However, as we are humans and obliged to live on this planet, changes that are large on a human scale are of primary concern. Changes that are large on a planetary scale would simply sweep us away. And the changes we're seeing right now are large on a human scale, and are being caused predominantly by human activities.

 

then completely ignore everything Gore and Obama have ever said on the subject. Neither of them are scientists, so their statements shouldn't carry that much weight with anyone to begin with. They certainly don't with me.

I apologize, Dan, I did not sufficiently explain the context of those links. They were never intended to be a detailed look at the state of the science. You should check the journals for that. To be honest, the real details are over my head, and I'd imagine they're over yours as well. Instead, the AAAS and NAS statements are about the scientific consensus. What the people who have spent their entire professional lives studying this complex and difficult subject have to say about it.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is the largest and most respected professional general scientific organization in the world. With a membership of 125,000, it is a non profit organization whose purpose is to serve the professional needs of the scientific community. They do things like conferences and professional develop seminars and doing public outreach and trying to improve science education. They are not any sort of political advocacy group. In fact, they generally make a point of staying out of politics. The AAAS is also the publisher of Science, the gold standard of peer reviewed journals that has a readership of around a million.

The statement I linked is literally unprecedented in the 160 year history of the AAAS. They have never issued this sort of statement about anything before.

The US National Academy of Science (NAS) is a congressionally chartered corporation founded in 1863 tasked with advising the nation on scientific matters. The membership is limited to 2,000, and new members are selected by invitation only of the existing membership. Being asked to serve on the NAS is considered the second greatest honor a US scientist can receive, surpassed only by the Nobel Prize. In point of fact, about one in ten of the members do have Nobel Prizes.

These are not nobodies. These are not your local save the stream organization. These are the smartest, most qualified, best informed people on the planet. These are They, as in, "They say..." When you have such definitive statements from the AAAS and NAS, this is about as close as you are ever going to get of having an official statement of what science knows. If what they have to say isn't good enough for you, nothing from science ever will be.

The reason I included the link to US-CAP is to point out that there are all these major, industry leading corporations who believe that climate change is a sufficient threat that they are calling for taxes and regulations on themselves.

Hmmm, okay, so they got it wrong in that DoD report. It was 2005, not 2007. And it was New Orleans, not the Hague. But considering that was only meant as a potential scenario, not a serious prediction, I think that got awfully close.

 

Ignore the driving force of 2 well known politicians that have millions of idolizing followers and the 2 politicians both expect to make, perhaps BILLIONS, from carbon limiting legislation? That's a bit hard to do. Tell them to stop lying to fill their bank accounts and I'll try ignoring them.

Science----------Explain the science of how man caused global warming is causing the same phenomenon on Mars. Also areas of the US with highly accurate temperature records are not experiencing record high temps. 70% of our states have record highs older than 1960. Some in the 1800's, not that I believe the accuracy was all that great then.

 

Just my 2 cents if I may...

Global warming debunkers continuously try to discredit this issue for 2 simple reasons. They do not like the idea of any controls being imposed on industry, and they don't like the price-tag. Essentially they believe it'll hurt business. And they're probably right...in the short-term.

Global warming believers will argue that the risk justifies the cost. And if they're right about the issue...then they are certainly right about the risk/cost issue.

The 2 side have been going at it for what...over 5 years now? Maybe more like 15? And to this day, NOBODY has been able to sway one single person. Sound familiar?

But I don't see much common sense being used in any of the arguments...
So lets try some common sense.

Back in the '60s and '70s, we were bombarded by a media blitz by tobacco companies telling us there was no conclusive proof that cigarette smoking was bad for our health. I always found that interesting 'cause...if i put a bail of tobacco in a closet, close myself in with it and light it...will inhaling the smoke be good or bad for me? The answer is obvious...

Now...

I assume you've all seen the pretty pink smog that appears over many cities? Sure ya have... Tell me...does that look healthy? Does that look like the colour air is supposed to be? Does it smell fresh? And see all the smoke and crap our industry pumps into our atmosphere? Does that look healthy? Think if you perched yerself up top of one of those stacks, you'd live very long? Probably not huh?

Kids...

We ARE polluting our atmosphere. Our cars, our industry...its all pumping harmful gasses into our air supply. Is that a GOOD thing...probably not huh? Should we be freaking out about it? Maybe not...but common sense kind of suggests we acknowledge it and prepare to do something about it...no?

Now you people can go back to bickering over yer charts and what-not...but do try a little common sense once in a while...

 

So let me get this straight.

You want to punish the entire country and everyone who lives in the United States because the people in Los Angeles and Chicago cannot clean up their smog problem?

Give me a break! ... Please!

^



The undeniable proof of global warming ... Albert Gore style. GORE: "In terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, 'cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot." ... Gosh, Mr. Gore, If the earth were indeed this hot, we would be a star!

 

Having been on this planet for over 7 decades now, I have seen LA before any cars had smog control on them. And I have seen Pittsburgh when every steel mill imaginable was running full blast. I saw SMOG when it was dark orange and opaque, long before it became pretty pink. The atmosphere is much cleaner than it used to be,,,,,,,,,,,,in the US. But we do not control the rest of the world. And no matter what we do, the tree huggers will clamor for more. SMOG was greatly reduced. At massive expense in construction and sacrifice of gas mileage, cars run cleaner. They use much more fuel per cubic inch, but they run cleaner. Seems like a trade off, a very expensive trade off.. But that emissions problem cured or reduced and now Carbon Dioxide is a noxious gas. I feel bad, I just released some carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. No, not Methane, CO2. Should I stop exhaling AND save THE PLANET?

 

My point is that Gore and Obama have nothing to do at all with the science of climate change. Gore is just a media personality at this point (and a fading one at that) and Obama has had other things on his plate. I'm not convinced that they do actually stand to make a lot of money from climate change legislation, but even if they are, so what? The doesn't change the science one way or the other.

The evidence for warming on Mars is scant and highly equivocable. There is not a consensus that there actually is warming occurring. Even if Mars is warming, so what? The only causative factor that Earth and Mars share is Sol, and solar activity has been closely monitored and it is definitely not the cause of the warming we're seeing on Earth right now. So if it's not due to Sol, then it's about as significant As it would be if there were major dust storms going on in the Sahara and on Mars at the same time. It's a coincidence, nothing more.

The historical temperature records show an undeniable warming trend over the last century or two. For example, checking the daily record temperatures here in Philadelphia, we have set 106 record highs since 1990, and 12 record lows. (Actually, the number of record highs may have gone up since I last checked, considering the weather we're having here.)

The bottom line is that the people whose job it is to be experts in this, the people who spend their lives studying the climate, all say there is no doubt about it. If there is unanimity among doctors that a certain thing is bad for you, don't you think you should listen? If there is unanimity among mechanics that a certain practice is very bad for your car, don't you think you should listen? If there is unanimity among lawyers that a certain position is simply legally untenable, don't you think you should listen?

 

Smog and climate change are basically two separate issues. They involve completely different sorts of emissions. Chemically, CO2 is only harmful to humans (and other aerobic organisms) at concentrations much higher then anything you're going to see in the atmosphere. As far as we know, the only concern about CO2 emissions is their effect on climate. but that's a huge concern.

Dan, the difference between the CO2 you're emitting and the CO2 cars etc are emitting is that CO2 from fossil fuels was last in the air millions of years ago. CO2 from you was last in the air no more then a few months ago. What matters is how fast a particular part of the carbon cycle is absorbing CO2 vs how fast it's being released. Those rates are about the same when it comes to growing food and respiration. The rate carbon is being geologically sequestered is vastly, vastly slower then the rate we're digging it up and putting it in the air.

 

Where do you get this stuff?

Please provide a credible source that says solar activity is definitely not the cause of the warming we're seeing on Earth right now.

You cannot because one does not exist!

Also, you are very wrong when you say, "The historical temperature records show an undeniable warming trend over the last century or two." The Hockey Stick Model even blows your statement away. It actually shows a cooling trend over the last century or two.

You need to take a course in middle school science and perhaps you won't make foolish statements like these!


Check this out. Note the downward cooling trend.

 

Kessy_Athena, you are very wrong.

The oceans absorb vast amounts of our CO2 emissions and they cover over 75% of the earth's surface. Quite a big "vacuum cleaner" for removing CO2 from the atmosphere wouldn't you say!

By the way, plants and other vegetation also remove vast amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. They remove CO2 and replace it with oxygen (O2).

Please take a course in middle school science and will understand what I am talking about.

 

They also concluded that he didn't directly or indirectly destroy any e-mails.

Q. Did you ever receive a request by either Michael Mann or any others to delete any emails?
A. I did receive that email. That’s the last one on your list here. I did receive that.
Q. So, how did you actually come about receiving that? Did you actually just — he just forward the — Michael Mann — and it was Michael Mann I guess?
A. Yes

Q. — That you received the email from?
A. Correct …

A. To my knowledge, I just received a forward from him.
Q. And what were the actions that you took?
A. Well, to the best of my recollection, I did delete the emails.
Q. So, did you find the request unusual, that they were — that the request — that you were being requested to delete such emails?
A. Well, I had never received one like it. In that sense, it was unusual.
Q. I guess if the exchange of comments and your review was appropriate, I guess what I’m just trying to understand why you’d be ask to delete the emails after the fact, at the time that they’re — it appears that the CRU is receiving FOIA requests
A. Yeah. I had no knowledge of anything like that. But that’s what they were — where they were coming from. And so, you’d have to ask Keith Briffa that. I don’t know what was in his mind.

So much for that not indirectly taking part in the destruction of e-mails.

 

I really love a good hockey stick debate. But sadly the warmmongers run from the fight. This thread and my thread in the enviornment section have gone way off track. Of course I know all the old refrains like the two handed Mann was wrong but others have come to the same conclusion and can destroy such arguments with ease.

 

Thanks for sharing, Windigo.

 

What is the link for your thread in the enviornment section?

I wolud like to review it.

JC

 

Check this out.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/envir...339-dr-mann-his-trick-mcintyres-response.html

I started it over the unbelievable explanation that hiding the decline was just getting rid of bad data but it has since just turned into a generic AGW thread. Right now we are arguing over the Russian heat wave and I'm winning as usual since I can actually explain the science of how global warming is supposed to decrease such blocking events and all the warmmongers can do is link wiki and scream “Extreme Weather Events” which seems to be the new pathetic talking point.

I tried to get the thread back on the hockey stick when Livefree made the pathetic "others found the same argument" but he/she ran off tail between legs after my first retort.

 

Thanks!

I will be sure and review it!

 

Oh, honestly...

James, it's just a suggestion, but you might want to take an elementary school course in learning how to read a graph before telling me to take a middle school science course.

I said that historical data show an unequivocal warming trend over the last century or two.

And how long is a century?

And what is the scale on the time axis of that graph?

So does the full run of the graph from 1000 CE to 2000 CE constitute a century or two?

Also, you might want to take an elementary school vocabulary class and learn a phrase other then "Check this out."

And there's this wonderful invention called Google you might want to try, so you can avoid asking me for a credible source and saying something like "You cannot because one does not exist!" when in fact, you could find one for yourself in about ten seconds.

If you're going to imply someone is stupid, you'd better be able to back it up, or you just make yourself look like more of an idiot.

Now, on to the real data. First up, historic temperature records.
Nasa's analysis:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

The CRU's analysis:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

Next, solar radiation measurements:
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy04/36831p.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5723/847.short
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm

In short, we've been measuring solar activity for decades (centuries, if you include sunspot records) and there simply has not been a change in solar activity anywhere nearly large enough to account for the observed warming.

Hmm, that's strange, I could have sworn I already went over this. Oh, wait, I did.

And all of this is simply an attempt to avoid dealing with the real issue. You can toss out half baked ideas based on bits of science held together with bubblegum and bailing wire all you want, but the people who actually know what they're talking about all agree that climate change is real and tat humans are responsible. There is a consensus, there is not a scientific debate. There is simply no way the AAAS or NAS would issue the kinds of definitive statements on the subject that they have if there were any real doubt at all. Science is as sure about this as it's ever sure about anything.

 

You are very wrong, Kessy_Athena.

The NASA temperatures chart you have presented represents temperature “anomalies” and not true temperatures. Even the ordinate axis on the NASA graph confirms this!

Again, the absolute temperature of the earth has decreased over the last two centuries.

Give me a break!

By the way, I did not inply you are stupid. Actually, you are very intelligent, but at the same time, you are very limited in your knowledge of science and very inexperienced.

Again, you need to take a course in middle school science and learn how to read and interpret a graph before you can play with the adults!

JC