DescentBB

Some rules here to start. If you present a opposing idea it must be linked to something at least plausible. If your idea of debating science is to ridicule the opposing persons presentation kindly take it somewhere else and I hope the mods will delete it if you do.

Cherish scientific beliefs can change overnight. New data sets are discovered that can have profound affects. Case in point is the Big Bang theory that had the universe ultimately slowing down, galaxies gradually stopping their outward expansion and eventually returning to the point of origin where they would compress and cause a new big bang to occur (Big Crunch). New data shows just the opposite with the galaxies speeding up with a ultimate ending of our universe by losing entropy and going cold. If I am wrong here please link something to show it.

Now back to climate change. Let us look at the latest IPCC report:

As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15
years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is
smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)
5{2.4}
http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session36/p ... ed_spm.pdf

Or more succinctly put:

"Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008"
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/ ... 8.abstract

So like the turn about of the Contracting Universe Theory we now have evidence global warming (at least from 1998 to 2008) does not seem to be affected by the increase in greenhouse gases. While this is a short term phenomenon in the big picture it does show one thing and that is the climate models do not seem to be proving themselves correct. I'd be interested in finding out what the global average of temperatures is from 2008 to the present.
So lets see some real scientific curiosity for a change.

I smell butthurt.

Are there any pictures of projections versus real data?

In a rather stunning comparison, the link given shows two different viewpoints of the Polar Vortex that descended upon us. In 1974 Time Mag. says:

‘Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world.’

In 2014 Time says:

‘But not only does the cold spell not disprove climate change, it may well be that global warming could be making the occasional bout of extreme cold weather in the U.S. even more likely.
http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/files/201 ... -1-big.jpg

So if you are wondering just why there are skeptics, this is one reason why.

skepticism is all well and good.....hell, it's the foundation of good science. However, the vast, overwhelming preponderence of evidence shows that the climate has been changing at an accelerated rate over the past 100 or more years, coincidental with the rise of modern industry. The decade 2001-2011 has been clearly shown to have the highest average recorded temperatures since such have been recorded. And yes, such warming leads to rather radical weather/temperature swings. Hence, you can explain:
1. much more severe tropical storms
2. much more frequent severe tornadic activity
3. 'polar vortex' behavior, as we are seeing, where temps change by 50 degrees F in a day, and then swing back upwards within 72 hours.
4. steady rise in sea levels
5. decline of both glaciers and frozen habitat for polar animals(polar bears, penguins and the like)

NO OTHER MODEL provides any sort of explanation for these phenomena occurring concurrently, at least none that I've ever read.

interesting aside:
http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2014 ... heat-wave/

Good luck slick. You're dealing with a guy that has an alleged science degree and believes the earth is flat.

callmeslick wrote:skepticism is all well and good.....hell, it's the foundation of good science. However, the vast, overwhelming preponderence of evidence shows that the climate has been changing at an accelerated rate over the past 100 or more years, coincidental with the rise of modern industry. The decade 2001-2011 has been clearly shown to have the highest average recorded temperatures since such have been recorded. And yes, such warming leads to rather radical weather/temperature swings. Hence, you can explain:
1. much more severe tropical storms
2. much more frequent severe tornadic activity
3. 'polar vortex' behavior, as we are seeing, where temps change by 50 degrees F in a day, and then swing back upwards within 72 hours.
4. steady rise in sea levels
5. decline of both glaciers and frozen habitat for polar animals(polar bears, penguins and the like)

NO OTHER MODEL provides any sort of explanation for these phenomena occurring concurrently, at least none that I've ever read.

Yeah, but what was the climate like in '74 when they were predicting global cooling. The same data from the 1850's on was available so why the differing opinion. The same models today were also predicting more hurricanes and they are at a minimum. Your frozen habitat is expanding for the last 2 years. And lest you forget it is unexplained why the warming trend has flattened out or altogether stopped as evidence in my OP. Do the models answer this?

yes, many models out there explain those things. I'd like a link to the claim that frozen habitat is expanding, as I've heard just the opposite, including the past two years.

Is that so...

Well then, I hope you won't mind me showing what else was in the study on your OP, woodchip.

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed
changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed,
the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of
greenhouse gases have increased (see Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.3 and SPM.4). {2.2, 2.4, 3.2,
3.7, 4.2–4.7, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5–5.6, 6.2, 13.2}

Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any
preceding decade since 1850 (see Figure SPM.1). In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was
likelythe warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence). {2.4, 5.3}

Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for
more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence). It is virtually
certainthat the upper ocean (0í700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010 (see Figure SPM.3), and it
likelywarmed between the 1870s and 1971. {3.2, Box 3.1}

The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to
the period 1951–2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing
and a cooling contribution from internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of
heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily
due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle.
However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in
causing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidencethat internal decadal
variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the
simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of internal variability. There
may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of
the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the
effects of aerosols). {9.4, Box 9.2, 10.3, Box 10.2, 11.3}

If you're going to use a study, try to understand it fully...

Yeah but it's really cold outside....

...but, it's getting warmer today.

I'd like to know woody, is if you think of yourself as a "denier" or a "skeptic" of climate change? A skeptic is open-minded and flexible, a denier is not.

IMHO and after seeing lots of Woody's posts, I think he's a denier, but I may be wrong...

Pumo wrote:...but I may be wrong...

How very skeptical of you!

lol, yeah I tend to be skeptical just to be ready in case something goes different than I thought
(Although in this case evidence suggest pretty much that it's denial, but I'm just 80% sure!)

OMG does man actually believe he/she deserve this planet? Man will stamp itself out long before the earth dies off.

Ferno wrote:Is that so...

Well then, I hope you won't mind me showing what else was in the study on your OP, woodchip.

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed
changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed,
the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of
greenhouse gases have increased (see Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.3 and SPM.4). {2.2, 2.4, 3.2,
3.7, 4.2–4.7, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5–5.6, 6.2, 13.2}

Never said the earth was not warming

Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any
preceding decade since 1850 (see Figure SPM.1). In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was
likelythe warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence). {2.4, 5.3}

I'm not denying it is not the warmest. I suggest you reread my OP. The period of 1998 to 2008 saw NO appreciable increase in warming yet there was a good 7% increase in CO2

Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for
more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence). It is virtually certainthat the upper ocean (0í700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010 (see Figure SPM.3), and it likely warmed between the 1870s and 1971. {3.2, Box 3.1}
The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to
the period 1951–2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing
and a cooling contribution from internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of
heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily
due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle.

Do you understand what is being said here? Surface temps of the oceanic have been reduced from 1998-2012. Not because of less a man generated CO2 but because of reduced solar activity and increase in volcano's erupting. Something I've said for years.

However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidence that internal decadal
variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the
simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of internal variability. There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols). {9.4, Box 9.2, 10.3, Box 10.2, 11.3}

Do you understand that they only have low to medium confidence of what the models are predicting

Ferno wrote:If you're going to use a study, try to understand it fully...

I suggest if you are going to copy and past something to take the time to parse what you obviously skimmed before posting it. Your lack of training in science is telling.

tunnelcat wrote:I'd like to know woody, is if you think of yourself as a "denier" or a "skeptic" of climate change? A skeptic is open-minded and flexible, a denier is not.

I guess you have not been reading my posts close enough. I am neither a skeptic or denier of climate change. I am a skeptic of man made climate change. I trust you know the difference.

Pumo wrote:IMHO and after seeing lots of Woody's posts, I think he's a denier, but I may be wrong...

You are wrong so no cookie for you. Now can we get back to debating the science

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:I'd like to know woody, is if you think of yourself as a "denier" or a "skeptic" of climate change? A skeptic is open-minded and flexible, a denier is not.

I guess you have not been reading my posts close enough. I am neither a skeptic or denier of climate change. I am a skeptic of man made climate change. I trust you know the difference.

I get that part, Woody, but can't for the life of me see HOW you would deny the very active role of man-made causation. Especially post industrial revolution, and with the massive population expansion of the past 100 years.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:I'd like to know woody, is if you think of yourself as a "denier" or a "skeptic" of climate change? A skeptic is open-minded and flexible, a denier is not.

I guess you have not been reading my posts close enough. I am neither a skeptic or denier of climate change. I am a skeptic of man made climate change. I trust you know the difference.

I get that part, Woody, but can't for the life of me see HOW you would deny the very active role of man-made causation. Especially post industrial revolution, and with the massive population expansion of the past 100 years.

I suggest you to re-read my OP and look back over 10,000 years at the change in climate. Debate what is actually going on and not gross generalities.

I have no interest in debating anything, Woody. This isn't really something I feel is subject to that level of puzzlement by me, and I'll leave it for experts to figure out how we plan for the future. I am asking you to look at the before and after Industrialization data and I'm asking how you would think that man WOULDN'T have a profound impact, given our output of wastes.....

Well since you seem to be locked into a simple "What I see must mean X is the cause" leaves you out of the scientifically curious crowd. I hope those experts who will determine our economic policies have at least a few skeptics among them.

woodchip wrote:Well since you seem to be locked into a simple "What I see must mean X is the cause" leaves you out of the scientifically curious crowd. I hope those experts who will determine our economic policies have at least a few skeptics among them.

I'm quite sure they do and will. Scientists are, by definition, skeptics. What I'm saying is that, for me, the debate is moot. The question now is how to address it. I've seen enough through my involvement with the Chesapeake Bay watershed groups that I am part of to KNOW that sea(and bay) levels are rising, steadily, over the past 40 years. I'm more focused on how we prepare for it, and willing to leave the exact whys and hows of getting to this point to others.

What impresses me is that most scientists are not really sure what to expect…but all liberals are absolutely certain.

Spidey wrote:What impresses me is that most scientists are not really sure what to expect…but all liberals are absolutely certain.

really? How so? It seems that from my reading, the only thing Liberals expect is that Conservatives will fight tooth and nail to prevent any research into the science from continuing. Getting back to my specific region of interest, that exact thing happened in Virginia's legislature. The conservatives forced the studies to NOT be allowed to focus on man-made causation. Why? Luckily, Maryland did no such thing, nor did Delaware, but seriously, what is scaring the conservative camp about this issue? I don't get it.

It’s the politics that are scaring people on this issue, I’m damn sure there would be a lot less resistance to the idea, if politics were left out of the issue.

Spidey wrote:It’s the politics that are scaring people on this issue, I’m damn sure there would be a lot less resistance to the idea, if politics were left out of the issue.

who made the issue political? As I stated, I've been involved with it from my role on certain environmental groups in the Chesapeake Bay region, and I've only seen ONE SIDE making Climate Change political. One, and only one.

OOOkkkk

Got to go make the donuts...