Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What I said was that I'm in favor of limiting how much humans contribute to the enviornment in everyway.
If one thing in my life is true, humans generally screw up everything we touch. Limiting that, is a good thing.
As long as we limit it in a way that makes sense, such as replacing our coal power plants with lower carbon ones, as opposed to what our government is doing now, which is forcing coal power plants to shut down without bothering to replace any of the gigawatts of lost of energy. Going green might be ok, as long as we aren't going stupid, and we are currently being very stupid.
Can you imagine the alarm when the AGW lemmings read the temps from this weather station? Every time some dude drives his boiling hot truck up to the weather station, they probably scream "global warming is accelerating".
Ok? They were incorrect about catastrophic climate change but yet the Earth is still trending towards warmer... So they weren't entirely incorrect... So it seems we don't know as much as we thought about our climate's feedback loops.... But the Earth is still, at slower than hypothesized pace, projecting like it will get warmer.
Woodsfortrees added this neat little tool to select different data sources so please explore:
Do a comparison of HADCRUT3, HADCRUT4, BEST (Preliminary, upper and lower bound 95%), and GISSTEMP.
Notice something? They all vary based on adjusted, raw, and method. If you really get heavy into the looking at all the different sources, you will find a lot of inconsistencies and problems be it from how they choose to weight the data (which is why the surface stations are a big problem) to where they choose to select their points to evaluate.
I honestly do not know what is the real temp as each and every analysis you see out there attempts to "adjust" for something and what that is may be a major contention between different opinions.
Looking at our record alone isn't enough to "project" anything, which is why they keep missing the mark consistently.
We could continue to warm, we may not. That is really the best and honest evaluation one can make in terms of certainty.
Remember back in the late 90's when we had some strong warming? Remember the issue of them claiming that 10 years was plenty time to establish a climate trend and make predictions on it?
During that time, it made it look like we were sky rocketing into oblivion. That was during the height of global warming popularity. You saw things like this:
Where linear trend analysis showed an extreme increase in temps.
Then, things changed and we went into a cooling trend:
Which if we apply the same linear analysis they were using, well.. you get the point.
All of a sudden, 10 years wasn't sufficient for those claiming warming, now we are coming up on 15 years of that trend, and... well... that isn't going to be enough either for them, but know for certain, they project continued warming, even though in every previous projection they have been completely wrong.
Look, I am not saying either way. I honestly have no idea where we are heading. I do however know that stating it one specific direction or the other conclusively is devious.
Now also consider what this means concerning C02? We have continued to rise in C02, yet temps have fell for roughly the last decade. Now you certainly can claim that doesn't invalidate the position of C02 contributing to warming, but I am not claiming it does. What I am saying is that there is no evidence to validate that it is a major driver of climate. If we are going to speculate based on temps, then one could argue it does not, but again... I am not attempting to argue that position, simply pointing our neither position is validated completely to its claim.
What will you say if it continues to decline for another 10 years? What if 20 years have passed and we are still in a downward trend from 1998? Do we move the end points a bit to lesson this? Do we adjust past data downward and recent data upward to lessen the extent of this recent trend? I hope you know, that is already been done and continues to be done and while some of it is justified (due to gaining information that provides needed correction), some of it is not properly supported.
In the end, where we go, well... that is a mystery. As I said though, there is only one thing that is certain, and that is we can not be certain in any of this.
Woodsfortrees has a tool where you can select many different data sources.
The problem is dv1033, is that the station networks themselves have some major issues. So looking at the data collected from these stations may not be useful if the stations themselves have strong biases.
Watts has a paper that he just finished (that was what the surfacestation.org site was all about) that has some interesting findings concerning the stations. For instance, this is what is noted concerning the level of ratings the stations have:
Now don't take anything here as final, the paper went through a open public review to find any errors and I believe is currently submitted for journal review now. So, we will have to see if there is any problems found in the paper during the journal peer review.
That said, the stations are an issue, there is no question to that (this point is not argued), but the question is, do the reporting agencies understand how severe and do they properly account for it in their adjustments to the data which for instance, you would use at woodfortrees.org?
NOAA has been criticized for some poor actions they have taken concerning the network (ie modifying the raw data itself to fit their perceptions as to what it should be) which as you can see, has a strong tendency to be to a warming bias.
How can we look and nitpick over small sections of data and claim we understand what climate is doing when we don't even fully understand the effects of localized climates concerning the stations? I mean, if the entire worlds networks are in this bad of shape, we may have no idea what is real and what is nothing more than a bias?
We really need to get this under control if we are to truly excel in understanding climate.
As the sociologists Riley Dunlap of Oklahoma State University and Aaron McCright of Michigan State University suggest, climate denialism exists in part because there has been a long-term, well-financed effort on the part of conservative groups and corporations to distort global-warming science.
Do a comparison of HADCRUT3, HADCRUT4, BEST (Preliminary, upper and lower bound 95%), and GISSTEMP.
Notice something? They all vary based on adjusted, raw, and method. If you really get heavy into the looking at all the different sources, you will find a lot of inconsistencies and problems be it from how they choose to weight the data (which is why the surface stations are a big problem) to where they choose to select their points to evaluate.
I honestly do not know what is the real temp as each and every analysis you see out there attempts to "adjust" for something and what that is may be a major contention between different opinions.
Looking at our record alone isn't enough to "project" anything, which is why they keep missing the mark consistently.
We could continue to warm, we may not. That is really the best and honest evaluation one can make in terms of certainty.
Remember back in the late 90's when we had some strong warming? Remember the issue of them claiming that 10 years was plenty time to establish a climate trend and make predictions on it?
During that time, it made it look like we were sky rocketing into oblivion. That was during the height of global warming popularity. You saw things like this:
Where linear trend analysis showed an extreme increase in temps.
Then, things changed and we went into a cooling trend:
Which if we apply the same linear analysis they were using, well.. you get the point.
All of a sudden, 10 years wasn't sufficient for those claiming warming, now we are coming up on 15 years of that trend, and... well... that isn't going to be enough either for them, but know for certain, they project continued warming, even though in every previous projection they have been completely wrong.
Ok... So you arbitrarily picking decades proves what? Nothing because it is subjective. What's the big picture?
Quote:
Look, I am not saying either way. I honestly have no idea where we are heading. I do however know that stating it one specific direction or the other conclusively is devious.
BS. You and your *chuckles* have been pushing one specific direction conclusively.
Quote:
Now also consider what this means concerning C02? We have continued to rise in C02, yet temps have fell for roughly the last decade. Now you certainly can claim that doesn't invalidate the position of C02 contributing to warming, but I am not claiming it does. What I am saying is that there is no evidence to validate that it is a major driver of climate. If we are going to speculate based on temps, then one could argue it does not, but again... I am not attempting to argue that position, simply pointing our neither position is validated completely to its claim.
There is no evidence to 100% conclusively say that CO2 is the major the driver, correct. However, the evidence does point to it having a significant impact. More importantly, it's the only driver of climate change we humans can actually exert control over.
Quote:
What will you say if it continues to decline for another 10 years? What if 20 years have passed and we are still in a downward trend from 1998? Do we move the end points a bit to lesson this? Do we adjust past data downward and recent data upward to lessen the extent of this recent trend? I hope you know, that is already been done and continues to be done and while some of it is justified (due to gaining information that provides needed correction), some of it is not properly supported.
All I know is waiting 20 years with our thumbs up our ass is not smart policy. Our human civilization population grows exponentially and the energy demand grows exponentially and the rest of the world is catching up to the American lifestyle. We can kill many, multiple birds with a few stones by enacting some more sensible environmental policies that can be beneficial regardless of whether climate change is occurring.
Quote:
In the end, where we go, well... that is a mystery. As I said though, there is only one thing that is certain, and that is we can not be certain in any of this.
And we got to decide if we would rather do nothing and hope that our civilization won't have to be uprooted and moved in this century or the next. You may not be alive since you're older but it's me and mine that will be you the guinea pigs.
The problem is dv1033, is that the station networks themselves have some major issues. So looking at the data collected from these stations may not be useful if the stations themselves have strong biases.
Watts has a paper that he just finished (that was what the surfacestation.org site was all about) that has some interesting findings concerning the stations. For instance, this is what is noted concerning the level of ratings the stations have:
I'll let the peer review process sort that business out. However, Watt's connection to the Heartland Institute only reenforces this notion that there is a strong corporate side to the deniers. I welcome skeptics, but people like Watt (with his FOX weatherman background) and conservative think tank connections can be very good at propaganda.
Ok... So you arbitrarily picking decades proves what? Nothing because it is subjective. What's the big picture?
I didn't arbitrarily pick dates. Did you not read anything I said? The above comparisons are explained if you had read what I was pointing out. Up to 1998, that representation of 1980-1998 was the flagship to claim we were warming out of control. It was used by Hansen, Jones, etc... to claim we were in an unprecedented warming trend. That amount of years was considered acceptable to proclaim a definitive trend. The second graphic is from 1998 to present. I was merely pointing out how such can be deceiving and the entire discussion at that point was about how end points can be picked, how scaling and analysis approach can cause such to appear drastic.
As for the big picture, what is the big picture indeed? You showed me a representation of temps from 1850, did you consider anything before that through other means? How does the MWP compare to now? Do you see what I am getting at? As you said, what is the big picture?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
BS. You and your *chuckles* have been pushing one specific direction conclusively.
Personally, I think we are going into a cooling period, but I don't know for sure. My *chuckles* are that of people who make wild claims and talk in certainties. You know, the people who call others deniers because they do not blindly accept the authority of the CAGW position. Don't mistake my picking at their invalidated claims to mean I am certain in my own. If you in fact go back the several years on this board that I have been posting on the subject, you will see my position has ALWAYS been that we do not know. Try not to turn this into partisan war, we were civilly discussing, no need to get heated and defensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
There is no evidence to 100% conclusively say that CO2 is the major the driver, correct. However, the evidence does point to it having a significant impact. More importantly, it's the only driver of climate change we humans can actually exert control over.
I am not speaking in absolutes. Science does not deal in "100%" of anything. So please do not place my position into a false one by claiming such. I am not making the failed philosophical argument of "since we can not know everything, we know nothing". I am stating that under basic scientific process of validation, it is not established as such. This is a fact and can not be contested. There is no evidence that points it to having significant impact (through proper scientific process of verification, validation, and replication). There are however a lot of hypothesis that claim it does, but have not been able to validate their findings without using models which as you admitted have failed to properly project climate activity.
CO2 is a very small component of the system. The problem is, we are unsure if it is significant in its role and our contribution which is extremely small is significant in its effect as well. The point is, they have not been able to separate natural variability from the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
All I know is waiting 20 years with our thumbs up our ass is not smart policy. Our human civilization population grows exponentially and the energy demand grows exponentially and the rest of the world is catching up to the American lifestyle. We can kill many, multiple birds with a few stones by enacting some more sensible environmental policies that can be beneficial regardless of whether climate change is occurring.
And we got to decide if we would rather do nothing and hope that our civilization won't have to be uprooted and moved in this century or the next. You may not be alive since you're older but it's me and mine that will be you the guinea pigs.
So you advocate making decisions through ignorance then? What does running off into the dark where you can't see to escape the monster you think you hear sounds from solve? You don't know what it is, where it is coming from, but running blindly is the best option? I am sorry, but your argument is not sound, it is emotionally driven. Only a fool acts with ignorance. We are spaking of the science, not some political push of advocacy to serve ignorant masses who think action before thinking is the solution.
What you argue with in those last two paragraphs is fear. You use fear to urge action, but that action is ignorance. Honestly, I don't care to discuss that garbage. If you would like to keep talking about the evidence, fine, but please excuse me if I disregard your pleas for action founded on nothing more than speculation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
