EnviroLink Forum

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.

Hey, banana potato head, Wayne blew your stinking garbage to hell! It really pisses me off that nothing has been done to stop going past the tundra methane self release tipping point since 1997, because of jerk skeptics. People who can't even feel it happening over the years, or foresee what it will do to future generations.
from Wayne's link:
"First, let's look at the Oregon Petition. They define "scientist" as anyone with a BS degree or better. They state, "This includes primarily those with BS, MS, or PhD degrees in science, engineering, or related disciplines." Thus, 31,000 is their numerator.

According to the US Census for 2000, 28 million people had bachelors degrees and 16 million had graduate or professional degrees. We'll safely assume that half of the bachelor degrees are BA's and not BS degrees. In 2000 that represented about 10% of the population. If the proportions hold today it leaves us with a total of 31 million people of the current US population of 312 million (Note: the Oregon Petition is limited to the US).

Numerator, meet The Denominator! 31,000 over 31,200,000 comes to 0.00099. Or roughly 0.1% of persons holding a BS or better have signed the petition challenging anthropogenic global warming, assuming that every single signature on the list is legitimate. This is what The Denominator does. He crushes big numbers into itty-bitty numbers.

Now let's look at PopTech's 850 papers. Even mainstream skeptics like Roger Pielke Jr. as well as others have taken exception to PopTech's list but again, we're going to give him the benefit of the doubt and allow him the concept that 850 peer reviewed papers actually do challenge AGW alarm. (I know it's a stretch but we're going to cut him a break, this time.)

Here I just went to Google Scholar. I limited the search to the term "climate change" and only searched articles in the subject areas of 1) Biology, Life Science and Environmental Science, and 2) Physics, Astronomy and Planetary Science. That returned 954,000 articles. I did a pretty thorough perusal of 200 articles of the 100 pages of results and it looks like they are all actual papers and not just references to any blogs or websites. A number are listed as "[citation]" so we might pull out about 10% for good measure. But everything else looks to be published works in a very wide variety of scientific journals. I intentionally left out the 177,000 papers that result when I do the same search on "global warming" since I don't know how many of those will be duplicate hits.

Numerator, meet The Denominator! What we are left with is about 850,000 peer reviewed papers on climate change for the 850 peer reviewed papers that PopTech presents. That leaves our friend with 0.1% of peer reviewed papers that challenge AGW alarm, as defined by him."
You can read can't you, or are you a fruit or vegetable?

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

7.That natural/solar/cosmic forces are responsible for majority of warming since the end of the Little Ice Age

At presnt this might even be true. I can't find an exact number for LIA mostly because there isn't one. Strangely enough this statement doesn't refute reasons for present warming. To the hardcore denier this is enough proof that AGW is all wrong. Even the last 150 years has warmed partly due to natural variation. That isn't true though for the last 30 years

[color=#408000][color=#408000]Since most of the warming has been since about 1980 from the last 150 years, I don't believe this to be true. Below is a carbon dioxide graph since the little ice age. CO2 dips down during the lia. Interesting correlation.[/color][/color]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lawdome75yrco2.svg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbo ... labels.png


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) describes areas affected by the LIA:

Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in a number of widely spread regions outside Europe prior to the 20th century, including Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia. However, the timing of maximum glacial advances in these regions differs considerably, suggesting that they may represent largely independent regional climate changes, not a globally-synchronous increased glaciation. Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries... [Viewed] hemispherically, the "Little Ice Age" can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late 20th century levels.[8]


http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-compr ... rming.html





Figure 4: Percent contributions of various effects to the observed global surface warming over the past 25-30 years according to Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), and Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 (FR11, green).

8.That modern warming is not "accelerating"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

Does anyone not see this as acceleration? The teperature record definitely showing accelertion.

giss 1982 to 2012
Trend: 1.75 ±0.56 °C/century (2σ)

giss 1892 to 1982
Trend: 0.42 ±0.11 °C/century (2σ)

giss 1952 to 1982
Trend: 0.36 ±0.56 °C/century (2σ)

giss 1922 to 1952
Trend: 0.72 ±0.52 °C/century (2σ)

giss 1892 to 1922
Trend: 0.03 ±0.55 °C/century (2σ)


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/0 ... n-reports/

9.That modern warming is not "unprecedented"

http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr_oa/c048p005.pdf



http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/1 ... te-change/


However, Svante Björck, a climate researcher at Lund University in Sweden, has now shown that global warming, i.e. simultaneous warming events in the northern and southern hemispheres, have not occurred in the past 20,000 years, which is as far back as it is possible to analyse with sufficient precision to compare with modern developments. Svante Björck’s study thus goes 14,000 years further back in time than previous studies have done. “What is happening today is unique from a historical geological perspective,” he says.



Our warming even exceeds the speed of the PTEM period. The recent warming we have gone through is much faster than the PETM.

10.That modern warming is not "unequivocal"

unequivocal - definition of unequivocal by the Free Online Dictionary

Admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding; clear and unambiguous:



http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/ ... lo-rez.pdf


http://www.skepticalscience.com/evidenc ... arming.htm


Science isn’t like a house of cards, in that removing one line of evidence (eg. land surface air temperature) wouldn’t cause the whole edifice of anthropogenic global warming to collapse. Rather, “land surface warming” is one of more than ten bricks supporting “global warming”; and with global warming established, there is a whole other set of bricks supporting “anthropogenic global warming”. To undermine these conclusions, you’d need to remove most or all of the bricks supporting them – but as the evidence continues to pile up, that is becoming less and less likely.

11.That past IPCC global climate model predictions have been spectacularly wrong

Pick whatever you want from the link below.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/search. ... ctions_150

12.That climate model simulations are not empirical evidence



[color=#408000]This allows the stout denier to completely disregard the model. From the previous post you would ask the quesiton, what is the valid information that we can gain from the model.

The person who is determined that AGW is wrong won't even pay attention to emperical evidence.
[/color]

13.There is no empirical evidence supporting an temperature amplification from 1.2°C to 4°C





http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate ... ediate.htm

Climate sensitivity from empirical observations
There have been a number of studies that calculate climate sensitivity directly from empirical observations, independent of models.

Lorius 1990 examined Vostok ice core data and calculates a range of 3 to 4°C.
Hoffert 1992 reconstructs two paleoclimate records (one colder, one warmer) to yield a range 1.4 to 3.2°C.
Hansen 1993 looks at the last 20,000 years when the last ice age ended and empirically calculates a climate sensitivity of 3 ± 1°C.
Gregory 2002 used observations of ocean heat uptake to calculate a minimum climate sensitivity of 1.5.
Chylek 2007 examines the period from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition. They calculate a climate sensitivy range of 1.3°C and 2.3°C.
Tung 2007 performs statistical analysis on 20th century temperature response to the solar cycle to calculate a range 2.3 to 4.1°C.
Bender 2010 looks at the climate response to the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption to constrain climate sensitivity to 1.7 to 4.1°C.

14.There is no empirical evidence of positive feedback from atmospheric water vapor

The observations of the trend of increased water vapor are plugged into the models to see what caused the increase of water vapor in the atmosphere. They were able to narrow it down to human caused from emissions of co2. This is clearly one of the fingerprints of climate change.


Satellites have observed an increase in atmospheric water vapour by about 0.41 kg/m² per decade since 1988. A detection and attribution study, otherwise known as "fingerprinting", was employed to identify the cause of the rising water vapour levels (Santer 2007). Fingerprinting involves rigorous statistical tests of the different possible explanations for a change in some property of the climate system. Results from 22 different climate models (virtually all of the world's major climate models) were pooled and found the recent increase in moisture content over the bulk of the world's oceans is not due to solar forcing or gradual recovery from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The primary driver of 'atmospheric moistening' was found to be the increase in CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

15.There is no empirical evidence for a human caused tropical atmosphere 'hot spot'


Abscense or prescense of a hot spot is not relevant to the existence or nonexistence of climate change.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/troposp ... vanced.htm

Part 1: The “Hotspot” as an Alleged Fingerprint of Anthropogenic Warming
A great deal of the confusion surrounding the issue of temperature trends in the upper troposphere comes from the mistaken belief that the presence or lack of amplification of surface warming in the upper troposphere has some bearing on the attribution of global warming to man-made causes.

It does not.