Global Warming. Fact or grossly exaggerated??

[fuji]

No one has disputed that the planet has gotten warmer

They use to, the Koch funded researchers you like to cite wrote lots of papers trying to deny it. They were discredited.

Now they are trying to claim the very evident warming they failed to predict isn't human caused. They will be discredited again.

You yourself are employing cheap debating tactics. The models used got the overall trends right, but missed a lot of the complexity around the behavior of the system as it warms, such as the wonderful local winter we are experiencing now.

Those who predict human caused global warming have not gotten everything right, but they have gotten a lot more right then those who predicted no warming, and who are now creating post hoc theories to explain the warming they failed to predict.

 

[AK-47]

As opposed to the contrarians who are driven/backed/paid by the private sector likes of the Heartland Institute

LoL

..................................

 

[blackrock13]

LoL

..................................

You and your posts became irrelevant 30 posts ago, well done.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You yourself are employing cheap debating tactics.

You mean like pointing to the researchers' own statements that they would refuse to make their methodology and data available to allow others to see if the research can be replicated? Instead, much of the data have been "lost" or (if Phil Jones made good on his word) were deleted.

Those who predict human caused global warming have not gotten everything right.

They sure haven't.

 

[AK-47]

You and your posts became irrelevant 30 posts ago, well done

LoL

..................................

 

[blackrock13]

For what it's worth, from http://www.jamespowell.org

I (James) had previously reviewed peer-reviewed scientific articles from 2013 with the topics, or keyword phrases, "global warming" and "global climate change,". They numbered 1,911. I have now also reviewed articles from 2013 with the keyword phrase "climate change," finding 8,974. Combining the searches, 2013 saw 10,885 articles under one or more of the three phrases. Only two articles [see here and here] in my judgment rejected anthropogenic global warming.


Combining this result with my earlier studies (see here and here), over several years I have reviewed 25,182 scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals. Only 26, about 1 in 1,000, in my judgment reject anthropogenic global warming. I describe my methodology here.


Instead of coalescing around a rival theory to anthropogenic global warming, the rejecting articles offer a hodgepodge of alternatives, none of which has caught on. The dissenting articles are rarely cited, even by other dissenters. A groundswell this is not. The 26 rejecting articles have had no discernible influence on science.


Very few of the most vocal global warming deniers, those who write op-eds and blogs and testify to congressional committees, have ever written a peer-reviewed article in which they say explicitly that anthropogenic global warming is false. Why? Because then they would have to provide the evidence and, evidently, they don't have it.


What can we conclude?


1. There a mountain of scientific evidence in favor of anthropogenic global warming and no convincing evidence against it.


2. Those who deny anthropogenic global warming have no alternative theory to explain the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 and global temperature.


These two facts together mean that the so-called debate over global warming is an illusion, a hoax conjured up by a handful of apostate scientists and a misguided and sometimes colluding media, aided and abetted by funding from fossil fuel companies and right wing foundations.


On the one side, we have a mountain of scientific evidence, on the other, ideology and arm-waving. On that basis, we are endangering our grandchildren’s future and pushing humanity toward the destruction of civilization.

 

[groggy]

You missed the obvious possibility: That the IPCC is driven by a political agenda, rather than a scientific one.

How would that work?
Would the thousands of scientists all be working on a conspiracy against big oil?
Are they all secretly back to the earth hippies who want to get all of us off oil?
Are they all under the pay of the green party?

It just makes no sense, and there is nothing any reasonable person would believe to back this one up.
Its the most ridiculous conspiracy theory I've ever heard.

You better tell us more about this one.
But let me put the popcorn on first....

 

[groggy]

You mean like pointing to the researchers' own statements that they would refuse to make their methodology and data available to allow others to see if the research can be replicated? Instead, much of the data have been "lost" or (if Phil Jones made good on his word) were deleted.



They sure haven't.

Oh, the emails that were hacked and stolen and then shown to have said nothing controversial by 8 independent inquiries?
You have to do better then that.

 

[blackrock13]

From; http://desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart

This is a guest post by James Lawrence Powell.


Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming. The gold standard of science is the peer-reviewed literature. If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on opinion but on hard evidence, it will be found in the peer-reviewed literature.


I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012 that have the keyword phrases "global warming" or "global climate change." The search produced 13,950 articles. See methodology.


I read whatever combination of titles, abstracts, and entire articles was necessary to identify articles that "reject" human-caused global warming. To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming. Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming. Articles about methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and effects at least implicitly accept human-caused global warming and were usually obvious from the title alone. John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli also reviewed and assigned some of these articles; John provided invaluable technical expertise.


This work follows that of Oreskes (Science, 2005) who searched for articles published between 1993 and 2003 with the keyword phrase “global climate change.” She found 928, read the abstracts of each and classified them. None rejected human-caused global warming. Using her criteria and time-span, I get the same result. Deniers attacked Oreskes and her findings, but they have held up.


Some articles on global warming may use other keywords, for example, “climate change” without the "global" prefix. But there is no reason to think that the proportion rejecting global warming would be any higher.


By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is here. The 24 articles have been cited a total of 113 times over the nearly 21-year period, for an average of close to 5 citations each. That compares to an average of about 19 citations for articles answering to "global warming," for example. Four of the rejecting articles have never been cited; four have citations in the double-digits. The most-cited has 17.


Of one thing we can be certain: had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science.

 

[blackrock13]

Here's the list from http://www.jamespowell.org/Rejections/index.html

List of 24 articles rejecting anthropogenic global warming, with links where available. See abstracts or excerpts from abstracts here.


Bali, R., K. K. Agarwal, S. N. Ali, and P. Srivastava (2011), Is the recessional pattern of Himalayan glaciers suggestive of anthropogenically induced global warming? Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 4(7-8), 1087-1093, doi:10.1007/s12517-010-0155-9. http://www.springerlink.com/content/6h11048377749k84/
Citations: 2


Baliunas, S., and R. Jastrow (1993), EVIDENCE ON THE CLIMATE IMPACT OF SOLAR VARIATIONS, Energy, 18(12), 1285-1295, doi:10.1016/0360-5442(93)90016-7. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0360544293900167
Citations: 7


Balling, R. C. (1993), THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE DATA, Research & Exploration, 9(2), 201-207.
Citations: 2


Bashkirtsev, V. S., and G. P. Mashnich (2003), Will we face global warming in the nearest future?, Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, 43(1), 124-127.
Citations: 4


Bellamy, D., and J. Barrett (2007), Climate stability: an inconvenient proof, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Civil Engineering, 160(2), 66-72, doi:10.1680/cien.2007.160.2.66. http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/article/10.1680/cien.2007.160.2.66
Citations: 5


Berner, U., and W. Stahl (1999), Geosciences and climate, Zkg International, 52(1), 28-+.
Citations: 0


Chilingar, G. V., L. F. Khilyuk, and O. G. Sorokhtin (2008), Cooling of atmosphere due to CO2 emission, Energy Sources Part a-Recovery Utilization and Environmental Effects, 30(1), 1-9, doi:10.1080/15567030701568727. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15567030701568727
Citations: 1


Chilingar, G. V., O. G. Sorokhtin, L. Khilyuk, and M. V. Gorfunkel (2009), Greenhouse gases and greenhouse effect, Environmental Geology, 58(6), 1207-1213, doi:10.1007/s00254-008-1615-3. http://www.springerlink.com/content/c47m4x8222886n12/
Citations: 2


Dergachev, V. A., and O. M. Raspopov (2010), Reconstruction of the Earth's surface temperature based on data of deep boreholes, global warming in the last millennium, and long-term solar cyclicity. Part 2. Experimental data analysis, Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, 50(3), 393-402, doi:10.1134/s001679321003014x. http://www.springerlink.com/content/1250440760034545/
Citations: 1


Essenhigh, R. H. (2009), Potential Dependence of Global Warming on the Residence Time (RT) in the Atmosphere of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide, Energy & Fuels, 23, 2773-2784, doi:10.1021/ef800581r. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r
Citations: 3


Jastrow, R., W. Nierenberg, and F. Seitz (1991), GLOBAL WARMING - WHAT DOES THE SCIENCE TELL US, Energy, 16(11-12), 1331-1345, doi:10.1016/0360-5442(91)90006-8. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0360544291900068
Citations: 4


Jedral, W. (2010), CCS TECHNOLOGY AND SAVING THE GLOBAL CLIMATE - PRO AND CON, Rynek Energii(3), 113-119.
Citations: 0


Khilyuk, L. F., and G. V. Chilingar (2003), Global warming: Are we confusing cause and effect?, Energy Sources, 25(4), 357-370, doi:10.1080/00908310390142389. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00908310390142389
Citations: 10


Khilyuk, L. F., and G. V. Chilingar (2004), Global warming and long-term climatic changes: a progress report, Environmental Geology, 46(6-7), 970-979, doi:10.1007/s00254-004-1112-2. http://www.springerlink.com/content/f5uhmcp0qx4l81dj/
Citations: 8


Khilyuk, L. F., and G. V. Chilingar (2006), On global forces of nature driving the Earth's climate. Are humans involved?, Environmental Geology, 50(6), 899-910, doi:10.1007/s00254-006-0261-x. http://www.springerlink.com/content/t341350850360302/
Citations: 9


Loehle, C. (2004), Climate change: detection and attribution of trends from long-term geologic data, Ecological Modelling, 171(4), 433-450, doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2003.08.013. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380003003600
Citations: 14


Luedecke, H.-J., R. Link, and F.-K. Ewert (2011), HOW NATURAL IS THE RECENT CENTENNIAL WARMING? AN ANALYSIS OF 2249 SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECORDS, International Journal of Modern Physics C, 22(10), 1139-1159, doi:10.1142/s0129183111016798. http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/How_natural.pdf
Citations: 0


Michaels, P. J. (1993), BENIGN GREENHOUSE, Research & Exploration, 9(2), 222-233.
Citations: 4


Njau, E. C. (2005), Expected halt in the current global warming trend?, Renewable Energy, 30(5), 743-752, doi:10.1016/j.renene.2004.07.011. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148104002939
Citations: 3


Persinger, M. A. (2009), The possible role of dynamic pressure from the interplanetary magnetic field on global warming, International Journal of Physical Sciences, 4(1), 44-46. http://www.academicjournals.org/ijps/pdf/pdf2009/Jan/Persinger.pdf
Citations: 0


Qian, W. H., and B. Lu (2010), Periodic oscillations in millennial global-mean temperature and their causes, Chinese Science Bulletin, 55(35), 4052-4057, doi:10.1007/s11434-010-4204-2.
Citations: 5


Scafetta, N. (2010), Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 72(13), 951-970, doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2010.04.015. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682610001495
Citations: 17


Scafetta, N. (2012), Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the IPCC (2007) general circulation climate models, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 80(13), 124-137, dpi: 10.1016/j.jastp.2011.12.005. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682611003385
Citations: 1


Zhen-Shan, L., and S. Xian (2007), Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years, Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 95(1-2), 115-121, doi:10.1007/s00703-006-0199-2. http://www.springerlink.com/content/g28u12g2617j5021/
Citations: 11

 

[GPIDEAL]

Mother nature has discredited anyone who thinks the planet isn't getting warmer. The ice caps are melting.

Fuji, I've been debating elsewhere with some U.S. Republicans who argue that the South Pole's ice cap has been expanding, however, last time I saw anything on TV about the South Pole, was that massive ice fields were cracking away.

What's the scoop? Is the South Pole ice cap shrinking too?

 

[blackrock13]

Fuji, I've been debating elsewhere with some U.S. Republicans who argue that the South Pole's ice cap has been expanding, however, last time I saw anything on TV about the South Pole, was that massive ice fields were cracking away.

What's the scoop? Is the South Pole ice cap shrinking too?

Much of the problem with ice caps, north or south, is that they are melting and the runoff is penetrating to the base of the caps through cracks and hole and since water has a lower coefficient of friction that moraine, the ice literally float to the edge of the land mass and either joins the ice mass over the water or crashes (calves) into the open water and form icebergs. This happening at a greater rate than expected and in areas which have never seen this in human history.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Much of the problem with ice caps, north or south, is that they are melting and the runoff is penetrating to the base of the caps through cracks and hole and since water has a lower coefficient of friction that moraine, the ice literally float to the edge of the land mass and either joins the ice mass over the water or crashes (calves) into the open water and form icebergs. This happening at a greater rate than expected and in areas which have never seen this in human history.

I don't quite follow ("... that moraine"?).

 

[blackrock13]

I don't quite follow ("... that moraine"?).

One type of glacial deposits and abrasion agents. that affect the flow and cutting actions of advancing or retreating glaciers

 

[GPIDEAL]

You missed the obvious possibility: That the IPCC is driven by a political agenda, rather than a scientific one.

Indeed, I raised this point before. How could any empirical report on science include a "Summary for Policy Makers"? Science is about learning how our world works through empirical research and the gathering of evidence. It isn't about trying to win political arguments or drive public policy.

I don't think the IPCC's overt political/advocacy agenda constitutes a "conspiracy" (although the destruction and/or loss of data, etc., opens up that possibility). But I know it isn't science.

(A view, incidentally, that was shared by the 36,000-member Institute of Physics in the U.K.: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm. Last time I checked, the Institute of Physics was part of the "scientific community.")

The scientific community may have a legitimate political agenda - to ensure that real science is not distorted by junk science and that the role of the scientist - be it a professor, engineer or technician is not discredited or understated.

 

[GPIDEAL]

One type of glacial deposits and abrasion agents. that affect the flow and cutting actions of advancing or retreating glaciers

In layman's terms, if the runoff penetrates to the base of the caps, what does this do?

 

[fuji]

Fuji, I've been debating elsewhere with some U.S. Republicans who argue that the South Pole's ice cap has been expanding, however, last time I saw anything on TV about the South Pole, was that massive ice fields were cracking away.

What's the scoop? Is the South Pole ice cap shrinking too?

South Pole has not. Parts of it are warmer, parts of it are colder. The arctic on the other hand is clearly melting.

 

[GPIDEAL]

South Pole has not. Parts of it are warmer, parts of it are colder. The arctic on the other hand is clearly melting.

OK thanks. Do they know why the South Pole is different?

 

[blackrock13]

In layman's terms, if the runoff penetrates to the base of the caps, what does this do?

Acts like grease to allow the ice to glide over the ground faster because of less resistance. If you know how slippery ice is to walk on then remember how slippery ice is with a sheen on it.

 

[blackrock13]

OK thanks. Do they know why the South Pole is different?

The Antarctic 'continent' has a land mass underneath, the 5th largest of all the continents. Greenland is much the same, only smaller, 1/7 the size.