Recommended Posts
billvon 3,120
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>The alarmists don't tolerate lukewarmists. The "deniers" do.
Nonsense. Alarmists and deniers do not tolerate any dissent. They are political extremists who exist to garner political power. People who disagree with their extremes are ostracized as a means to this end. Witness the denier death threats against climate scientists.
>That's why Lindzen, Curry and Michaels are personae non grata to the alarmists but
>have a receptive audience with the "deniers."
Lindzen regularly attacks what he calls "alarmists." He has firmly established himself as a denier (which is, of course, a political position, not a scientific one.) Some of his comments:
"I think [alarmism] is mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves."
"even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false."
This is the guy you are calling "moderate?" If that's who you consider moderate - someone who "concurs with AGW theory" even though they say it's false - then I can see why you think that most climate scientists are alarmist.
Odd, I didn't think you were that far on the denier side of things.
Nonsense. Alarmists and deniers do not tolerate any dissent. They are political extremists who exist to garner political power. People who disagree with their extremes are ostracized as a means to this end. Witness the denier death threats against climate scientists.
>That's why Lindzen, Curry and Michaels are personae non grata to the alarmists but
>have a receptive audience with the "deniers."
Lindzen regularly attacks what he calls "alarmists." He has firmly established himself as a denier (which is, of course, a political position, not a scientific one.) Some of his comments:
"I think [alarmism] is mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves."
"even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false."
This is the guy you are calling "moderate?" If that's who you consider moderate - someone who "concurs with AGW theory" even though they say it's false - then I can see why you think that most climate scientists are alarmist.
Odd, I didn't think you were that far on the denier side of things.
rushmc 23
Your turn
now YOU have been labled![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
QuoteI still have questions about man's role in it and am trying to further educate myself on the topic.
Blues,
Dave
As do I
Still waiting for your data on what should be considered normal given the age of this planet
I wouldn't hold your breath on that answer. As I already said, it's an inane question. Clearly, global temperature variation has been substantial and has included temperatures not compatible with human life, especially in the earth's infancy.
A more meaningful question would be focused on temperature variation during the existence of human civilization, which goes back 10-12 thousand years. If you view the attached graph 11300yr-temp-trend.JPG, you'll see what Marcott et all came up with for the last 11,300 years and published in Science magazine last year. It's a paid subscription, and thus would be wrong for me to copy/paste the entire article, however one image from the supplemental materials shouldn't hurt too much. Also, there is some controversy regarding the most recent (last 200 years) uptick. Feel free to disregard that portion if it doesn't match your talk-radio-formed opinions. The basics are still obvious...variation has generally been in the range of 0.5C from the 4500-5500 BP mean.
Next, check out the long-term and short-term CO2/temp correlation images. I know of no rational person who could look at these two charts and conclude there is no correlation between the two variables. Clearly, they are closely related.
Finally, watch the following video from NOAA to put current atmospheric CO2 trends in perspective. Clearly, we are venturing into a range not seen by any homo sapiens.
Putting this all together. CO2 levels are rising to unprecedented levels and CO2 is closely related to temperature. Thus, it follows logically that we (or our kids or grandkids) are likely to experience temperatures well above any seen in the history of human civilization.
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteI still have questions about man's role in it and am trying to further educate myself on the topic.
Blues,
Dave
As do I
Still waiting for your data on what should be considered normal given the age of this planet
I wouldn't hold your breath on that answer. As I already said, it's an inane question. Clearly, global temperature variation has been substantial and has included temperatures not compatible with human life, especially in the earth's infancy.
A more meaningful question would be focused on temperature variation during the existence of human civilization, which goes back 10-12 thousand years. If you view the attached graph 11300yr-temp-trend.JPG, you'll see what Marcott et all came up with for the last 11,300 years and published in Science magazine last year. It's a paid subscription, and thus would be wrong for me to copy/paste the entire article, however one image from the supplemental materials shouldn't hurt too much. Also, there is some controversy regarding the most recent (last 200 years) uptick. Feel free to disregard that portion if it doesn't match your talk-radio-formed opinions. The basics are still obvious...variation has generally been in the range of 0.5C from the 4500-5500 BP mean.
Next, check out the long-term and short-term CO2/temp correlation images. I know of no rational person who could look at these two charts and conclude there is no correlation between the two variables. Clearly, they are closely related.
Finally, watch the following video from NOAA to put current atmospheric CO2 trends in perspective. Clearly, we are venturing into a range not seen by any homo sapiens.
Putting this all together. CO2 levels are rising to unprecedented levels and CO2 is closely related to temperature. Thus, it follows logically that we (or our kids or grandkids) are likely to experience temperatures well above any seen in the history of human civilization.
Blues,
Dave
OIk
well since YOU came in all snotty and snarky
200 years?
Your joking, right?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
Now, just a bit of an answer while ignoring the snottyness
And, as lawrocket stated, the dire predictions are not coming true. Why?
And there are many studies that state CO2 lags temp chance, and does not lead it (this follows Boyles law now doesnt it)
You see, this info you provided looks only in the window of time very near to our life time
And in the end does not tell us much if anything
Yes, we do know CO2 levels are higher
Yes, we do know climate temps have changed a bit
What we dont know is, are these two things related
And no one does yet
QuotePutting this all together. CO2 levels are rising to unprecedented levels and CO2 is closely related to temperature. Thus, it follows logically that we (or our kids or grandkids) are likely to experience temperatures well above any seen in the history of human civilization.
And, as lawrocket stated, the dire predictions are not coming true. Why?
And there are many studies that state CO2 lags temp chance, and does not lead it (this follows Boyles law now doesnt it)
You see, this info you provided looks only in the window of time very near to our life time
And in the end does not tell us much if anything
Yes, we do know CO2 levels are higher
Yes, we do know climate temps have changed a bit
What we dont know is, are these two things related
And no one does yet
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
Also, in the time frame data you post here, there are recorded times when temps were higher and lower than today
Same for CO2
When man was not here
The planet is where it is today regardless of those levels
Why?
What caused the variations then?
We know it was not man
And yet the planet is as it is today
Sorry
The only way you can try and make your argument is by over simplification
I dont buy it
And I know
that make me, and those who believe as I do, "uneducated"
Nice
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
DanG 1
QuoteAnd I know
that make me, and those who believe as I do, "uneducated"
Nice
Are you frowny-facing at the insult you just threw at yourself? He didn't call you uneducated, you just threw that in there as if he did. That's not contributing to polite discourse.
- Dan G
rushmc 23
QuoteMost of your arguments I just dismiss as the biased and illogical meanderings of an uneducated mind.
His post to me earlier in the thread
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
QuoteQuoteQuoteI still have questions about man's role in it and am trying to further educate myself on the topic.
Blues,
Dave
As do I
Still waiting for your data on what should be considered normal given the age of this planet
I wouldn't hold your breath on that answer. As I already said, it's an inane question. Clearly, global temperature variation has been substantial and has included temperatures not compatible with human life, especially in the earth's infancy.
A more meaningful question would be focused on temperature variation during the existence of human civilization, which goes back 10-12 thousand years. If you view the attached graph 11300yr-temp-trend.JPG, you'll see what Marcott et all came up with for the last 11,300 years and published in Science magazine last year. It's a paid subscription, and thus would be wrong for me to copy/paste the entire article, however one image from the supplemental materials shouldn't hurt too much. Also, there is some controversy regarding the most recent (last 200 years) uptick. Feel free to disregard that portion if it doesn't match your talk-radio-formed opinions. The basics are still obvious...variation has generally been in the range of 0.5C from the 4500-5500 BP mean.
Next, check out the long-term and short-term CO2/temp correlation images. I know of no rational person who could look at these two charts and conclude there is no correlation between the two variables. Clearly, they are closely related.
Finally, watch the following video from NOAA to put current atmospheric CO2 trends in perspective. Clearly, we are venturing into a range not seen by any homo sapiens.
Putting this all together. CO2 levels are rising to unprecedented levels and CO2 is closely related to temperature. Thus, it follows logically that we (or our kids or grandkids) are likely to experience temperatures well above any seen in the history of human civilization.
Blues,
Dave
OIk
well since YOU came in all snotty and snarky
200 years?
Your joking, right?
His methodology (carbon dating, tree rings, and something to do with plankton) gets less precise in recent times. As I said, you can ignore the last 200 years if you wish. I've not heard of anyone disputing his findings on the preceding 11,100 years.
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
DanG 1
QuoteHis post to me earlier in the thread
You should read some of your own posts. When you continually says that everyone who drives a hybrid or believes man is damaging the planet is a liberal eco-nut asshole, you can expect people to get defensive, just like you get defensive when people call you "uneducated".
- Dan G
QuoteNow, just a bit of an answer while ignoring the snottyness
QuotePutting this all together. CO2 levels are rising to unprecedented levels and CO2 is closely related to temperature. Thus, it follows logically that we (or our kids or grandkids) are likely to experience temperatures well above any seen in the history of human civilization.
And, as lawrocket stated, the dire predictions are not coming true. Why?
Observation and prediction are different activities. We can clearly observe a correlation between CO2 and temperature, and a trend that both are increase. Predicting how those will play out in the future is an inexact science at best due to uncertanties in GHG emissions and other human-related activities as well as in feedbacks (especially clouds, the role of which are not well understood)
QuoteAnd there are many studies that state CO2 lags temp chance, and does not lead it (this follows Boyles law now doesnt it)
See http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm
QuoteYou see, this info you provided looks only in the window of time very near to our life time
And in the end does not tell us much if anything
Very near our lifetime? The temperature data covers the entirety of human civilization and the CO2 data goes back 800,000 years.
QuoteYes, we do know CO2 levels are higher
Yes, we do know climate temps have changed a bit
What we dont know is, are these two things related
Did you actually look at the charts I attached?
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
QuoteAlso, in the time frame data you post here, there are recorded times when temps were higher and lower than today
Same for CO2
When man was not here
Either you didn't look at the data or you misread it. The temperature data I included does not pre-date humans, and it has only been slightly higher than today. The CO2 data I provided does in fact go back 800,000 years, which puts it well before the existence of men. During that timeframe, there are zero recorded instances of it exceeding today's level. The closest it comes as at the onset of previous interglacials, when it achieved 300 ppm. We're 33% beyond that and climbing.
QuoteThe planet is where it is today regardless of those levels
Why?
What caused the variations then?
We know it was not man
Previous temperature variations were based in part on the earths orbit and axis (see the link I posted about CO2 lagging temperature), and in part on a natural greenhouse effect (ice age atm CO2 mean of 185 ppm, deglaciation atm CO2 peaks around 300 ppm, current atm CO2 about 390 ppm).
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteNow, just a bit of an answer while ignoring the snottyness
QuotePutting this all together. CO2 levels are rising to unprecedented levels and CO2 is closely related to temperature. Thus, it follows logically that we (or our kids or grandkids) are likely to experience temperatures well above any seen in the history of human civilization.
And, as lawrocket stated, the dire predictions are not coming true. Why?
Observation and prediction are different activities. We can clearly observe a correlation between CO2 and temperature, and a trend that both are increase. Predicting how those will play out in the future is an inexact science at best due to uncertanties in GHG emissions and other human-related activities as well as in feedbacks (especially clouds, the role of which are not well understood)QuoteAnd there are many studies that state CO2 lags temp chance, and does not lead it (this follows Boyles law now doesnt it)
See http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htmQuoteYou see, this info you provided looks only in the window of time very near to our life time
And in the end does not tell us much if anything
Very near our lifetime? The temperature data covers the entirety of human civilization and the CO2 data goes back 800,000 years.QuoteYes, we do know CO2 levels are higher
Yes, we do know climate temps have changed a bit
What we dont know is, are these two things related
Did you actually look at the charts I attached?
Blues,
Dave
I have looked at them before
Again
I dont know what is happening
In the end that is the main differnce between you and I
To suggest with any confidence that man is causing global temp changes at the rate many have is obsurd!
Again, those same ice core samples you post to also seem to indicate that CO2 levels follow temp change and do not lead it. And there is no current proof that global temp increases are lagging CO2 levels. That can not be argued because the time frame is just too short to be sure
We are putting CO2 into the atmosphere. But are we casuing all the increases?
How can we know for sure?
We have ice core records that indicate there have been higher levels than what we are seeing today?
And did these levels cause the climate to change to the extremes the AWG crowd predicts today?
Too many unknowns
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteAlso, in the time frame data you post here, there are recorded times when temps were higher and lower than today
Same for CO2
When man was not here
Either you didn't look at the data or you misread it. The temperature data I included does not pre-date humans, and it has only been slightly higher than today. The CO2 data I provided does in fact go back 800,000 years, which puts it well before the existence of men. During that timeframe, there are zero recorded instances of it exceeding today's level. The closest it comes as at the onset of previous interglacials, when it achieved 300 ppm. We're 33% beyond that and climbing.QuoteThe planet is where it is today regardless of those levels
Why?
What caused the variations then?
We know it was not man
Previous temperature variations were based in part on the earths orbit and axis (see the link I posted about CO2 lagging temperature), and in part on a natural greenhouse effect (ice age atm CO2 mean of 185 ppm, deglaciation atm CO2 peaks around 300 ppm, current atm CO2 about 390 ppm).
Blues,
Dave
yes
and there are indications the temp increases were ahead of the CO2 increases
Not CO2 leading temp changes (as is being said today)
See this link
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/23/new-research-in-antarctica-shows-co2-follows-temperature-by-a-few-hundred-years-at-most/
BTW
I only provide this as more evidense that we dont know
Not that it is any kind of final info
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
How about this one
http://www.co2science.org/about/position/globalwarming.php
QuoteThere is little doubt the air's CO2 concentration has risen significantly since the inception of the Industrial Revolution; and there are few who do not attribute the CO2 increase to the increase in humanity's use of fossil fuels. There is also little doubt the earth has warmed slightly over the same period; but there is no compelling reason to believe that the rise in temperature was caused by the rise in CO2. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that future increases in the air's CO2 content will produce any global warming; for there are numerous problems with the popular hypothesis that links the two phenomena.
http://www.co2science.org/about/position/globalwarming.php
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
If you're not willing to look at the data and rebuttals I provide, this conversation cannot progress.
I had to laugh at your CO2science.org link. Three staff members, all with the last name Idso, with phd's in geography, philosophy, and botany, funded by ExxonMobil. Talk about some iron-clad reputations! 
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
Quoteand there are indications the temp increases were ahead of the CO2 increases
Not CO2 leading temp changes (as is being said today)
See this link
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/23/new-research-in-antarctica-shows-co2-follows-temperature-by-a-few-hundred-years-at-most/
BTW
I only provide this as more evidense that we dont know
Not that it is any kind of final info
You said this earlier in the thread, and I provided a response. Did you not see that?
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
brenthutch 444
You cut-and-paste a graphic from a study who very own author states
"20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes"
???????
"20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes"
???????
QuoteYou cut-and-paste a graphic from a study who very own author states
"20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes"
???????
And I very clearly stated, twice, that there was controversy regarding the 19th and 20th century data and they could be disregarded. Feel free to rebut with a more reliable model of global temperatures of the last 10,000 or so years.
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
Dave: you wrote:
[Reply]If you view the attached graph 11300yr-temp-trend.JPG, you'll see what Marcott et all came up with for the last 11,300 years and published in Science magazine last year. It's a paid subscription, and thus would be wrong for me to copy/paste the entire article, however one image from the supplemental materials shouldn't hurt too much. Also, there is some controversy regarding the most recent (last 200 years) uptick. Feel free to disregard that portion if it doesn't match your talk-radio-formed opinions.
[Reply]If you view the attached graph 11300yr-temp-trend.JPG, you'll see what Marcott et all came up with for the last 11,300 years and published in Science magazine last year. It's a paid subscription, and thus would be wrong for me to copy/paste the entire article, however one image from the supplemental materials shouldn't hurt too much. Also, there is some controversy regarding the most recent (last 200 years) uptick. Feel free to disregard that portion if it doesn't match your talk-radio-formed opinions.
Here's what the authors said about it:
[Quote]Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?
A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record. Although not part of our study, high-resolution paleoclimate data from the past ~130 years have been compiled from various geological archives, and confirm the general features of warming trend over this time interval (Anderson, D.M. et al., 2013, Geophysical Research Letters, v. 40, p. 189-193; http://www.agu.org/journals/pip/gl/2012GL054271-pip.pdf).
Q: Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?
A: Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century. Other factors also contribute to smoothing the proxy temperature signals contained in many of the records we used, such as organisms burrowing through deep-sea mud, and chronological uncertainties in the proxy records that tend to smooth the signals when compositing them into a globally averaged reconstruction. We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer. Our Monte-Carlo analysis accounts for these sources of uncertainty to yield a robust (albeit smoothed) global record. Any small “upticks” or “downticks” in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper.
[Url]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/?wpmp_tp=2[/url]
It's not "talked radio formed opinions." That"ks being nasty, considering that the authors expressly acknowledge that the 20th century data are not statistically reliable. The very message that you intended to put forth is not something that talk radio says shouldn't be trusted - the authors and realclimate moderators say it shouldn't be trusted and to disregard it (though it provides a nice visual that you used to make your conclusion. "There is some controversy." Come on. That's the sort of ad hominem hack crap I've been talking about.)
The whole point of the graph you posted is, "look at the 20th century!" And the authors belatedly disavowed that portion because the last part is high signal/low noise data (hence the low margin of error) and the former is low signal/high noise data (and logically, you cannot infer high signal from a low signal data set.)
[Reply]CO2 levels are rising to unprecedented levels and CO2 is closely related to temperature. Thus, it follows logically that we (or our kids or grandkids) are likely to experience temperatures well above any seen in the history of human civilization.
Thus the problem. We have a good 15 years of trend right now that is showing that the relationship (massive increase in ppm of CO2 not coupled with massive increase in temperature) has an exception. Climate science is searching for the missing heat that should be there. I think some more work on alternative forcings is warranted. They are thinking inside the box.
Note: human civilization has seen massive climate change in the span of a person's lifetime where a person was born into a spruce forest and died in the same place surrounded by pines. Or was born at the beach and died at a beach 10 miles inland from where he was born.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Absolutely. But I ask, "Who attacks pat Michaels? Who attacks Judith Curry? Who attacks Richard Lindzen?". The aforementioned are bona fide climate scientists. All three concur with AGW theory, acknowledge climate change and the human role in it. But they all take issue with the predictions. And they point out the flaws and holes in the science. Perhaps they should be called lukewarmists?
The alarmists don't tolerate lukewarmists. The "deniers" do. That's why Lindzen, Curry and Michaels are personae non grata to the alarmists but have a receptive audience with the "deniers." I DO take such things into account.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites