USA Today: Could we be wrong about global warming?

Isn't he the one that invented the internet?

 

Nope.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

 

1. Demonizing. If I demonize you for anything, it's for your pretend scientific approach. Good scientists look to the holes in their own theories. Pros and cons are evaluated. Changes to hypotheses made. Nonscientists tend to think of things in absolutes. I've done graduate level research and I know what it means to try and tackle a problem that you do not know the answer to. It's a lonely and difficult proposition to grapple with data. Over time, you may reach a place of certainty, but it takes blood, sweat and tears to get there. Honestly, as a scientist, I'll admit I get angry when nonscientists act like know-it-alls and that their point is an absolute. Right or wrong, that is how I perceive you. Probably if we were out having a beer I wouldn't feel that way -- it's just the soul-less internet.

2. Problems with the data. I absolutely have discussed weaknesses. Go back through the thread and re-read my posts involving La Nina/El Nino effects, the fact that the data is erroneously trying to prove climactic change based on a data set of 10 years (actually even less than that), your crazy assumption that CO2 level is the only impact on global temperature, and the fact that models including the impact of CO2 are a much better fit than those without.

3. Impact of CO2 on global warming. Glad you brought this up. I'm glad to concede (and I actually already have in this thread) that the impact of CO2 on global warming might not be as large as thought in the past. My point in this thread is that the plot you're hanging your hat on is not nearly strong enough to support it. More data is needed. Is it interesting? Sure, I'm glad to give you that. Do we adjust policy because of it? Absolutely not. Get more data to support it, then maybe the policy goes a different way.

Edit: one other thing I'd like to add. While this thread has been frustrating at times, I actually do appreciate the opposing viewpoint regarding CO2. It's been awhile since I looked at the science behind this issue and things have changed some.

 

YOU HAVE YET TO REFUTE THE CO2 VS. TEMP DATA. x100. Maybe that gets the point across again? There is no "certainty" about the impact on temps from the tiny % of greenhouse gases that man emits. The data I posted suggest an almost inverse relationship over the past 10 years. Saying "El Nino" from 1997 does not lead to a 10 year trend that does not support the claim.

You aren't even reading what I am posting. I never posted that, not even once. In fact, I posted what a tiny fraction emitted CO2 is in relation to greenhouse gases. Again, if you're not going to read my posts, why are you replying to them? Also, "models" that predict the future are not scientific proof. As a scientist, you should know this.

Of course more data is needed. That's the entire f**king point. There is not any recent data suggesting that our CO2 output is rapidly escalating temperatures. Period. The only evidence supports the contrary view, yet you are willing to make changes based on inconclusive data. Not very "scientific" of you, I must say. Seems more "political", actually.

In the meantime, I don't need to hear that "the planet has a fever" because some guy is driving an SUV, and I don't need legislation that will cripple an already wounded economy because it will "save the planet".

 

I'll admit that my focus is very narrow and deals with anthropogenic global warming. That doesn't mean I don't think the climate is changing. I'm just looking for data that supports the common claim that our output of CO2 is the primary cause for temperatures rising. All evidence I've found suggests otherwise.

 

You missed the boat about the flawed assumption regarding CO2 trend and global temps. You keep wanting to know why they don't correlate. Let's just assume there are OTHER factors that work to lower global temp over a short period. Volcanic eruptions or massive sandstorms (if I remember right, crazy as it sounds, sandstorms actually do have a solid impact) put an unusual amount of particulate into the atmosphere to deflect the sun's light over a short period of time (say 10 years). La Nina is strong and lowers global temp. The melting of the polar ice provides a new sink for CO2 and not as much of the global CO2 is in the atmosphere to act as a greenhouse gas. I have no idea whether some or all of these are correct, but the point is that other forces are at play in determining global temp. Some of them may very well have had a larger impact on decreasing global temp than CO2 had on increasing it during that 10 year period. This doesn't mean that CO2 isn't important -- it just depends on what those other factors might be and the magnitude of their impact.

The weight of the data is in favor of the fact that global warming is occurring and that CO2 plays a major role. I could've post a crazy number of peer reviewed articles that would drown out your plot (that seemed to come from a blog.) I don't think we shut down the economy over the current strong scientific consensus, but we're fools if we don't start trying to address the issue. At the same time, let's gather more data and make some informed decisions. I'd like to think we're not at the point of directing major international policy based on blogs. Twitter maybe, but not blogs.

I'll put the rest of your post in the circular file labelled "econ major pretending to be a scientist".

 

That's true of water that already contains high levels of CO2. Increasing water temp WOULD release more of those gases.

On the other hand, water from ice formed during low CO2/methane historic periods would initially serve as CO2/methane sinks.

 

If you're a scientist, I can see why the bunk being sold as fact is being sold as fact. Find me the actual impact of the "other factors", via data, and what their impact is on temperature.

 

That seems to be the position you take on this as well. Can't refute the data, so shout out loud and drown it out.

 

Yeah, I think a chunk of this is because of a reaction (possibly over-reaction) to Bush's policies. The editing/revising of climate-related, federally funded scientific papers was bad, bad policy. Truth can hurt, but hiding the truth can hurt a lot more. On the side of the left, it really fired people up. Quite possibly to the point that the left is now cramming down science that doesn't mesh with it's politics.

Yeesh to it all.

 

Anyhow, we're getting nowhere with this. We likely have near the same view on my position, we just aren't arguing it in congruence. The EPA under Obama recently did the exact same thing by repressing a report critical of global warming. Missed that one on the evening news.

It must be my "econ" background.

 

If the issue had been fully resolved by scientific consensus, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Hate to break it to you, but science rarely fits so neatly in a box. When it does, it takes time to reach that consensus. In this case, we're talking climactic change and that will be especially difficult because the time periods being studied are so crazy huge. Also hate to break this to you, it won't be either of us that makes it happen. Gonna take time and research and a lot of people smarter than either of us to make it happen. In the meantime, get ready to tighten the belt some on emissions.

1. If we do nothing and the CO2 impact on global warming is huge as advertised, the worst thing that could happen is world catatrophe.

2. If we cap emissions and the CO2 impact on global warming is neglible, the worst thing that could happen in economic catastrophe.

I'll pick 2 over 1 if I have to choose, but I'd prefer an intelligent approach to capping emissions that saves us from #1 while minimizing the impact on the economy. An intelligent approach will mean listening (honestly and free of an agenda) to science to weigh environmental impacts while shaping policy to keep the economy going.

 

Not true. I responded to your posts -- you just didn't like my responses. The equivalent of me shouting would've been to start posting links to peer reviewed articles in support of CO2/global warming and asking YOU to review and respond to them (much like I did to your plot.) You should be glad I didn't ask you to try and wear the Mr. Science hat, econ man.