American Meteorological Survey on Global Warming

[jack97]

....- only 4% (yes 4%) of all surveyed do not believe that global warming is happening.

Those 4 % may believe the surface temp is lower than the past temp surmised by core samples. Recent finding shows the greenland ice coverage around 5000 to 3000 years ago was smaller than it is today and correlates to the archaeologist findings when they surmise Norsemen settled in the region at around the same period. If so, it could lead one to believe present surface temp is cooler. I would admit that the survey question should have used a timed reference point for temp.

Media description below, paper is most likely thru a pay wall
http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2013/11/033.html


This also begs the question of why we are spending so much money on finding ways co2 has reduced the arctic ice sheets when in fact it has gotten smaller before, 1000 of years before the industrial age.

 

[jack97]

That's really a shame because hysteria is an unproductive use of energy. That energy would be better placed towards solutions and adaptations.

exactly!

New satellite measurements show natural co2 has no coherency to man made co2 emission. More ice core sampling shows the increase co2 lags temperature increase, which begs the question how can co2 cause temperature increase if the past proxies shows it lags by ~ 200 yrs. And base on proxies, as far as we can measure, WG has been going on and this warming spell is most likely a natural oscillation.


View attachment 9611

I think most research has been fruitful but there comes a time when you have to think about other things...... and use the limited funding to figure out ways to adapt. A carbon tax seems silly if natural co2 swamps out man made and if temperature actually controls the co2 levels.

And if liberal means to be unorthodox.... then I would also state that it might be time to address the white elephant in the room. The IPCC should consider plan parenthood for the whole planet. We have too many people on a planet which has limited resources. Proxies shows earth goes through temp variations that can alter land masses which alter food production. We may not have enough food to feed everyone if land mass are in drought or become frozen.

 

[fbrissette]

This also begs the question of why we are spending so much money on finding ways co2 has reduced the arctic ice sheets when in fact it has gotten smaller before, 1000 of years before the industrial age.

The Greenland ice sheet and arctic ice sheets are two different things.

In the cited paper above, there is nothing and I mean ABSOLUTELY nothing that discusses the links between CO2 concentration and ice sheet extent, and it is NOT a paper about climate change. Main conclusion (only applicable to West Greenland) simply indicate that the extent of the ice sheet is linked to ocean temperature and not air temperature. If you are going to cherry pick a paper to justify your position, you should at least read the paper (go to a university library) to know what it is really about.

 

[fbrissette]

New satellite measurements show natural co2 has no coherency to man made co2 emission.

And the point is ?

More ice core sampling shows the increase co2 lags temperature increase, which begs the question how can co2 cause temperature increase if the past proxies shows it lags by ~ 200 yrs.

I suggest you read this paper to answer your question about the lag between CO2 and temperature.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

View attachment 9611

A carbon tax seems silly if natural co2 swamps out man made and if temperature actually controls the co2 levels.

Natural CO2 is indeed much more important than that of man-made CO2. But it is the man-made CO2 that has contributed to the observed increase in CO2. Temperature does NOT control C02.

And if liberal means to be unorthodox.... then I would also state that it might be time to address the white elephant in the room. The IPCC should consider plan parenthood for the whole planet. We have too many people on a planet which has limited resources. Proxies shows earth goes through temp variations that can alter land masses which alter food production. We may not have enough food to feed everyone if land mass are in drought or become frozen.

I'm fully with you on the problem of over-population. However, the IPCC mandate is to report on climate change science. It would be severely overstepping its mandate if it was to get into issues such as over-population.

 

[jack97]

I suggest you read this paper to answer your question about the lag between CO2 and temperature.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

Latest paper shows otherwise. May hold up or not, if so then it counters the paper you referenced. Meaning knowledge is not static, it grows or evolves. Which was the whole point about the understanding the dissent in the surveys.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1060.abstract


If it does hold, then it shows CO2 lags temp increase by two hundreds years max. So for the past GW cycles, CO2 could not of warm the surface. CO2 is not the driver of such events.

Natural CO2 is indeed much more important than that of man-made CO2. But it is the man-made CO2 that has contributed to the observed increase in CO2. Temperature does NOT control C02.

In the Salby vid, he shows the net annual emission from satellite observations are not coherent to man-made net annual emission. It leads to his opinion that man made emission are too small, two order of magnitude. This is new findings/analysis from satellite observations. And again, it needs to be scrutinized by all in the scientific community.

I'm fully with you on the problem of over-population. However, the IPCC mandate is to report on climate change science. It would be severely overstepping its mandate if it was to get into issues such as over-population.

Officers from the IPCC are suggesting that we (collectively) embrace nuclear power given its capacity and it is carbon neutral, this is suggesting public policy. Telling people to keep it in their pants is just another public policy.

 

[ScottySkis]

Basically we can't prove why earth Carbon is going up sure man kind contributed to it but were fucke& if we don't figure a way to stop it.

 

[jack97]

Basically we can't prove why earth Carbon is going up sure man kind contributed to it but were fucke& if we don't figure a way to stop it.

yep... if it's truly a natural cycle when temps and co2 goes up, has nothing to do with man made emission, we most likely do not have the means to stop it. That only happens in sci fi movies. However modern man has survived a mini ice age, the question in my mind is if we have enough natural resource; food and heat to sustain a large population in severe temp extremes.

 

[fbrissette]

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1060.abstract


If it does hold, then it shows CO2 lags temp increase by two hundreds years max. So for the past GW cycles, CO2 could not of warm the surface. CO2 is not the driver of such events.

??? The paper you quoted above says that CO2 is not lagging temperature as infered by previous papers. Are you trying to make my case ???

In the Salby vid, he shows the net annual emission from satellite observations are not coherent to man-made net annual emission. It leads to his opinion that man made emission are too small, two order of magnitude. This is new findings/analysis from satellite observations. And again, it needs to be scrutinized by all in the scientific community.

Murry Salby... Please.... He could not get any of his work published because it is so severely flawed. He was fired by both University of Colorado and Mcquarrie University in Australia. Do you know how hard it is to get fired in a university ? And he managed to do it twice... You know there is something wrong when a scientist uses internet videos instead of proper science journals.

 

[jack97]

??? The paper you quoted above says that CO2 is not lagging temperature as infered by previous papers. Are you trying to make my case ???

no... your reactions are making my case and the purpose of the survey. Reread the abstract.

Murry Salby... Please.... He could not get any of his work published because it is so severely flawed. He was fired by both University of Colorado and Mcquarrie University in Australia. Do you know how hard it is to get fired in a university ? And he managed to do it twice... You know there is something wrong when a scientist uses internet videos instead of proper science journals.

Not sure about the CU but he was recruited to be a chair at MU at 2008, the termination situation was under dubious circumstances. Doubt anyone will know the truth about it, so why bother.

Using the internet may be his way to get his message across since he was restricted in travel by MU. And presently on tour giving lectures. The paper review process right now could be more political. What he shows has correlated to other findings and replicated by others. His main message is satellite observations do not show the same trends as man made c02 emissions.

 

[BenedictGomez]

One of the most bizarre things about the whole climate debate is how "saddened" people who fervently support Global Warming seem to get when data points roll in that suggest it might not be happening (or if is, is why less critical than was believed).

 

[BenedictGomez]

You can try to misrepresent the survey by using the 52% but let me spin it the other way - only 4% (yes 4%) of all surveyed do not believe that global warming is happening.

Who cares? That's a red herring. Everyone should know that the earth has been in a warm phase, the question is whether or not is has even the slightest thing to do with man.

CO2 is rising just like the scientists said it would (even WORSE than they predicted in fact), yet the earth's temperature is NOT rising like they said it would, even worse (for them) it's moderated.

The man-made Global Warming hypothesis is broken, and they know it. Which is why they're currently punting and making excuses with this, "Global Warming might take a break for 20 years or so" nonsense.

 

[jack97]

The man-made Global Warming hypothesis is broken, and they know it. Which is why they're currently punting and making excuses with this, "Global Warming might take a break for 20 years or so" nonsense.

Most scientist who publish to their respective journals have started to believe the agw hypothesis is flawed since the temps have been flatlining. imo, i think the IPCC believe its flawed as well, they are saying the world needs to agree by 2015 or they will become irrelevant. By then maybe we can finally get back to science instead of dogma.

 

[Cannonball]

??? The paper you quoted above says that CO2 is not lagging temperature as infered by previous papers. Are you trying to make my case ???

I noticed that too. I started to write a response, but then I realized how much wasted energy is going into this thread (and others) and realized that I'm pretty much done with it. Time and energy spent on "debating" with anonymous people online is really unproductive. That same time can be spent actually working on solutions, adaptations, and mitigation.

For example, I'm currently organizing an 8 part public lecture series on the small-scale local impacts of climate change, in this case, as felt through sea level rise. The coastal communities I work in are struggling to understand the rate and extent of change they need to deal with and what their options are. This series is focused towards an audience of private land/home owners and some municipal players. The main goal is to provide straightforward information that allows people to filter out the political noise and focus on practical responses. This idea was spawned by local people asking for it. Those of us living and working on the immediate waterfront spend zero time debating about sea level rise....we're too busy living it.

Let me be clear to those who I know are already waiting to pounce on conspiracies of ulterior motives and personal gain. Nobody is getting rich off of this. In fact nobody is making a cent from this. I have zero funding to organize and host this series. I am running this through a non-profit community center that I work/volunteer at. We did apply for a small (~$15K) grant to cover the expenses of hosting this but we did not receive the funding. But the value of this is great enough that it's worth working on without the funding. Fortunately all of our speakers agree and are willing to give their presentations at no cost (despite significant travel etc). These are professionals working in the fields of climate science, coastal geology, oceanography, coastal engineering, etc. These are real people that I know personally. They are not the mythical "evil, corrupt scientists" invented by fringe internet blogs. I can tell you for a fact that not a one of them (including me) is getting rich from any of the science they are involved in. Nor do they have a motivation to create issues that don't exist just to receive funding. For example, I have been much more successful getting funding for fisheries restoration projects as opposed to climate change related projects. And I much prefer working on the fisheries projects. I would be more than happy to not be dealing with this lecture series, but it addresses a real problem and people are asking for help so I'm helping.

At least this thread shows that people are reading the science. Unfortunately it's being misunderstood and/or misrepresented in several cases. And I can't spend my energy proofing that. I'm impressed by fbrissette's ability to keep up with it (god for you man). But at least it's being discussed.

 

[deadheadskier]

Very cool thing for you do Cannonball. I hope the lecture series is videotaped. If it is, please share it here.

I have very little interest in discussing the temperature outside and whether human's are responsible for it's rise or fall. Preparing for and adapting to what appears is going to be a massive change in our ocean fronts due to the sea level rising is a much more compelling story / situation to discuss IMO.

 

[fbrissette]

the question is whether or not is has even the slightest thing to do with man.

And yet this question has mostly been settled. You would know that if you'd bother reading the actual scientific literature instead of taking your information from paid bloggers on the net.

CO2 is rising just like the scientists said it would (even WORSE than they predicted in fact), yet the earth's temperature is NOT rising like they said it would, even worse (for them) it's moderated.

CO2 has been rising according to the pessimistic scenarios. I mean you can't possibly blame the scientists for the lack of political courage in reducing GHG and the faster than expected growth of emissions from India and China.

You are correct that the global earth temperature has been stagnating (at its record levels) for the past 10-15 years. There are lots of possible reasons for that, and it shows that we still have a lot to learn about short-term natural variability. Again, if you'd bother to read real scientific literature, you would know that the probability of having plateaus and even short-term decreases in an overall long-term upward trend has been studied and established for a while. The heat is accumulating elsewhere in the mean time, most likely in the ocean where we have little measurements outside of the surface temperature which can be measured with satellites.

The man-made Global Warming hypothesis is broken, and they know it. Which is why they're currently punting and making excuses with this, "Global Warming might take a break for 20 years or so" nonsense.

Repeating this does not make it true.

 

[fbrissette]

Very cool thing for you do Cannonball. I hope the lecture series is videotaped. If it is, please share it here.

I have very little interest in discussing the temperature outside and whether human's are responsible for it's rise or fall. Preparing for and adapting to what appears is going to be a massive change in our ocean fronts due to the sea level rising is a much more compelling story / situation to discuss IMO.

You should take interest in this. It's actually a good news that humans are mostly responsible for the increase because it means we can do something about it beside adapting.

 

[fbrissette]

I noticed that too. I started to write a response, but then I realized how much wasted energy is going into this thread (and others) and realized that I'm pretty much done with it. Time and energy spent on "debating" with anonymous people online is really unproductive. That same time can be spent actually working on solutions, adaptations, and mitigation.

I'm taking time to debunk the classical denial theories not because I'm trying to convince Jack97 and Benedict Gomez as I know this is a lost cause. I'm doing it for others who might follow this thread. There is lot of disinformation on the net and the good science is not that readily accessible. Professionally I'm also involved in a lot of impact and adaptation initiatives. What you are doing is important. Good stuff.

 

[Cannonball]

I'm taking time to debunk the classical denial theories not because I'm trying to convince Jack97 and Benedict Gomez as I know this is a lost cause. I'm doing it for others who might follow this thread. There is lot of disinformation on the net and the good science is not that readily accessible. Professionally I'm also involved in a lot of impact and adaptation initiatives. What you are doing is important. Good stuff.

And good for you for keeping at it. Sometimes I feel like there is a downside to trying debunk the disinformation though. That is what makes people feel like there is a debate going on. If they are making random claims and someone argues with them, they consider that to be a "debate". And for the others following the thread, the back and forth may also look like a debate because they don't have the time or expertise to dig into the real details of all the articles being posted back and forth. But oh man do I understand how hard it is to just let it slide.....

 

[fbrissette]

Most scientist who publish to their respective journals have started to believe the agw hypothesis is flawed since the temps have been flatlining.

Who appointed you as official spokesperson for 'most scientists' ? I publish and read in many of those journals and I have not seen the least bit of this.

By then maybe we can finally get back to science instead of dogma.

Climate scientists have been and are still doing science trying to better understand the past climate and better predict the future climate. For every scientist that dwells into the politics of climate change, you'll find hundreds working hard, doing solid science to further our understanding of our fragile earth system. You and your camp contribute next to nothing by using papers our of context and spreading disinformation. If you want dogma, look no further than in your mirror.

 

[steamboat1]

We've owned a marina since 1960. The average water level of high tide & low tide hasn't changed during that time. Moon tides aren't any higher or lower than they normally are. I'm no scientist but this is what I've seen first hand.

As for fisheries mgt. you just lost a big one with the pair trawling herring boats.