This is purely anecdotal, inasmuch as I don't have the figures to back it up, cause I'm lazy. But from what I've seen, one medium sized volcanic eruption puts out more "Greenhouse gasses" than the human race has done since the beginning of the industrial revolution. "Global Warming" is horseshit.
Pardon me, where are these "technical responses" to which you claim to make? Your responses last time were rarely anything more than "Ha! That's so funny", and "Oh, isn't it so cute that scientists think this when actually..." and "Look! An asymptotic function turning into exponential growth? Nevermind that these reflected collected data, it simply can't be true because it's an asymptote." Unfortunately, my scientific specialty is not climate or weather, it's in drugs, which is a lot more fun. You say your counclusion is that the guys who doubt the hockey stick model are wrong; really, what are your qualifications to say that? Unless I'm hallucinating, I think you said you had a degree in math and economics (if I'm mistaken, I admit my fault and please forgive me). You say I've posted no science; the links have extensive references to the primary literature, hardly blind conjecture. And, best of all, you say that you can't respond to the links because they don't post their data, or assumptions despite references to the literature; how about you? Where are your data and assumptions? If you were wondering, I didn't respond last time because I more or less couldn't; it's easier to spew out bullshit than respond to it. I admit that I'm out of my scientific league here. Not much more to say beyond that, and I admit that posting responses written by scientists with extensive references doesn't do much good because I'm not in much of a position to evaluate them myself. I hate to have to resort to an argument from authority, but given the paucity of original knowledge of how the environment works, there's little real argument that can be had in a back-and-forth here.
How does the recent revelation of scientists fudging data in favor of global warming theories affect this argument?
I hate to ruin your evening, but no data fudging occurred. It was scientific jargon being thrown back and forth, taken out of context, and made to look bad. Science is not so sensitive that one or two people can fudge some data and fool the entire establishment. Pretty good video explains it here: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg&feature=player_embedded" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fR ... r_embedded</a> EDIT: A clever response to this, provided by Allord, is this: Eugenics. Sadly, eugenics was not one or two people propagating a hoax, and there were a hell of a lot of proponents of eugenics who weren't scientists. Noted suffragettes in Canada, who would not stand the thought of being considered non-people, or less than human, because they were women, actively campaigned for the sterilization of those who they called lesser human beings.
Not gonna ruin my evening by any means. The problem is, at my work we get two channels. Fox News (blech) and ABC (yay "let's make a deal" and "Wheel of Fortune"). So I tend to get a realistic take on news from the Daily Show. John Stewart does what other networks claim. He gives fair and balanced interviews. But I'm about a week behind on my DVR. The only thing I have to go on right now is the fox news reporting that some of the top global warming scientists were falsifying data to make their case stronger. Can you give me a more detailed report on what was actually happening, or do you want me to rely on broad media sources?
The difference is that the carbon cycle of the planet is balanced with itself after literally millennia of time to reach equilibrium. Volcanism has been going on as long as the Earth has existed. The difference is that humans are a new, large source of Carbon dioxide emissions that have not had the geologic time necessary to balance out. At the same time however, this goes into the counterargument of exactly that, that human emissions will become equilibrated with other processes that remove Carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. But then that leads into the counterargument that even though the flux in and out will balance, the total amount of Carbon in the atmosphere is increasing until we reach that point, and that point could be in the middle of a drastically different climate than the relatively cozy one we have now. The point is that volume of other relatively constant naturally-occurring emissions are not relevant to the discussion since they have had millennia to equilibrate with processes that remove this Carbon. In essence your point is equivalent to me saying "We could reduce deaths from car accidents by reducing the number of teen drivers on the streets" while you say "A lot more people die from heart disease, teen driving deaths are insignificant and don't even have any effect"
No, actually, my point is that Human CO2 emissions are insignificant in the long run, compared to what the earth does naturally. Your metaphor doesn't fit even a little. In fact, refer to the earlier post by KIMMaster (not sure if it was this thread) where he pretty much completely debunks, not global warming itself, but all the unfounded theories that the populace blames for global warming. I find it highly entertaining.
Analyzing global warming is a simple case of "Qui Bono?". Or, Who Benefits? As it currently stands, enacting Global Warming legislation will restrict, punish, and fine all people and businesses. As it currently stands, enacting Socialist legislation will restrict, punish and fine all people and businesses. And it ain't the republicans that are coming out in favor of Man Made Global Warming. Personally, I'm not surprised that those screaming loudest for reform are either Socialists, or Chicken Little Scientists who just want their next grant. I came up with a little saying (or at least, I think I did): "The Optimistic Scientist gets no research grants." For example, imagine two scientists both going to study Global Warming. One is your stereotypical scientist, very introverted. He's telling you that everything you see has happened before, and is extremely normal. The other Scientist is Sam Kinnison in a rage. He's screaming "HOLY FUCK, WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE! GLOBAL WARMING! AHHHHHHHHH!!!!" Who would you give the grant to? And that is basically my thoughts on the matter. Until you divorce the results from what I described above, from those who benefit from more research grants or the enacting Global Warming legislation, I will never ever believe that this is man made, or unnatural.
And my point is that volume is irrelevant because volcanism has had millennia to balance with opposite forces. It doesn't matter how many thousands of pounds the elephants on both sides of the teeter totter weigh if they're in balance, but an extra 5 pounds on either side can cause the whole thing to start leaning to one side.
(Bolded part mine) Way to prove my point. I wrote (and this is universally acknowledged) that mean global temperature is an oscillatory function. No one knows whether it has any asymptote, and in fact, that's not what either side is arguing. In other words, you've just proved that you have no clue what the discussion is about. Lovely. As for the technical aspects, I already noted why it's possible to have a positive correlation between increasing global temperature and CO2 levels through Henry's Law, as well as an exponential graph not making sense considering the decreasing rate of CO2 accumulation. You couldn't respond to this, considering you don't even know what the subject is about. No, my conclusion was that the scientists doubting the hockey stick model are RIGHT. Once again, it's clear you've glossed over my posts, in your feverish desire to post random links. That's not a debate; that's a link dump. Maybe you are. Maybe you just don't read. Same result. Let me make things very clear; in math and science, it is the person making the bold statement ("global warming is caused by man") that has to show his data and assumptions. The side seeking to disprove this merely has to examine these for errors. So far, I have not see any data and assumptions in any of your links. Ergo, I do not see, and cannot respond to a legitimate scientific argument. That's one of the central arguments about the GCMs; those who don't believe in them note that global climate operates under a negative feedback loop, which adjusts to any changes in CO2 level, and stabilizes to account for them. Meanwhile, certain GCMs don't assume any feedback loop, or even assume a positive feedback loop, which is ridiculous, since it would mean that every time a volcano erupted, the atmosphere itself would add to the amount of heat, resulting in a much warmer Earth. Surprise surprise however, we don't see the same correlation between volcanic eruptions (which greatly raise CO2 levels) and the mean global temperature. But at the same time, you have to consider that there are far fewer active volcanos and eruptions nowadays than there were several thousand years ago. So, not only did the atmosphere used to have far more CO2 than it does today, but it was able to adjust to far greater and more rapid changes in CO2 level without the temperature increasing catastrophically.
This thread is dead and no longer fun to read. Which is what happens when a bunch of (self-educated) people want to debate scientific minutiae, there is very little middle ground. Closed.
So I have a bit of a dyslexic moment and that's enough for you to declare that I don't read your posts and have no scientific argument to respond to? If this: With technical details and references to the literature, as posted before, is not enough for you to at least consider scientific (and again, I admit it's not my argument because I spend all my time learning about drugs), then I guess nothing will be enough.
I am by no means an expert on this subject, most of my knowledge coming from the heavily biased public school system, and the rest from independent research. However I have read alot, and I am very open minded about Global Warming, fossil fuels, and the future. I have changed my opinion many times in the light of evidence. One of the most intelligent voices I've read comes from the late Michael Crichton and his book State of Fear. Nevermind the book narrative itself (that I'm sure many disagree with), my favorite quote comes from his "Author's Message": "There are many reasons to shift away from fossil fuels, and we will do in the next century without legislation, financial incentives, carbon-conservation programs, or the interminable yammering of fearmongers. So far as I know, nobody had to ban horse transport in the early twentieth century." Kind of goes along with that comic panel someone else posted.
What would happen if you rode a horse down the street? I love my Scout but, I'd trade her for a horse if I could take it to work.
Credentials: BS and MS in meteorology from Penn State. Nine credits short of an MAS in statistics because I am lazy and decided to make money instead. Man made global warming is absolutely true. There can't be an argument about it. Well known laws of physics tell us so (note: for those mathematically inclined, increasing CO2 increases the absorption cross section of the atmosphere at certain infrared wavelengths that the earth currently can transmit back to space). That said, determining the magnitude is incredibly tough and open for debate. Smart people have determined that a 2 x CO2 (meaning twice as much carbon dioxide as currently present) world would show an increase in temperature of around 2C. That's from CO2 alone, with no feedback effects. Of course, the IPCC is forecasting increases much larger than that. Those larger increases are due to aforementioned feedback effects. An easy one to understand is that a warmer globe will have less ice. Ice reflects more radiation back to space than land or ocean, so the earth will absorb more radiation. That means the earth will get warmer. Therefore, more ice will melt, further decreasing the reflectivity (or albedo) of the planet. These feedbacks are attempted to be modeled by GCMs. Unfortunately, these models have yet to show any predictive ability, which means their results are suspect at best. In fact, as KIMaster alluded to, we're not sure if clouds have a positive feedback or negative feedback. Recent research seems to point towards a negative feedback. There were numerous things I wanted to comment on throughout the thread, but I'm not sure if the mods are interested in me clogging up the thread. If the mods are ok with it, I'm happy to answer any questions as best I can. For now, here is a graph showing temperature trends over multiple time scales.
Having read through the most damning emails of the Climategate saga, I'd argue there wasn't bad science going on. The use of the word trick is pretty common. I used it quite a bit as a grad student whenever I figured out how to solve a proof with the chain rule, which is a basic component of calculus, but not always obvious when doing a proof. The biggest part that freaked me out was Mann and Jones conspiring to keep anti-GW articles out of the literature. Also, they suggested deleting data rather than supplying it to "deniers." Both offenses do not adhere to the scientific method. But I don't think those emails showed they cooked the books or anything.
While I don't disagree with what you said about ENSO (in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if 2010 ends up as the 3rd or 4th hottest on record due to the current El Nino), 11 years is a pretty significant number, since it corresponds to the number of years in the sunspot cycle (as an aside, SC 22 and SC 23 were two of the highest ever recorded and SC 24 is starting well below the activity of the previous two cycles). There are other things to consider, too. In 1998, the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) and the AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) were both at the peak of their warm phases, which doesn't happen very often.
One potential answer to this is the Clear Air Act. During the 50s, 60s, and 70s, the air was polluted with a lot of SO2. Sulfur dioxide reflects solar radiation back to space, inherently increasing the albedo of the planet. If you look at temperature graphs, they show an increase in the early part of the century, a cooling in the middle part, then another increase at the end. Of course, other explanations include the AMO/PDO cycles that I talked about previously (they peaked together in the 30s), ENSO cycles, and lag effects of increased solar activity (SC 22/23).