Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Change?"

[Streamtracker]

Streamtracker & Coydog .. nice to have you back.

I would suggest you didn't answer my simple request for a simple explanation of how any other purported effect of CO2 can be justified with a chain of casual events... if the primary effect, warming of the atmosphere, is NOT happening.

No I will not answer your simple request. You have setup a bunch of straw-men based on misstatements and factual errors (no the science does not predict cyclones will increase*. It's a lot more complicated than that and it would require a complex explanation. In addition, species have been displaced**. The scientific literature is filled with hundreds of papers documenting range shifts in the direction predicted by warming. And the atmosphere has warmed in time-frames meaningful to many systems - just three examples of the type of misleading statements you make). And I will not use simple explanations, nor refrain from posting links, or graphs, or pictures of my cat. Who are you to set the terms of a debate? I will gladly share what I know with other readers, but I have no time for games. And I will only debate people who at least get the premises of their arguments correct.

*"Has there been an increase in late-season tropical storm activity?
Hurricane experts agree that global warming has not led to an increase in the number of tropical cyclones occurring world-wide, and are currently debating whether or not global warming has affected tropical cyclone intensity...."
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMa ... ason-activ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

**Rapid Range Shifts of Species Associated with High Levels of Climate Warming
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6 ... 4.abstract" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

***And the stock just keeps rising:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Streamtracker & Coydog .. nice to have you back.

I would suggest you didn't answer my simple request for a simple explanation of how any other purported effect of CO2 can be justified with a chain of casual events... if the primary effect, warming of the atmosphere, is NOT happening.

No I will not answer your simple request. You have setup a bunch of straw-men based on misstatements and factual errors (no the science does not predict cyclones will increase*. It's a lot more complicated than that and it would require a complex explanation. In addition, species have been displaced**. The scientific literature is filled with hundreds of papers documenting range shifts in the direction predicted by warming. And the atmosphere has warmed in time-frames meaningful to many systems - just three examples of the type of misleading statements you make). And I will not use simple explanations, nor refrain from posting links, or graphs, or pictures of my cat. Who are you to set the terms of a debate? I will gladly share what I know with other readers, but I have no time for games. And I will only debate people who at least get the premises of their arguments correct.

*"Has there been an increase in late-season tropical storm activity?
Hurricane experts agree that global warming has not led to an increase in the number of tropical cyclones occurring world-wide, and are currently debating whether or not global warming has affected tropical cyclone intensity...."
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMa ... ason-activ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

**Rapid Range Shifts of Species Associated with High Levels of Climate Warming
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6 ... 4.abstract" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

***And the stock just keeps rising:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh well... keep moving the goal posts... someone might think you are winning.

My requests are not onerous and my encapsulations,for the sake of brevity, represents claims that have been made by many climate scientists... you can DENY this but every sane human reading these posts knows that these are the basic arguments used in climate science to predict various disastrous outcomes.

You wouldn't answer any of my examples but thankfully posted one of your own....

SO.... if you would, you are I am told a teacher, explain in your own words how species are displaced by CO2 if there is NO ATMOSPHERIC WARMING??????

I politely await your considered response... pretend I am one of your students if it helps.

[Streamtracker]

Streamtracker & Coydog .. nice to have you back.

I would suggest you didn't answer my simple request for a simple explanation of how any other purported effect of CO2 can be justified with a chain of casual events... if the primary effect, warming of the atmosphere, is NOT happening.

No I will not answer your simple request. You have setup a bunch of straw-men based on misstatements and factual errors (no the science does not predict cyclones will increase*. It's a lot more complicated than that and it would require a complex explanation. In addition, species have been displaced**. The scientific literature is filled with hundreds of papers documenting range shifts in the direction predicted by warming. And the atmosphere has warmed in time-frames meaningful to many systems - just three examples of the type of misleading statements you make). And I will not use simple explanations, nor refrain from posting links, or graphs, or pictures of my cat. Who are you to set the terms of a debate? I will gladly share what I know with other readers, but I have no time for games. And I will only debate people who at least get the premises of their arguments correct.

*"Has there been an increase in late-season tropical storm activity?
Hurricane experts agree that global warming has not led to an increase in the number of tropical cyclones occurring world-wide, and are currently debating whether or not global warming has affected tropical cyclone intensity...."
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMa ... ason-activ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

**Rapid Range Shifts of Species Associated with High Levels of Climate Warming
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6 ... 4.abstract" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

***And the stock just keeps rising:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh well... keep moving the goal posts... someone might think you are winning.

Setup artificial rules of debate and some might think you are, Mr. Keeper of the Goal posts. I will leave you to score some more self-goals.

[SkierOfTrees]

"I would suggest you didn't answer my simple request for a simple explanation of how any other purported effect of CO2 can be justified with a chain of casual events... if the primary effect, warming of the atmosphere, is NOT happening."

Except it is happening. Sorry you are wrong. See the simple graph below.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Streamtracker & Coydog .. nice to have you back.

I would suggest you didn't answer my simple request for a simple explanation of how any other purported effect of CO2 can be justified with a chain of casual events... if the primary effect, warming of the atmosphere, is NOT happening.

No I will not answer your simple request. You have setup a bunch of straw-men based on misstatements and factual errors (no the science does not predict cyclones will increase*. It's a lot more complicated than that and it would require a complex explanation. In addition, species have been displaced**. The scientific literature is filled with hundreds of papers documenting range shifts in the direction predicted by warming. And the atmosphere has warmed in time-frames meaningful to many systems - just three examples of the type of misleading statements you make). And I will not use simple explanations, nor refrain from posting links, or graphs, or pictures of my cat. Who are you to set the terms of a debate? I will gladly share what I know with other readers, but I have no time for games. And I will only debate people who at least get the premises of their arguments correct.

*"Has there been an increase in late-season tropical storm activity?
Hurricane experts agree that global warming has not led to an increase in the number of tropical cyclones occurring world-wide, and are currently debating whether or not global warming has affected tropical cyclone intensity...."
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMa ... ason-activ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

**Rapid Range Shifts of Species Associated with High Levels of Climate Warming
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6 ... 4.abstract" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

***And the stock just keeps rising:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh well... keep moving the goal posts... someone might think you are winning.

Setup artificial rules of debate and some might think you are, Mr. Keeper of the Goal posts. I will leave you to score some more self-goals.

Not sure how asking honestly and politely for an explanation of something you claim to truly understand represents "artificial rules of debate" but...so be it.

I truly respect your passion and sincerity even though we disagree on specifics concerning climate science. I am not seeking either vindication for myself nor shame for my "opponents" in this debate. I truly seek the truth.

I hope we can agree the skiing has been wonderful lately.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

"I would suggest you didn't answer my simple request for a simple explanation of how any other purported effect of CO2 can be justified with a chain of casual events... if the primary effect, warming of the atmosphere, is NOT happening."

Except it is happening. Sorry you are wrong. See the simple graph below.

Sorry buddy but the graph you are using shows a thirty year running average, (I think) it certainly has a long time scale smoothing. If you look at the actual data, not the smoothed average...you can see the graph ends(in 2010 not 2014) with a plateau. And this is NOAA/ NCDC data which is notoriously adjusted. Please look at the satellite data (RSS or UAH) for better data.

Also please notice the warming starts in 1880 on your graph. This is well before the modern increase in CO2.

It is quite easy to learn that virtually everyone, including"consensus" scientists admit there has been a "pause" in the warming for at least 15 years. Incredibly easy to validate this on the internet. I have stopped posting links..none of my "opponents" seem to even open them I suspect.

[Coydog]

"I would suggest you didn't answer my simple request for a simple explanation of how any other purported effect of CO2 can be justified with a chain of casual events... if the primary effect, warming of the atmosphere, is NOT happening."

Except it is happening. Sorry you are wrong. See the simple graph below.

Sorry buddy but the graph you are using shows a thirty year running average, (I think) it certainly has a long time scale smoothing. If you look at the actual data, not the smoothed average...you can see the graph ends(in 2010 not 2014) with a plateau. And this is NOAA/ NCDC data which is notoriously adjusted. Please look at the satellite data (RSS or UAH) for better data.

Also please notice the warming starts in 1880 on your graph. This is well before the modern increase in CO2.

It is quite easy to learn that virtually everyone, including"consensus" scientists admit there has been a "pause" in the warming for at least 15 years. Incredibly easy to validate this on the internet. I have stopped posting links..none of my "opponents" seem to even open them I suspect.

No, the graph is an annual average of land and ocean temperatures from 1880 compared to the average temperature from 1901 to 2000. There is no "long time scaling". Blue bars indicate deviations below the baseline average and red above. The black line you apparently mistake for a 30 year moving average is actually CO2 concentration. In no way does the graph indicate warming beginning in 1880. In fact, it quite clearly shows an distinct warming trend beginning around 1980 even though there is considerable variation in year-to-year temperatures. You are correct the data source is NOAA and is publicly available, but all of your other comments regarding the graph are wrong. As to your 15 year data window:

1. a 15 year interval measures changes in weather, not climate
2. speaking of weather, 15 of the warmest years recorded occurred between 1997 and 2012
3. climate change is global, with many manifestations, you seem preoccupied with one rate metric over a short interval
4. no one suggested natural variability would somehow cease
5. no one suggested average surface temperatures would rise monotonically

It's pretty clear to me you have "settled" into a contrarian view of climate change (along with Christy, Lindzen and precious few others), and no amount of actual published science can alter your position. That's OK by me, everybody is entitled to their own opinion. For myself, I'm betting the odds are better than chance the vast majority of credible climate scientists are most likely correct.

[Rime & Reason]

Coydog you beat me to it.

Sgt Eddy Brewers has once again shown both his ignorance, and his arrogance. For a self-proclaimed, self-taught climate scientist I would expect him to be able to interpret a simple graph. Hey, we all make mistakes, but we do not all pretend to be an expert at something and then not only fail to understand a simple graph on the subject, but then call out the guy that posted it, repeatedly, and wrongly, pointing out all sorts of phantom problems that only he sees. That is the real point here. Your whole argument is that you fancy yourself as a true scientist that can see through the flaws in what is presented as global warming evidence. Sgt Eddy, if you fail so badly at interpreting a simple graph, how can you expect us to believe your rants against the real and complicated data presented by actual climate scientists?

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Coydog you beat me to it.

Sgt Eddy Brewers has once again shown both his ignorance, and his arrogance. For a self-proclaimed, self-taught climate scientist I would expect him to be able to interpret a simple graph. Hey, we all make mistakes, but we do not all pretend to be an expert at something and then not only fail to understand a simple graph on the subject, but then call out the guy that posted it, repeatedly, and wrongly, pointing out all sorts of phantom problems that only he sees. That is the real point here. Your whole argument is that you fancy yourself as a true scientist that can see through the flaws in what is presented as global warming evidence. Sgt Eddy, if you fail so badly at interpreting a simple graph, how can you expect us to believe your rants against the real and complicated data presented by actual climate scientists?

OK yes...sorry about the mistake in reading your graph...I was supposed to be reading with my second grader so I was distracted.

My bad on that.

But... looking at that graph... it justifies every claim I am making. The temperature rise begins well before the rise in CO2...at around the turn of the century. And there is clearly a plateau forming near the end of the data set.

If you want to show that the warming has continued over the last 15 years, it has not, show a graph of the last 15 years.

Your attitude about science and scientists is on display in your post.

No one needs to "be a scientist" to use a scientific approach to finding the truth. I made a mistake reading a graph late one night. I admit I made that mistake. That is what people who are seeking the truth might do. In fact I have been paid to "be a scientist" most of my life...although that fact is irrelevant.

Anyone can see that your graph shows a plateau in the temperature trend. Again sorry about misreading your graph initial...glad I could bring you so much joy with my simple error here. I hope you can still see that other than proving I am human and capable of error this incident proves nothing about climate science.

I could post a link, if you NEED me to (you should already be aware of this) that James Hansen, who was in charge of the NASA/GISS data set used an entire wrong month of data from an entire country (September for October from Russia) when constructing the GISS global temperature anomaly. This made it look like the hottest October ever... and he held a press conference to breathlessly announce this. When "denier" Steve McKintyre pointed out his mistake he quietly changed the published data.

That is a HUGE mistake, by one of your heroes, a "climate scientist", who is paid to get things right, and held a press conference to announce his terrifying conclusion, then was corrected by a "denialist." There was never a mea culpa or press conference to announce the retraction.

Mea culpa. My bad. Sorry about that. I made a mistake. GGlad it brought you joy. I admit my mistakes when someone points them out to me. Andby the way....thanks you for pointing out my mistake you are quite right about that point and I stand corrected.

My point about the "pause" still stands though.

[jpski]

It is amazing to me how many deniers there are, the science behind climate change is quit simple. If one is too understand combustion and the products of it, and also the Earths carbon Cycle, it is clear to what is happening. With this science in hand and the physical readings that are out there, one has too be a special kind of ignorant to believe this problem is not in front of us!

If you don't believe in this science, please don't use your car or electricity, because the science behind these two benefits of life is the same as the science behind climate change.

[Bubba]

The worst thing that happened to climate science over the past 30 years is the politicization of science. If we can look solely at the science and treat policy prescriptions separately, we can probably agree far more than we disagree. I think we all agree that:

a. The planet has been warming over the past 50 - 75 years
b. The theory of greenhouse gas as a contributing factor is plausible
c. Energy efficiency is a worthwhile investment for everyone, be they residential, commercial or industrial
d. Improving air quality is worthwhile for everyone
e. Predictive models of temperature worldwide have been inconclusive at best and significantly incorrect at worst
f. We have a limited understanding of climate and the interaction of many factors on climate including among other things, CO2 concentrations, ocean absorption, solar activity, other atmospheric pollutants, and many, many more

We begin to run into problems and disagreements when politicians and others declare that global warming is "settled science" and we must do something now or Kiribati will cease to exist in X number of years, lower Manhattan will flood and ocean front communities will be destroyed. It is then and only then that policy prescriptions get drawn up and sold as the cure for projected dire consequences. Then, when the models these projections are drawn from don't predict accurately or even close to accurately, people question the science as well as the policy prescriptions. It is the mixing of the two sides of this that to me is the real problem we face. You're either with us or against us. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. If you question the science or the modeling or the policies that rise from them, you're a denier. Those kinds of fixed in concrete attitudes do nothing to move the science forward and certainly do nothing but put additional money in political coffers.

I return to my earlier position. Given the reasonable plausibility of the theory, take reasonable and economically justifiable steps to reduce emissions and continue with scientific study and technological development that will eventually replace fossil fuels as a contributing factor to greenhouse gas emissions. The "we must do something now to save the planet" approach to policy development is over the top and not justifiable based on what we know today.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

It is amazing to me how many deniers there are, the science behind climate change is quit simple. If one is too understand combustion and the products of it, and also the Earths carbon Cycle, it is clear to what is happening. With this science in hand and the physical readings that are out there, one has too be a special kind of ignorant to believe this problem is not in front of us!

If you don't believe in this science, please don't use your car or electricity, because the science behind these two benefits of life is the same as the science behind climate change.

Wow! it that a troll comment? "quit simple" "too understand"

It really bothers me to see comments that so misunderstand what science is.

It is not a set of beliefs.

That is a religion.

Science is a process. It is a strategy for finding the truth. An absolutely key component of the PROCESS OF SCIENCE is for people to ask critical questions about any set of ideas. If these questions can be explained or rebutted we move forward knowing something more clearly.

Someone that asks a question to clarify how a process in nature is supposed to occur is not "a special kind of ignorant"... in fact that person is actually...DOING SCIENCE.

So jpski... you would contend that Will Happer, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Hal Lewis and all the other highly qualified dissenters from the consensus are actually ..."a special kind of ignorant?" Do you know more than they do about the relevant science? If you do please indicate your credentials.

Bless you my friend... your misplaced religious belief in the pronouncements of "consensus science" seems like the signature of a culture in decline. It is no wonder that our science testing scores continue to decline.

I actually understand most of what happens in electrical systems and cars...at least the majority of the physics involved. I am not a "disbeliever in science" as you seem to allege.

I have a career where I have been paid for my expertise in molecular biology, physical chemistry and oceanography. I have been paid to consult on a variety of scientific/ engineering endeavors. I not only "believe in evolution" I can explain it really well, in detail, including the flaws commonly accepted by folks like Stephan Gould. I would venture that I have contributed much more to the advancement of technology through science than you ever will. So don't lecture me on my betrayal of the scientific enterprise.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

The worst thing that happened to climate science over the past 30 years is the politicization of science. If we can look solely at the science and treat policy prescriptions separately, we can probably agree far more than we disagree. I think we all agree that:

a. The planet has been warming over the past 50 - 75 years
b. The theory of greenhouse gas as a contributing factor is plausible
c. Energy efficiency is a worthwhile investment for everyone, be they residential, commercial or industrial
d. Improving air quality is worthwhile for everyone
e. Predictive models of temperature worldwide have been inconclusive at best and significantly incorrect at worst
f. We have a limited understanding of climate and the interaction of many factors on climate including among other things, CO2 concentrations, ocean absorption, solar activity, other atmospheric pollutants, and many, many more

We begin to run into problems and disagreements when politicians and others declare that global warming is "settled science" and we must do something now or Kiribati will cease to exist in X number of years, lower Manhattan will flood and ocean front communities will be destroyed. It is then and only then that policy prescriptions get drawn up and sold as the cure for projected dire consequences. Then, when the models these projections are drawn from don't predict accurately or even close to accurately, people question the science as well as the policy prescriptions. It is the mixing of the two sides of this that to me is the real problem we face. You're either with us or against us. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. If you question the science or the modeling or the policies that rise from them, you're a denier. Those kinds of fixed in concrete attitudes do nothing to move the science forward and certainly do nothing but put additional money in political coffers.

I return to my earlier position. Given the reasonable plausibility of the theory, take reasonable and economically justifiable steps to reduce emissions and continue with scientific study and technological development that will eventually replace fossil fuels as a contributing factor to greenhouse gas emissions. The "we must do something now to save the planet" approach to policy development is over the top and not justifiable based on what we know today.

I think everything you have said is sane and reasonable.

[madhatter]

The worst thing that happened to climate science over the past 30 years is the politicization of science. If we can look solely at the science and treat policy prescriptions separately, we can probably agree far more than we disagree. I think we all agree that:

a. The planet has been warming over the past 50 - 75 years
b. The theory of greenhouse gas as a contributing factor is plausible
c. Energy efficiency is a worthwhile investment for everyone, be they residential, commercial or industrial
d. Improving air quality is worthwhile for everyone
e. Predictive models of temperature worldwide have been inconclusive at best and significantly incorrect at worst
f. We have a limited understanding of climate and the interaction of many factors on climate including among other things, CO2 concentrations, ocean absorption, solar activity, other atmospheric pollutants, and many, many more

We begin to run into problems and disagreements when politicians and others declare that global warming is "settled science" and we must do something now or Kiribati will cease to exist in X number of years, lower Manhattan will flood and ocean front communities will be destroyed. It is then and only then that policy prescriptions get drawn up and sold as the cure for projected dire consequences. Then, when the models these projections are drawn from don't predict accurately or even close to accurately, people question the science as well as the policy prescriptions. It is the mixing of the two sides of this that to me is the real problem we face. You're either with us or against us. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. If you question the science or the modeling or the policies that rise from them, you're a denier. Those kinds of fixed in concrete attitudes do nothing to move the science forward and certainly do nothing but put additional money in political coffers.

I return to my earlier position. Given the reasonable plausibility of the theory, take reasonable and economically justifiable steps to reduce emissions and continue with scientific study and technological development that will eventually replace fossil fuels as a contributing factor to greenhouse gas emissions. The "we must do something now to save the planet" approach to policy development is over the top and not justifiable based on what we know today.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

I had written.....

"I could post a link, if you NEED me to (you should already be aware of this) that James Hansen, who was in charge of the NASA/GISS data set used an entire wrong month of data from an entire country (September for October from Russia) when constructing the GISS global temperature anomaly. This made it look like the hottest October ever... and he held a press conference to breathlessly announce this. When "denier" Steve McKintyre pointed out his mistake he quietly changed the published data."

so anyway here is a user-friendly link to the event I mentioned:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... -heat.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In case you doubted it.