Global Warming: Fact or Fiction?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

antitheists do not have proof that there is no god

Strong/positive atheists you mean :3

no I don't.

[Aractus]

Are you going to start showing evidence or are you going to ignore that and keep claiming things? Because you have claimed wrong things in the past and you still haven't acknowledged that. I've asked what source did you use to determine that volcanoes emit CFC, where is it? Link it.

Sorry, I may be wrong about that point. It's not my agenda. My point is to do with exactly what climate science tells us, and how much is left for discussion.

If this is all you're going to do I'm done with this thread. It's like conspiracy theorists, keep claiming evidence is fake while having none of their own.

Not at all. IQ2 Debate 2007 (there's really been no advancement in climate science since then IMHO):





And for comic relief:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc

("Hide the decline" is quoted from the climategate emails).

[pineapplebunnybounce]

yea, quote mining and linking me a debate.

Look this entire thread you've been extremely critical of all the data you do not agree with yet you quite casually stated things as if they were facts and they turned out to be wrong and you're not at all bothered. This is the double standard I'm talking about. The only criteria for data you have is whether or not you agree with it.

I'm done with this.

[Aractus]

Then let me clarify. The vast majority of climate scientists agree that CO2 and the other anthropocentric gasses do contribute to climate change.

The Fourth IPCC report (2007) however made statements in the Summary for Policymakers that not every climate scientist agrees with, and did not go through the proper peer-review process that the rest of the paper did. This meant that only a handful of those high up like Mann got to decide ultimately what it said. The statements made within the summary were presented (politically) as scientific consensus when they were not. On the whole however the report is good, and contains information across a wide range of issues within the science.

The Summary should have had equal contribution from scientists representing all sections of the IPCC report, it did not. It only represents "Working Group I" and from the reports I read I the past, only some of those involved in WGI got to participate in the section. Group II and Group III had no involvement whatsoever in it.

Excerpts from Summary for Policymakers.

• Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the timescales required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere." [link]
  
• It is very likely that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent.
  
• It is likely that increases in greenhouse gas concentrations alone would have caused more warming than observed because volcanic and anthropogenic aerosols have offset some warming that would otherwise have taken place. [link]
  
• It is very unlikely that climate changes of at least the seven centuries prior to 1950 were due to variability generated within the climate system alone. A significant fraction of the reconstructed Northern Hemisphere inter-decadal temperature variability over those centuries is very likely attributable to volcanic eruptions and changes in solar irradiance, and it is likely that anthropogenic forcing contributed to the early 20th-century warming evident in these records.

Many of the statements made were based off the assumption that the planet would warm by 4-8 degrees Celsius or more over the next 100 years, something that is not consensus and has since been revised down.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

This is on the 3rd page of this thread. Right after Lemon first brought up climategate and I asked for a quote and he till now has not come up with one. But hey, the quote mining you did I addressed on the 3rd page. I'll highlight it for you.

I changed my mind. I will engage in a "debate" or whatever. It is an important topic after all.

LemonVariable, about climategate, i got this from wiki:

The material comprised more than 1,000 emails, 2,000 documents, as well as commented source code, pertaining to climate change research covering a period from 1996 until 2009.[28] According to an analysis in The Guardian, the vast majority of the emails related to four climatologists: Phil Jones, the head of the CRU; Keith Briffa, a CRU climatologist specialising in tree ring analysis; Tim Osborn, a climate modeller at CRU; and Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. The four were either recipients or senders of all but 66 of the 1,073 emails, with most of the remainder of the emails being sent from mailing lists. A few other emails were sent by, or to, other staff at the CRU. Jones, Briffa, Osborn and Hulme had written high-profile scientific papers on climate change that had been cited in reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[21]
Most of the emails concerned technical and mundane aspects of climate research, such as data analysis and details of scientific conferences.[29] The Guardian's analysis of the emails suggests that the hacker had filtered them. Four scientists were targeted and a concordance plot shows that the words "data", "climate", "paper", "research", "temperature" and "model" were predominant.[21] The controversy has focused on a small number of emails[29] with 'climate sceptic' websites picking out particular phrases, such as one in which Kevin Trenberth said, "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t".[20] This was actually part of a discussion on the need for better monitoring of the energy flows involved in short-term climate variability,[30] but was grossly mischaracterised by critics.[31][32]
Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said he had used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This 'decline' referred to the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by climate change sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[32] John Tierney, writing in the New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but that the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[33] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.[34][35] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them.[36]

I think it is quite obvious they were not covering up anything. It isn't uncommon for scientists to exchange ideas about the best methods to use to analyze data.

About greenhouse gasses, it's not only how well they absorb heat that matters, it's also their halflife and it's also important to consider where their "sinks" are.

What you say right now has 0 credibility. You basically get your information from media sources and hearsay, you've never seen primary data or their methodology and yet you based your entire argument on how corrupted and biased data is. When media sources are good enough data when they support your point.

This is why this discussion is an utter waste of time.

[Polaris]

A bit of both. Kind of like the reasons for invading Iraq.

[Aractus]

@pineapplebunny - FYI I read the climate gate emails for myself to form my own opinion. They're quite easy to search through (but there are a lot of them so it can take time). I don't think I have them anymore though. I haven't made any comments on what they said other than it proved a culture within climate scientists against sceptical thinking climate scientists. For instance, they talk about how they want to say that they don't consider certain papers to be peer-review (even though they are) in order to discredit research done by sceptics and try and strong arm those papers not to accept peer-review material from climate sceptics. As I said I read it for myself first-hand and if I still had the emails I'd quote it for you (if I find them again I can do it, however I think I deleted them all).

[Belac Enrobso]

A bit of both. Kind of like the reasons for invading Iraq.

Another attempt at thread derailment, please keep watch for this profile, this forum smells like dirty socks.

[Polaris]

A bit of both. Kind of like the reasons for invading Iraq.

Another attempt at thread derailment, please keep watch for this profile, this forum smells like dirty socks.

Shut up troll. Some of us think in analogies, so fuck off.

[Belac Enrobso]

Another attempt at thread derailment, please keep watch for this profile, this forum smells like dirty socks.

Shut up troll. Some of us think in analogies, so fuck off.

Sure...