How Global Warming Really Works

[RobDownSouth]

It only deals with the raw data and not the compensation for the expected natural cyclic fluctuations of the planetary climate system. Heat sensors have no agendas - their objectivity was never in question.

John Cook (he's the guy behind the site you're linking to) however is very much biased and is a skilled "cherry-picker". You wont find anything on his site that isn't in accordance with scripture.

Shoot that messenger! Pew Pew Pew!

Ignore Inconvenient Facts!

 

[dan_c00000]

Shoot that messenger! Pew Pew Pew!

Ignore Inconvenient Facts!

If you notice he never responded to how all of the deniers are on the take from Exxon, Koch, etc. He thinks a dentist is more informed on the subject.

 

[KingOrfeo]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cold.png

 

[StrangeLife]

Shoot that messenger! Pew Pew Pew!

Ignore Inconvenient Facts!

Source criticism Rob. You have to do it - especially when dealing with politics. You'll get very different interpretations depending on who you ask, so if you skimp on your sources you're setting yourself up for being played... and not in the kinky sexy-lingerie-kinda-way.

If you notice he never responded to how all of the deniers are on the take from Exxon, Koch, etc. He thinks a dentist is more informed on the subject.

I could spend days running through everything, doing background checks and verifying facts, but it would still not convince you Dan. I could show you that most of your so-called "sources" have personal agendas or financial incentives to say what they're saying, and it would still not move you an inch. Instead I would get another volley of stuff uncritically copied from some propaganda website, and I could start all over refuting it in details.

But it would still not make a difference. Because you have done away with critical thinking and decided to simply go with the flow. At this point I doubt I could convince you that 1 + 1 = 2....

 

[RobDownSouth]

Source criticism Rob. You have to do it - especially when dealing with politics. You'll get very different interpretations depending on who you ask, so if you skimp on your sources you're setting yourself up for being played... and not in the kinky sexy-lingerie-kinda-way.

You can shine it up, stick a bow on it and re-christen it as "source criticism"....but it's still the same old "shoot the messenger" trope to me.

Pew x 3.

 

[StrangeLife]

You can shine it up, stick a bow on it and re-christen it as "source criticism"....but it's still the same old "shoot the messenger" trope to me.

Pew x 3.

So source criticism of any kind is "shoot the messenger" as far as you're concerned? Or is it only climate conspirators who get a free-pass?


A: The world is 6000 years old. The Bible says so.

B: I question your source.

A: Go ahead. Shoot the messenger.

 

[dan_c00000]

So source criticism of any kind is "shoot the messenger" as far as you're concerned? Or is it only climate conspirators who get a free-pass?


A: The world is 6000 years old. The Bible says so.

B: I question your source.

A: Go ahead. Shoot the messenger.

Another dodge of the question. Another pointless example. It's easy to counter your lack of logic. What if you're not Christian?

You really need to go back to third grade and try again. Maybe vette can help you. He can't think for himself either.

 

[StrangeLife]

Another dodge of the question. Another pointless example. It's easy to counter your lack of logic. What if you're not Christian?

You really need to go back to third grade and try again. Maybe vette can help you. He can't think for himself either.

Congratulations Dan - you hit the nail on the head.

I am not religious and therefore I do not consider the Bible "the word of God." Consequently it's value as a source is low unless I can double check the information I get from it. So far so good. You got it right.

But you seem to fail to draw the parallel to your own religion - The Church Of Global Warming. When I insist on fact checking their information you suddenly accuse me of "being unable to think for myself." I mean, seriously? You copy and regurgitate everything they tell you without question and you accuse me of not thinking for myself??? Gee. Talk about the tail wagging the dog...

 

[phrodeau]

Congratulations Dan - you hit the nail on the head.

I am not religious and therefore I do not consider the Bible "the word of God." Consequently it's value as a source is low unless I can double check the information I get from it. So far so good. You got it right.

But you seem to fail to draw the parallel to your own religion - The Church Of Global Warming. When I insist on fact checking their information you suddenly accuse me of "being unable to think for myself." I mean, seriously? You copy and regurgitate everything they tell you without question and you accuse me of not thinking for myself??? Gee. Talk about the tail wagging the dog...

When you claim that gravity isn't real and pull out a helium balloon to prove it, we're going to look askance at you.

 

[StrangeLife]

When you claim that gravity isn't real and pull out a helium balloon to prove it, we're going to look askance at you.

Bad analogy Phrodeau.

Gravity is the centerpiece of the greatest and most important book ever written and isn't based on any wild theories or conjecture. It's effects are described through pure mathematics and mechanics - beautifully simple.

Isaac Newton had no agenda, wasn't paid by shady so-called environmental organizations and wasn't interested in global politics. Edmond Halley asked him a straight question - "Dude, how does the universe work?" - and Newton answered him.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Globall Warning finally arrived...

My blue koi turned orange and my copper koi turned blue, but they were up and feeding for the first time yesterday. One of my orange koi turned gold...

The forsythia is still yellow as are the daffodils.

What we do not know exceeds what we do know, for example:

The team wondered whether methane-producing bacteria in particular, a genus known as Methanosarcina could have caused the carbon-dioxide overdose. In this theory, microbes that munched on the carbon-based chemical acetate produced huge amounts of methane, which would then be converted into CO2 by other microbes. The formation of CO2, in turn, would have used up free oxygen in the atmosphere. Those oxygen-starved conditions could have then caused a cascade of events that made life impossible.

The team used rates of gene mutation to estimate that Methanosarcina acquired the genes to make methane from acetate about 250 million years ago, right around the time of the extinction.

But in order to produce so much methane so quickly, the microbes would have needed ample supplies of nickel for critical metabolic functions.

Sure enough, when the team looked at the geological sediments, they found the volcanic activity at the time had produced transient surges in nickel. The volcanism also initially led to oxygen-starved conditions in the oceans, which prevented the normal microbial communities from breaking down carbon, leaving a huge stockpile of acetate.

Enter Methanosarcina. With their newly evolved ability to break down acetate, they flourished, producing more methane. This methane production created a positive feedback loop, worsening the oxygen-starved conditions that allowed them to take over in the first place.

Many causes

The findings suggest the Siberian Traps may have fueled the massive bloom in methane-producing microbes. That, in turn, caused carbon-dioxide levels to skyrocket, acidifying the oceans (because the dissolved CO2 turns into carbonic acid in the sea), warming the planet and poisoning the air.

"The volcano was the catalyst or the primer for the much larger release of CO2 that was caused biologically," Fournier told Live Science.

But although the bacteria played a large role, there was probably a cascade of interdependent events that led to such a catastrophic decline.

"It could have been a very-long-term successive disruption of all of Earth's ecosystems," Fournier said.

The amount of methane-producing bacteria subsided after about 100,000 years, but the damage had been done: It would take another 30 million years for the diversity of life to rebound, Fournier said.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014...sed-earth-biggest-extinction/?intcmp=features

There are reports of animals fleeing Yellowstone, as we experience earthquakes in Chile and California, it might be kept in mind that theory that they are in tune with that sort of thing on an instinctual level.

 

[Ishmael]

Globall Warning finally arrived...

My blue koi turned orange and my copper koi turned blue, but they were up and feeding for the first time yesterday. One of my orange koi turned gold...

The forsythia is still yellow as are the daffodils.

What we do not know exceeds what we do know, for example:


http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014...sed-earth-biggest-extinction/?intcmp=features

There are reports of animals fleeing Yellowstone, as we experience earthquakes in Chile and California, it might be kept in mind that theory that they are in tune with that sort of thing on an instinctual level.

If we give HadCRUT enough money they'll come up with a plan to save us all.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I need a way to extract dwindling oxygen from the atmosphere...


Then I'm set.

 

[StrangeLife]

...my copper koi turned blue...

It could be in an unhappy relationship.... or maybe planning on taking guitar lessons...




On a more serious note, Yellowstone could easily turn out to be the cause of some serious stuff in the future and create a genuine threat to the biosphere. Not the trumped up conspiracy bull from The Church Of Global Warming, but an actual climate crisis.

If Yellowstone goes off, it will be like a trillion simultaneous atmosphere-killing cow-farts with the added complication of sufficient magma to cover all of Wyoming and most of the neighboring states. And then I might start taking the conspiracy crowd seriously...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Ishmael had a good thread on that some time back.


So, did my blue to orange fish come out of the closet?

 

[StrangeLife]

So, did my blue to orange fish come out of the closet?

I didn't want to mention it. I think he should tell you himself. It's an important part of the coming out process...

 

[RobDownSouth]

So source criticism of any kind is "shoot the messenger" as far as you're concerned? Or is it only climate conspirators who get a free-pass?


A: The world is 6000 years old. The Bible says so.

B: I question your source.

A: Go ahead. Shoot the messenger.

Let's try to not ascribe positions to me, okay?

When you unilaterally disparage a critic simply because of who they are (*gasp*, "it's so-and-so, he has an AGENDA!"), as opposed to the proof they deliver, then you are guilty of "shooting the messenger" (or as you like to prettify it as "source criticism").

I hope this clears thing up.

With regard to your specious example above, it's not so much "questioning the source" as it is "questioning your interpretation of the source"

Put another way:
A: The races should not be mixed. The Bible says so.

B: I question your interpretation of the Bible.

A: Go ahead. Shoot the messenger. I'm a persecuted Christian!

There IS a difference between fact and opinion, although Wingnut Nation works tirelessly to blur the line.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I didn't want to mention it. I think he should tell you himself. It's an important part of the coming out process...

I think his only concern is the handouts I provide.

 

[StrangeLife]

There IS a difference between fact and opinion, although Wingnut Nation works tirelessly to blur the line.

Agreed - there is, but any fact which eludes mathematical proof must be evaluated in the context of it's source. If you turn in an academic paper without valid source criticism you can wait a long time for your degree.

And furthermore we are specifically dealing with an area of science that is so polluted with politics and special interests that extreme caution is needed. This is definitely not a field where propaganda-regurgitation is advised because both sides are waging massive campaigns, buying politicians and scientists left and right and are using advertisement and spin-doctor tricks all over the place.

I am of course being a little sarcastic with my "Church Of Global Warming" references, but the reason I came up with that term was, that the only other time I have been bashed this relentlessly for being a critical thinker is when facing off against religion.

And here I am - looking at what is allegedly "science," yet I am apparently not permitted to check it's validity scientifically. At least not without immediately earning a dismissal as "one of them." You gotta admit that is just a little bit funny...

I think his only concern is the handouts I provide.

When you feed him, does he stare at the food or your finger? In the latter case you might need to prepare yourself and the family...

 

[phrodeau]

(edited)

Agreed - there is, but any fact which eludes mathematical proof must be evaluated in the context of it's source. If you turn in an academic paper without valid source criticism you can wait a long time for your degree.

And furthermore we are specifically dealing with an area of science that is so polluted with politics and special interests that extreme caution is needed. This is definitely not a field where propaganda-regurgitation is advised because both sides are waging massive campaigns, buying politicians and scientists left and right and are using advertisement and spin-doctor tricks all over the place.

I am of course being a little sarcastic with my "Church Of Global Warming" references, but the reason I came up with that term was, that the only other time I have been bashed this relentlessly for being a critical thinker is when facing off against religion.

And here I am - looking at what is allegedly "science," yet I am apparently not permitted to check it's validity scientifically. At least not without immediately earning a dismissal as "one of them." You gotta admit that is just a little bit funny...

What makes you think that politics and special interests have anything to do with the conclusions reached by the JMA? They're the same conclusions that NASA and NOAA reached, with different data sets.

Let's have a little source criticism of the JMA. And then we'll move on to some of the other independent climate groups and their politics and special interest influences. OK?

 

[dan_c00000]

What's funny is that Stranger will take nothing at fact. Because he lacks the ability to understand the evidence and relies on sources with a known bias (which he's yet to address) he plays the "I'm giving both sides equal weight" card.

Much like, evolution, there is no debate. As I've shown. Poor stranger he tries really hard to ignore the evidence and winds up looking like a bitch.

Now he could actually look up real evidence but he'd rather just troll which is fine but it is funny to watch him argue for the <1% of paid hacks.

Anyway, go check their work. You'll see it holds up and then you can create a new thread titled "Sorry, sir".

 

[StrangeLife]

What makes you think that politics and special interests have anything to do with the conclusions reached by the JMA? They're the same conclusions that NASA and NOAA reached, with different data sets.

Let's have a little source criticism of the JMA. And then we'll move on to some of the other independent climate groups and their politics and special interest influences. OK?

Technically that should be the responsibility of the poster, right?

Oh well - I recognise the meteorological expertise of the JMA of course. Their agenda is Japans extreme sensitivity to climate-changes. They're in a sweet-spot right now and that has made them a bit... well hysteric. They're especially worried about tsunamis.

What they have basically discovered is that 2013 was the second hottest year since 1891, which was the hottest. They must really have been bad back in 1891. Cowfarts maybe? And they have calculated a slight increase in global temperature over the last century - very slight, 0.69 degrees/century. Considering the growth of the human population during the same period and the deforestation of the planet, that's hardly significant.


While their data is solid and beyond question, they do make an unsubstantiated claim which sounds more political than scientific...

The recent high temperatures are thought to be explained by the combined effect of the global warming trend due to increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations including carbon dioxide, and decadal natural fluctuations intrinsic to the earth’s climate

This is clearly not "science" - this is speculation at best. "Are though to be explained"???? By whom and on what grounds?

But leave that paragraph out, and the report is fairly ok.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Agreed - there is, but any fact which eludes mathematical proof must be evaluated in the context of it's source. If you turn in an academic paper without valid source criticism you can wait a long time for your degree.

And furthermore we are specifically dealing with an area of science that is so polluted with politics and special interests that extreme caution is needed. This is definitely not a field where propaganda-regurgitation is advised because both sides are waging massive campaigns, buying politicians and scientists left and right and are using advertisement and spin-doctor tricks all over the place.

I am of course being a little sarcastic with my "Church Of Global Warming" references, but the reason I came up with that term was, that the only other time I have been bashed this relentlessly for being a critical thinker is when facing off against religion.

And here I am - looking at what is allegedly "science," yet I am apparently not permitted to check it's validity scientifically. At least not without immediately earning a dismissal as "one of them." You gotta admit that is just a little bit funny...

You might be surprised that I actually agree with you to a point.

I simply draw the line at arbitrarily dismissing a source because he/she don't fit one's preconceived bias.

Having said that, I will admit that I don't "eat my own dog food" from time to time, for example, anything and everything that comes from the bowels of the Creation Institute I assume to be a lie. I base my assumption on the long history of the Creation Institute of lying and deception. Conservapedia is another automatic disqualification in my mind as well.

Those are exceptions to the rule.

 

[phrodeau]

Technically that should be the responsibility of the poster, right?

Oh well - I recognise the meteorological expertise of the JMA of course. Their agenda is Japans extreme sensitivity to climate-changes. They're in a sweet-spot right now and that has made them a bit... well hysteric. They're especially worried about tsunamis.

What they have basically discovered is that 2013 was the second hottest year since 1891, which was the hottest. They must really have been bad back in 1891. Cowfarts maybe? And they have calculated a slight increase in global temperature over the last century - very slight, 0.69 degrees/century. Considering the growth of the human population during the same period and the deforestation of the planet, that's hardly significant.


While their data is solid and beyond question, they do make an unsubstantiated claim which sounds more political than scientific...



This is clearly not "science" - this is speculation at best. "Are though to be explained"???? By whom and on what grounds?

But leave that paragraph out, and the report is fairly ok.

Holy shit.

1891 was not the hottest year on record. 1891 was the first year that there was a reliable standard worldwide for temperature recording. So when they say a year was the hottest since 1891, they mean the hottest ever reliably recorded worldwide. Jees.

And .69 degrees per century is not "very slight". It is unprecedented in human history, and alarming.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/changes-earth-temperature-impact.htm

 

[StrangeLife]

What's funny is that Stranger will take nothing at fact. Because he lacks the ability to understand the evidence and relies on sources with a known bias (which he's yet to address) he plays the "I'm giving both sides equal weight" card.

Much like, evolution, there is no debate. As I've shown. Poor stranger he tries really hard to ignore the evidence and winds up looking like a bitch.

You should have seen me when I wore a pony-tail. I tried to copy the look of Adrian Paul, but somehow my jaw wasn't quite square enough to pull it off...

Now he could actually look up real evidence but he'd rather just troll which is fine but it is funny to watch him argue for the <1% of paid hacks.

Anyway, go check their work. You'll see it holds up and then you can create a new thread titled "Sorry, sir".

Being few is not the same as being wrong Dan.


I am not trolling - I genuinely believe that the popular song and dance is the 2014 equivalent of Halley's Comet (in 1910 the Earth passed through it's tail and many were convinced that all of humanity would die from poison gas)....

http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/halley-newspaper-clip-475x580.jpg


Yes, I suppose could take on John Cook's website and his 20 plus staff, most of which are either retired or paid to do what they're doing.

So it would be me - one unpaid person who has other obligations - against an entire group of well-funded well-connected individuals with nothing else to do. Don Quixote much?

But ok - let's say I did that. What would be my purpose?

Convincing you maybe?

I don't think that is possible at this time Dan. You are not open or seeking - you have "chosen a team" and it's all about point-scoring. You have been swept away by the popular furore and are enjoying the feeling of floating with the masses. It a seductive feeling to be part of something bigger. Ever watched The Wave?

Anyway, you will do that for a while until one day - could be tomorrow... could be in ten years - you will suddenly stop and say "Hey! This shit doesn't make any friggin sense!"

And then you will be ready to make up your own mind with real facts. Don't worry - the planet will still be around. And most likely not warmer than it is today...