Global Warming Debate

[camaraderie]

Fair enough Dan!

[majorm]

Oerlemanns, J. (2005) Science 308, 675-677
(note...he is responsible for the blue line only...the rest may be true but is unscientific and not peer reviewed. Oerlemanns is a mmgw advocate, not a skeptic.

Cam- I just read the article you referenced (yes the actual article). The graph you showed is not even in the article and he makes no such conclusion from his data about the rate of change in global glacial size. Unfortunatley, I am not as skilled at inserting attachments and therefore have been unable to upload the actual graph which looks entirely different. Even the blue line which you attribute to him is nowhere in the article. I wish I could insert his graph which is not at all linear.

[sailaway21]

"even though detailed interpretation of the complex processes involved remains difficult"

That's science-speak for "we really don't know" and what follows is just a scientific wild ass guess, or swag. When little Johnny is having a "difficult" time in math class it doesn't mean he's bringing home 'B' grades indicating a 'good' knowledge of the subject, it means he's getting a 'D' or an 'F' and cannot connect the two two's to get a four. Science-speak and teacher-speak both grow out of the same bureaucraticese that requires negatives to be couched in palatable terms. The real world comes uop with more readily perceived terms like snafu.

[majorm]

Sailaway- The point of this article is that there is good data that global glacial retreat is accelerating, not staying the same as Cam has said. To say that the process is complex is an honest scientific point of view, just the kind of objectivity which should, and for the most part is, present in the scientific community. This doesn't mean it isn't happening, just that in this person's opinion may involve other factors than just global warming. Many on this forum have said that the scientists are all beholden to grant money and their results are therefore biased. I think there is a lot of good solid unbiased research just like this. When that body of research is evaluated in total, then you can start making some informed judgements. But you have to deal with the truth, not bending something to fit your opinion.

Can I say with all honesty that I think the connection between global warming and manmade CO2 is 100% proven? No. But at the same time, there is a very large body of research by dedicated independent scientists, the vast majority of which comes to the same conclusion. I don't have a problem with people who want more results before coming to the same opinion I have. What I object to is all the misinformation and politicizing on the topic from both sides (including Gore), which makes it even more difficult for people to reach their own informed conclusion.

The hardest part of this issue is the predictions for what the future holds. For that, we will have to wait and see. Unfortunately, it will not be until we are in the midst of the more pronounced climate change (or not) that public opinion will really change. I just happen to trust the scientific community as a whole.

[sailaway21]

majorm,
I find little to disagree with in your last statement. Thankyou.

[PBzeer]

Would that be the same scientific community that but 30 odd years ago was predicting global cooling? Or would that be the scientific community that lets a bunch of UN bureaucrats write their paper on their findings for the IPCC? Or the scientific communtiy that can't even predict the next Hurricane season accurately?

One of the big problems with the position of the global warming proponents is that they bascially ignore any variable that isn't man-made.

[majorm]

PBzeer-

"Global cooling in general can refer to a cooling of the Earth. More specifically, it refers to a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to press reports following a better understanding of ice age cycles and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s."

See more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

There have been numerous studies looking at non man made contributions to global warming and their significance which are easily accesible if you are interested.

[camaraderie]

Majorm...I do not have the article but I think what is happening is possibly:
1. You are looking at this graph which is a graph of temperature proxies (i.e. warming trends) taken from the ice sheet data in the article. The red line is oerlemanns data. I am NOT talking about temperature rise...I am talking about the rate of reduction of glacial length.
glaciers.jpg


2. The further confusion is that my graph in my last post above FLIPS his graph from the same article so as to fit in the other data in the graph. It simply makes POSITIVE length in the 1850s at the bottom of the graph rather than the top. The graph #2 below is also supposedly from his article and is simply a mirror image of the one above. If you look at the one here you can also see there is no acceleration of the reduction in length of the glaciers over time since 1850 even though short term variation in rate is evident in several spots over the last 150 years.
glaciers2.jpg

Hope that clears it up. The new graphs are from a lecture at U. Delaware here: http://www.mast.udel.edu/628/Lecture2-Hanson.pdf

[PBzeer]

Oh, I'm well aware of a wealth of information on other factors that contribute to climate change (and with how little regard they are held by the gw proponents). It's one of the reasons I can't get too excited about the whole thing. There are far too many influcences on the climate to think that anyone can accurately predict what will happen. Especially as their models will not work if used to predict conditions which have already happened.

I don't doubt that man-made emissions contribute to climate change, BUT, as I mentioned earlier, how much climate change is acceptable? No one knows, nor is there any honest way to know. There is only guessing.

[Rockter]

I am a sceptic. I drive a 1400 cc diesel that, taken slowly, returns 69 miles to the US gal, 83 to the UK gal. It is the SEAT Arosa 1.4 diesel.

I ask, for the second time, what do the non-sceptics drive?

I am all ears.