Climate facts to warm to

[dpeilow]

6) The modelers don't make their data and algorithms public.

I've got too much on today to answer every one of those points (believe me, they can be), but I'll start off with this:

Two minutes using Google Scholar found a couple of papers for you to get going:

http://chaser.env.nagoya-u.ac.jp/~ke..._TAR-FRONT.pdf

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/15...-125-5-875.pdf

They're getting on a bit, but it's a starting point. Many more are available in the scientific press. You can go into any library and request them if you don't want to pay the online subs for the journals.


If you want datasets, plenty are available. Here, for example, is how to get them from the European Space Agency's Earth Observation satellites: ESA Earthnet: How to Access


One of the major climate models is the UK Hadley Centre's HadCM3:

Met Office: Climate Change

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Models 'key to climate forecasts'

This turns up a lot more info, including descriptions and input data. If you want to take that line of research further, I can probably get you a contact there.


It may not be in the mainstream press, but that is far from saying it isn't public. Just get any peer-reviewed journal in this field and you'll find pages of the stuff.

[TEG]

4) The climate varies in cycles. Each cycle is longer than a human life span. It's really tough to judge trends when you die before you collect enough data points.

Um, aren't they working off of historical data from many, many lifetimes ago?
Like glacial core sample and such.
You don't only get to work off of your own dataset. There is so much historical data that can be considered.

[Chris H.]

Bob,

I'm not going to answer you point-by-point because I believe that would be a futile exercise that would achieve nothing. I'm pretty sure it would not change your mind regardless of how thorough my responses were. Instead, let me give you something to think about.

First of all let me concede that absolute proof of anthropogenic global warming does not exist at this point in time. The evidence that we have so far would best be described as "circumstantial", but that does not mean that AGW is not yet occurring. Absolute proof will not exist until after significant, and perhaps catastrophic, GW occurs. At that point it will be far too late for humanity to take any action to correct the problem (for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that global food production will plummet, and we will be starving). There is also the possibility that we will trigger a runaway greenhouse effect similar to what is believed to have occurred on Venus:

NASA - TROPICAL ‘RUNAWAY GREENHOUSE’ PROVIDES INSIGHT TO VENUS

So my question to you is "Should we wait until we have absolute proof of AGW before we do anything, or should we anticipate the problem, and it's effects, and try to mitigate the problem while we still have the capacity to do so?".

I suspect that the real reason that many people choose to ignore, or deny, the possibilty of AGW is because they realize that if they do accept it, they will have to make changes in the way they live their lives. They may have to curb their consumption a little, or be a bit more conscientious about their energy use. The other big factor is the influence of the fossil fuel industry, which, for obvious reasons, wants to maintain the status quo. The FF industry spends hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising and bogus "research" to create the impression that GW is a minor problem that can be dealt with at a later date, or that it is a fallacy created by left-wing crackpots with a political agenda, or that it is a "normal" part of naturally occurring climate cycles. Anything that will create some doubt or delay meaningful action on the issue. And, of course, there are lots of people who prefer to believe this misinformation because it is more palatable to them.

Bob, I notice that your avatar is an image of the Rocket eBook, one of Martin's earlier creations. This leads me to believe that you have some respect for Martin. I don't know how far that goes, but let me direct you to an interview that Martin did in the early days of Tesla Motors (at approx. -2:20):

Interview with Tesla Motors CEO on Yahoo! Video

Anyway Bob, I realise that it's unlikely that I'm going to change your mind about this issue, but hopefully you will give some thought to the consequences of failing to act on the information that we already have about GW.

All the best,

Chris H.

[TEG]

[vfx]

Reminds me of poor GM and the inner conflicts they had while developing the EV1.

[Chris H.]

Since we seem to be treating Fox News as a legitimate source now, , here's another Arctic sea ice story from them:

FOXNews.com - Arctic Ice Especially Thin This Spring, Scientists Say - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News

Actually, it's from the AP. I just found it on their site while looking for a video with better sound quality than the YouTube version of the "Winds of Change" piece.

[TEG]

BlueBox Video Player - weather.com

[domenick]

"How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming"

I find this to be a great, easily understood, source for global warming info.

[WarpedOne]

I find this to be a great, easily understood, source for global warming info.

And I find this to be yet more bullshit.
A single evidence is good when it confirms their story and bad when it counters it? Utter bollocks. I'm holding for my wallet. The sole outcome of this hoax are additional taxes and even more government at our throats.

People are loosing Jesus and finding a new good - Nature. Repent sinners!

[TEG]

( Some comments related to problems with bees got moved here. )