No, it shows what I said, not what your fantasies said. I follow the models and the modelers, but not that closely.
Have you read the Kiehl report? Or can you explain to me what variable the GISS model uses to tune the albedo? Do you know how the models deal with the viscosity problem? Are you aware of what the MAGICC model is, and why the IPCC uses it? Do you even know what V&V and SQA are? Can you explain the Bern model for CO2 sequestration used by most GCMs? Have you ever written a radiation/convection/evaporation climate model? Are you able to speak knowledgeably about sub-grid processes and their potential effect on global averages?
If not, then I’m following the models and the modelers much, much, much more closely than you are. I didn’t say my knowledge of models is all encompassing, but nothing is perfect. I also didn’t say I was stuck in the 70’s. I have an excellent knowledge of models, but I don’t know all the models and all the modelers. So sue me.
That was not dealing with your latest quote but the original “no warming over the last ten years” and with FOX twisting of the climate researcher’s words.
It is not only you that is being pitted after all.
Science Magazine said there’s been no warming in the last ten years. Fox claims that Latif said the US and Europe will cool and the globe may not warm for the next ten years.
Once again, I ask … what was the misrepresentation? Which climate researcher got their words twisted? And whether or not it was Latif, what was the twist?
Thanks for the citation, Gigobuster. Looks like my guess was right, different questions were asked. The citation makes it obvious why the outcome of the polls were different. It does not depend on whether Australia watches Fox.
The US poll asked “Is there solid evidence that the earth is warming?”
The Australia poll, on the other hand, asked an entirely different question, viz: “Do you believe that climate change is occurring?”
Since the climate has been changing for billions of years, ever since there has been a climate, I would say “yes” to the Australian question. So, just like with the American poll, I’m in the majority … go figure.
“listen, I’m not one of the skeptics, if my name was not Latif my name would me Mr. Global Warming”
-Latif From the “Birth of a denial crock” video
You only told part of the truth with the intention to mislead others.
Even Cervantes in El Quixote, several centuries back, did figure out that when someone does tell only part of the truth it is just like lying, because the person does not want others to find the whole truth.
The context shows that finding a ten years or more period of cooling was to be expected, it does not eliminate AGW when researchers acknowledge that. It shows that modelers already predicted those periods of apparent “cooling”. That was not what you did told us on your original posts. Researchers already took complexities into account and Latif’s point was that deniers were going to twist his words.
Sounds to me that he was right on the money on that too.
AGW is very widely accepted here, but I don’t think it’s because of any greater understanding of the science behind it. For example, global warming is often discussed in primary schools, e.g. ‘you can help save the planet by turning off lights when you leave the room’. But my nephew’s first grade teacher told her class that carbon dioxide was a toxic gas that was building up in the atmosphere, and that by the time they were grown-up, they would all be dead from it, unless they turn those lights off. So, widely accepted, yes. Widely understood, not so much.
My guess is because we have so much wilderness here, and we trash it so regularly, it doesn’t seem too far-fetched that we could destroy the environment on a global scale. In an Australian context, it’s pretty obvious that that’s what humans do. It’s a common pattern that we find out we are causing some kind of environmental damage to some ecosystem, or species, or whatever; we scrabble around to work out what to do about it, and we change our ways to be less harmful. AGW is just the same thing on a bigger scale.
Maybe it’s to do with political forces as well, that I don’t know much about. Australia, in general seems much more liberal (left-wing) than America. You can get Fox news on cable, but I don’t know how similar it is to American Fox news, and it’s not a major new source for many people.
Hmm, maybe another reason, Australians pride themselves on their scientists, and we generally trust scientists and respect science, if the climatologists are convinced is good enough for us. As it becomes more of an economic, that will influence people a lot as well, one way or the other. But we are fire-prone and drought-ridden already, so global warming is probably not going to do us any favours.
“The context shows that finding a ten years or more period of cooling was to be expected” … who is twisting words now? It showed that it was to be expected 2.7% of the time, which is very unlikely. You are putting it out there like it was something we’d expect every day. You are saying that models “already predicted” the cooling, based on it showing up in 2.7% of the model results? Now that’s a novel twist.
Nor did I claim that the ten year hiatus in warming meant that it would not warm further, or that global warming was dead, or anything remotely resembling that. Having dealt with your bullshit before, I made it very clear. I said:
and
Now, how is that “only telling part of the truth”? I said that I was not claiming that global warming was in doubt. I said it might start to warm again tomorrow. I said it was warming in 1988, but not in 1970. I said:
So what bases haven’t I covered here, Gigobuster? How are you twisting that into saying I “only told part of the truth”? What part of the “truth” didn’t I mention in all of that?
Are you upset that I don’t know much about Latif, so I didn’t quote the exact quote you quoted? Latif believes that after twenty years of no warming that the warming will start again … am I supposed to be impressed by that? He has no evidence of that, from his models or anything else, so why does that even matter? Yes, Latif believes in CO2 forced AGW … as do many people. So what? His belief means nothing about what we are discussing. Is that really what you are busting me for, that I didn’t say that Latif believes in AGW? That’s the huge twist that brings up Don Quijote? Really? Do you really believe that people are so stupid that instead of writing
you think I have to write
so that people won’t be entirely fooled and totally bamboozled by my evil ways?
Because I don’t think people are that dumb, although you appear to be. So to avoid future problems, I will write “GIGObuster (who believes in AGW) …” so that nobody is deceived.
The weird part to me is that you are arguing against yourself. The fact that Latif supports AGW makes it much more surprising that he is saying we might see no warming for another decade. I’d expect that from somebody who doesn’t support AGW. So you are shooting yourself in the foot, the part I didn’t mention makes my argument stronger, not weaker.
If Latif is right, we have a decade of no warming behind us, and another decade of no warming ahead of us. How about, instead of abusing me, you give us your thoughts on what twenty years of no warming might mean for your pet theories? You should be praying that Latif is wrong, because if we see no warming for another decade, how do you think people will answer in ten years when asked “is the earth warming”? Your poll results then will be very ugly …
GIGObuster (who believes in AGW), you’ve done your usual again, vague spiteful accusations of “misrepresentation” without a fucking thing to back them up. Who is misrepresenting what, where, and how?
Indeed, I do remember a very good historical example of that:
Rabbits are still a problem in Australia. While his efforts were praised at the time, the pioneer settler Thomas Austin has borne the historical brunt of the blame for introducing that pest to Australia.
Funny thing that you make it just my own, most scientists do not agree with you any how, and in reality, neither is Latif, in the same video he reports that the warming is man made, yes, at the same time he insisted that the cooling periods would be misrepresented by the deniers.
As the other cite I posted twice already shows, it not clear that there was cooling, (yet another reason why you are misrepresenting the ten year bit) it is more like ten years of a steady state, and the issue is that if human produced greenhouses gases were not there then the temperature would be cooler that what we have right now.
It is more likely that soon we will see temperatures rise again.
That implies that the Australians only got a question regarding natural warming, that was not the case. It seems that you forgot to scroll down a little more. :rolleyes:
(What else this intrepid researcher is missing thanks to his biases when he searches information for his papers? I’m afraid to even wonder)
Regardless of what the poll question was, Australians, in general, believe in AGW. Not saying that every single Australian does, or that there is no debate whatsoever, but it is widely accepted.
I said “you” because I am talking with you, not with others. I was asking what your opinion is, assuming that you have one … why is that so threatening to you that you want to pawn it off on others and attack me instead of answering?
It is not clear that there was cooling when? And what does this have to do with me? Are you talking about this?
Are you referring to the Science citation? That is unclear as well, since the Science citation says nothing about a ten-year cooling period.
And if so, what does that have to do with me? I’ve already shown that I have said repeatedly that the Science citation doesn’t rule AGW either out or in. Neither does the Latif claim that we’ll see another decade of no warming.
Are you really that obtuse, or do you just play an obtuse person on TV?
What am I missing here? What are you busting me for now? Are you talking about the Science citation that said a ten year flat period was to be expected 2.7% of the time?
Ah, I see, my bad. I assumed that when you said the “survey did also ask a very similar question to Australians” that you were talking about the question “Is climate change occurring?”, as that was the only question which is very similar to the question in the OP, “Is there solid evidence that the earth is warming?”
Upon re-reading your question, I see that you weren’t actually talking about the similar question. You were talking about a totally different and separate question, which was whether warming is caused by humans.
Were I of your mindset, I’d accuse you of trying to deliberately mislead me by saying it was “a very similar question.” However, I don’t think that was the case. I think it was just unclear, and I know that I misunderstood it.
Your continuing assumption that I am on some evil course to mislead people is both unwarranted and wrong, and it reflects very poorly on your character. I answered the question I thought you were talking about, “Is climate change occurring?” My error.
When I was younger, I worked in a number of countries in Africa. It is because of my experiences there that I support the “no-regrets” option. As I mentioned above, this is the path of taking actions which will benefit the poor regardless of whether Gigobuster (who believes in AGW) or I are right about CO2.
While wandering around the web today, I found an article which expresses the issues much better than I could, because it quotes extensively from Africans. Here is a part of the article:
This is what turns my stomach about people like L. G. Butts PhD (who believes in AGW) and GIGObuster (who believes in AGW) who get all self-righteous about how they are so noble, how people who oppose them are “fucking morons”, and how they weep for the stupidity of Americans who have had the temerity to notice that the world is not warming now. (Obligatory GIGObuster disclaimer: although it is not warming now, in the future it will start either warming or cooling again, in case you didn’t know that. I wouldn’t want to mislead anyone into thinking that the world will never warm or cool again …).
Their multi-billion dollar recommended policies, designed to avert a possible threat in fifty years, are causing human misery today by working to prevent development in Africa … and they think they have the moral high ground because they are trying to prevent Africans from building coal fired power plants? I wish I could sentence every one of them to go to Africa, make them talk to the people there, and find out what the real crisis is in Africa. Because I guarantee you one thing — it’s not the fact that atmospheric CO2 has gone from 0.03% to 0.04%, and the Africans know it.
It’s this presumption of absolute certainty about what will happen if global warming isn’t stopped/slowed that irritates me.
I have no trouble believing that sea levels will rise, ice will melt, etc.
Do we really have absolute proof that a higher average global temperature will cause deserts? I seem to recall that the immense amount of vegetation coupled with higher average temperatures than today were part of the reasons dinosaurs were thought to be so succcessful. If I’m mistaken about this, forgive me.
Were global deserts prevalent back before the current subsiding ice age? The entire recorded human history has been written on the heels of a retreating ice age. There’s never been a human experience written about what the Earth was like without substantial polar ice, are we certain that the entire Earth would be an inhospitable desert should the polar ice vanish until the next ice age?
I’m absolutely not saying that there’s not global warming going on right now. I’m not saying that humans shouldn’t make an effort to reduce their contribution to global warming. All I’m asking is, are we so absolutely certain that the world will be less hospitable should the average temperature rise to pre-ice age levels?