Well figure that the total temperature change in the last 65 million years (presuming that I am reading the graph correctly) is from -8C to +12C from modern day, and in the last 200 years we’ve risen a full degree, globally. A single degree of change is 1/20th of all change ever in the last 65 million years, so that’s definitely significant, and this is something that is, again, the product of 200 years. Whether it’s precedented within all of time is hard to say, but within the last 2,000 years–i.e. the time period that we can reconstruct the total global average with something like decent accuracy–it’s certainly been the greatest climb. Within the last 12,000 years, there appears to have been a rise in temperature of +1.5C over a period of ~1,500 years, so that’s still talking a significantly longer period than what we’re experiencing now.
If you subtract solar irradiance and volcanic disturbances on the global temperature, there’s actually been something like a exponential climb. (Page 477 - PDF)
chronos, I will again address my own questions.
First, proxy measurements of rates appear to suffer from the same divergence problems noted above. If the proxies haven’t picked up the rate of change of recent temperatures, why should anyone think that they would pick up a similar event 1000 years ago?
Second, one doesn’t even need to look at proxies. Just compare this graph with this graph.
On represents the temperature increase in roughly the first half of the 20th century, and the other represents the temperature increase in roughly the second half of the 20th century. Just using one’s eyeballs, it’s possible to see that the time derivatives of both graphs are roughly the same.
Now, according to the IPCC, the temperature increase in roughly the first half of the 20th century was not caused by man.
Thus, your claim that the rate of recent warming is far greater than any known natural variation would appear to be completely false, if one accepts the claims of the IPCC.
Of course, as a skeptic, I am skeptical of the IPCC. As for you, I must ask:
Who is wrong: chronos or the IPCC?
:rolleyes:
The increase in the later part of the 20th century is **above **the increase of the early 20th century, you are only comparing the natural increase to an unnatural one.
An ornamental tree like an Acer (Japanese Maple) usually grows to 4 feet, there would be no trouble when a landscaper adds one of those trees into a lobby, however if one of those trees grows now to 8 feet and it is damaging the roof of the lobby, you bet everyone would call it unprecedented and the landscaper would have to do something. It would be ridiculous to calm the owner of the building by telling him the extra 4 feet are natural and that he has to like it.
I have started a pit thread about you.
These graphs are sub-sections of the graph from this page. Impressive how he just happened to cut it right at the temporary drop-off. And just happened to move the second graph down about half a degree.
Congratulations, you’ve discovered that if you take semi-random data and cut it at the right places, you can make meaningless observations that fool 3 year olds for two minutes.
I have started a pit thread about you.
Honest graphs speak louder than pittings.
This is exactly what I was thinking. I often see this argument - “AGW proponents are just interested in making money”. This makes no sense to me. Exxon was fighting AGAINST AGW, because they were afraid of losing money. The big money is on the side of the industries that see AGW as a bogeyman that will cut into their net profits.
Scientists “make money” no matter which side of the discussion they are on. They do science. They are critiqued by other scientists and achieve promotion and money on the basis of the valididity of their scientific work.
Leaffan, I see you have not replied to this. Any comment?
I doubt that AGW proponents are just in it for the money, but it’s clear that a lot of them have a strong financial incentive to exaggerate the problem.
For example, suppose that CAGW turns out to be false. What will happen to Al Gore’s lucrative speaking engagements? What will happen to funding for climate research? Will James Hansen get another big grant from George Soros? etc.
Personally, I don’t think the money issue is all that important compared to the merits of the research being done. To me, the best criticism of Al Gore is that his arguments lack merit, not that he’s profiting from the global warming scare.
Actually, for your typical research scientist, arguably one of the most important things (in terms of promotion and money) is getting grants.
Again- do they have a larger financial incentive than the other side does to downplay the problem? In other words, which side stands to make *more *money by proving their interpretation of AGW?
Who care? I certainly don’t. Al Gore is a convenient scapegoat for the anti-AGW crowd, nothing more. Climate researchers don’t get their marching orders from him. I’m sure that Gore can find other ways to make money, by speaking on other topics. Hell, he could go around and say, “I was wrong. My bad.” and make millions.
And this is not necessarily affected by whether AGW is proven correct or not. Any researcher who could legitimately prove that that humans aren’t causing the climate change would be able to write his own paycheck.
I would say it depends on the individual or entity involved. Personally, I have essentially no financial incentive either way.
The point – which you do not seem to dispute – is that there are financial incentives going both ways.
I’m not sure what your point is, but I see a couple issues here: First, that a researcher who is applying for a grant is incentivized to exaggerate the importance of the work he or she is doing. If the researcher claims that the future of humanity is in the balance and his or her work is critical (and can convince the authorities of this), then it enhances his or her chances of getting funded. Second, if a particular hypothesis becomes politically favored (such as CAGW), then researchers will be incentivized along those lines. Just like the astrologist in a medieval court knows what the King wants to hear.
Here’s what I said on a similar issue on my blog:
MY WAG is that by the time you add in all the scientific funding dollars and all the dollars going to conservation groups that the pro-AGW would stand to make more money.
But that’s hard to prove because it’s hard to come up with an objective measure of how much money goes to scientist and conservation NGOs as a result of AGW. To point out why this is hard, I’m a scientist currently funded through a program that has been in existence for ~25 years. The amount of money available through that program in real terms hasn’t changed in those 25 years. However when I put in my funding proposal I had to heavily play up the global warming mitigation benefits of my research. I have no doubt whatsoever that my funding is currently due to the perceived threat of AGW. Or to put it another way, if AGW didn’t exist I would have lost my funding to some other researcher.
But how can I prove this objectively? The amount of funding dollars hasn’t changed, but that doesn’t mean that I’m not making money out of AGW, because I demonstrably am. And I am not the only scientsist. Every person that I work with plays up te impacts of global warming in their funding applications. In fact for the past 10 years I have not seen a single funding proposal that didn’t feature this as a major selling point.
So hell yeah us scientists gain a financial benefit from in AGW being true. And I’m in plant science, a field which has always recieved a lot of private sector funding. If you work in the field of geology/climate science which tends to be entirely dependent on public sector funding then I imagine the stake are even higher.
But as I say, it’s hard to objectively measure this using publicly avialable information. If you could get ahold of successful funding applications for the past 10 years from a representative group of institutions including univerisities and govt departments then you make a good start. I’m wiling to bet that >95% of the applications in relevant fields highlight the threat of AGW. If that is the case then we would need to ascribe 95% of the income of the scientists in this field to AGW being true
That’s not necessarily meant to be a criticism of the scientists themselves. Hell, I are one. It is simply meant to highlight the idiocy of claiming that scientists have no vested interest in this issue one way or the other. That is obviously untrue to anyone who has actually worked in the field.
No, they take their money from funding bodies, where decisions are invariably made based on the “triple bottom line”. And AGW is a fantastic way for hard science to fill in that triple bottom line
Yes, but you don’t understand how the modern scientific establishment works. Scientists are not paid money to reserahc whatever the hell they like. They are paid money to do very specific research that needs to be detailed in the funding application. If you fail to meet the targets you set in the application you get a serious black mark against your name for future applications.
Now it’s impossible for any individual to prove that humans aren’t causing the climate change. Hundreds of thousand of researchers have been trying for 20 years and they haven’t been able to prove that nature isn’t causing the climate change. All any individual researcher can do is their little bit in their little field and contribute it to the mass of evidence. But to do that they need funding dollars. And to get those funding dollars they need AGW to be a real threat.
The idea that any one scientist is going to be able to falsify AGW, and therefore there is no financial incentive to endorse AGW betrays a total ignorance of the science itself and how the funding game is played. No individual can possibly falsify AGW. And every individual needs money to live. That means that every individual has a vested interest in endorsing AGW.
Precisely. And I don’t often see eye to eye with this poster.
It doesn’t need to be a claim that the fate of the world hand in the balance. Even the most mundane research plays up the threat of AGW to enhance the chance of funding.
Doing an analysis on the dung of Alaskan lemmings? Play up the impact of climate change on lemming diets. Trying to hybridise Angus with Malaysian cattle? Play up the effect that climate change will have on beef production with non-tropical breeds. Doing a forest inventory in New Hampshire? Play up the effect that climate change may be having on forest structure. Using fibres from bananas as a concrete additive? Highlight the increased incidence of hurricanes due to AGW and the need for stronger building materials.
And all those are real life examples that I know of personally. Anyone who can possibly shoehorn the threat of global warming into a funding application does so. It doesn’t have to be a claim that the fate of humanity depends on their research. Funding apps these days all have their triple bottom line return, and for most hard scientist that is most easily and neatly filled out by incorporating AGW. If you can incorporate that then the social benefit from your research into banana fibre or New Hampshire oak trees goes from trivial to significant with no effrot whatsoever.
And as a result of his you end up with a “lunatics running the asylum” scenario. Only those who are willing to vociferously endorse AGW can receive funding and further their careers. And it is those who further their careers who end up in senior research posting and on funding panels boards. And they are much more likely to look favourably on other researchers who are willing to vociferously endorse AGW. And very rapidly a vicious cycle develops. After 20 years of funding applications being dependent on supporting AGW the system is so entrenched that even with all the goodwill and attempts at impartiality on behalf of the scientists concerned it’s tough to say that the system itself is completely neutral on the issue.
It’s natural selection at work. Those who don’t endorse AGW are effectively culled before they can rise to a position of any influence. It doesn’t matter how good your science is. If you can’t get funding you can’t do science.
The problem here is that CAGW is not really AGW, Even I see many that are screaming that “a catastrophe is coming” as relying in weak evidence to claim that a disaster is coming. IMHO some places on earth will benefit, others will suffer, but will it be a catastrophe or just bad or an inconvenience? I still see that we still have to do more research to find if it will be as bad as some assume.
Now, I do see the silliness from the “Danger, Danger Will Robinson” act that some are doing, but the important thing here is that that IMO is what CAGW is. I do think that a lot of the controversy on what we need to do (and if we should do it) is valid.
But here is what I see as silly FUD from the deniers, points like your last one.
While the catastrophe part could be discussed, the silly denials of plain AGW are reaching creationism levels.
Just looking at the history of how scientists had to be convinced that AGW was real demonstrates that the “good science” at the first half of the last century was happy on ignoring or denying that man made CO2 was a problem. It took several decades of sometimes unrelated research to show that the assumption that the earth still had lots of capacity of absolving CO2 from the atmosphere were not correct.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
Speaking of funding science, the reality is that virtually all the recent NASA proves and satellites were geared to check if the best ideas of the deniers still have value. We just lost a NASA satellite that was going to get better data on CO2 behavior.
So I really think your last point mentioning the problems your side has in not getting enough funding for research is a silly one when history and current research are taken into account.
The current federal budget includes a total of 150 billion dollars in all forms of research, much of which is surely completely unrelated to global warming. So whatever the dollar amount at stake for the side acknowledging AGW, it has to be significantly less than that. On the other side of the aisle, Exxon Mobile is making profits of 40 billion dollars per year, and they’ve staked their company on people not acting on AGW. Now which side has the larger financial incentive?
And what was it the King wanted to hear for the past eight years, the time frame when AGW moved heavily into the public consciousness?
I have no idea what a FUD is.
And calling your opposition a denier in a debate is simply poisoning the well and totally invalid. If you insist on doing so then I will call you an AGW patsy.
One can only deny something if there is an accusation of behaviour being made. No accusation has been made, and hence there can be no denial. But heck, using the term denier is makes it so much easier to parrallel holocaust deniers, yes? Cheap trick, one that totally dissolves any coherent argument you might have and probably against GD rules.
If you want to continue this debate please don’t do so again.
Once again an attempt to poison the well through guilt by similarity. Not a valid debating technique, and highly disingenuos. Not a tactic needed by anyone with an actual supportable position I would have thought.
And the only way I can respond is by saying that gullible cheerleading by AGW patsies is reaching Nazi-esque levels.
Gee, doesn’t that make for an interest and informative debate? :rolleyes:
Now that we’ve got that out of our system do you have an actual position to debate, or are you just going to fling mud?
Dude you do realise that the IPCC itself makes no bones about the fact that the warming in the first half of this century can in no way be separated from natural factors?
So what is with the scare quotes around “good science”?. One thing that the IPCC, myself and Brazil all agree on is the best science at the first half of the last century said that CO2 levels weren’t needed to explain climate. You seem to be arguing with the IPCC and suggesting that the good science is wrong at that scientists at teh time should have accepted that man made CO2 was a problem, with absolutely no evidence.
Seriously, is this all that your position consists of? Mudslinging, attempts to poison the well, the use of scare quotes.
[quote]
Speaking of funding science, the reality is that virtually all the recent NASA proves and satellites were geared to check if the best ideas of the deniers still have value.
[quote]
So what you are saying is that all the funding received by all the scientists working for NASA in probes and satellites was only handed out because of the perceived threat of AGW?
In other words this confirms precisely what Myself and Brazil have been saying at length. These scientists have a massive financial interest in AGW remaining a cause of concern. In fact you go further than we did because you say that they owe virtually all f their salaries and research budgets in reason years to it.
Is this somehow supposed to detract from our position, or have you switched sides and started providing facts that support us?
Blatant strawman much. :rolleyes:
Nobody in this thread has said that one side or the other is not getting enough funding. My last point certainly never mentioned any such thing.
So this is blatant strawman.
My last point mentioned the fact that he majority of scientists has a vested financial interest in AGW being perceived as an ongoing threat. A point which your own evidence that NASA scientists owe virtually all of their salaries in recent years to it goes along way to supporting…
That was my sole point. It was my only point, It was made quite clearly in very precise English.
This strawman of yours that I was making a point about a funding discrepancy between sides
Seriously GIGObuster, is this the best you can manage? Attempts to poison the well? Guilt by association? Blatant strawmen?
Do you actually have a valid, coherent argument here, or is your contribution to this thread restricted to about ad hominems and misrepresnetaion of your opposition.
Hey if you agree then there is no problem, your “lunatics running the asylum” line shows that you are just ignoring your own advice.
But in reality your idea of just jumping on the deniers as = holocaust deniars is in reality the poison, you are really the first to reach for that as an explanation of where I am coming from, really silly.
Also you are not reading cites, scientists did indeed maintain that there was not enough evidence to worry about CO2, that **began **to change at the end of the last century.
That CAGW is a big problem. Duh. (Of course, there isn’t an actual king in America. Metaphorically speaking, the “King” would seem to be the senior research posting and on funding panels boards referred to by Blake.)
By the way, do you still claim that the rate of recent warming is far greater than any known natural variation?
What does that even mean? I honestly have no idea.
I repeat : What does that even mean?
What is your position here? What point are you trying to make?
GIGObuster, if I may make a suggestion: take some time, work out what your position is and what point you are trying to make. Then read the thread to see if anyone else has made any reference at all to this point, either in support of it or attacking it.
And then come back and post.
Because right now I can’t work out what your position is or what point you want to make. You seem to want to be in opposition to my position, but everything you post that is coherent seems to support what I have posted. And large amounts of what you have posted doesn’t seem relevant to anything at all.
I’m not trying to be rude, I’m trying to work out what exactly your position is and what, if anything, I have posted you believe to be incorrect.