"Pete'sPlace" blog and other global warming skepticism websites

[Topper]

Moderation note: the first 2 posts of this thread were moved from Hypography: Climate Change Evidence, because that thread is intended to be a hypography of “evidence supporting modern climate change”, not evidence and/or commentary refuting it

 

It seems appropriate for Hypography (hyperlink+bibliography) to have a running list of evidence supporting modern climate change. Feel free to posts links to new research, reports, professional organizations, or any other source supporting the thread title...

 

Here's a collection of peer reviewed evidence you may not have seen: Pete'sPlace: Peer-Reviewed Articles Of Man-Caused Global Warming

 

Here is some questions raised by the methodology: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf

 

This is a short video about the temperature record and interviews with the authors of the above citation: Global Warming: The Other Side - Segment 4 | KUSI - News, Weather and Sports - San Diego, CA | Coleman's Corner

 

Where may we debate this issue?

[Zythryn]

Feel free to start a thread on any aspect you would like to debate.

As this thread is designated as a storehouse for information about resources/data I would request you edit your post to include just such data.

The 'environmental studies' forum is probably the best suited to a discussion such as you are looking for.

[CraigD]

Here's a collection of peer reviewed evidence you may not have seen: Pete'sPlace: Peer-Reviewed Articles Of Man-Caused Global Warming

You appear to have mistyped the title of Pete’sPlace – the linked webpage’s title reads (italics mine) “Pete'sPlace: Peer-Reviewed Articles Skeptical Of Man-Caused Global Warming”.

 

The webpage appears to be of the kind usually termed “global warming denial”. It’s opening paragraph reads

Here are many "Peer-Reviewed" articles that should end the belief that "the debate is over" about global warming. It should also destroy the illusion that there is a "consensus" amongst scientists about the causes of global warming. Those propagating the myth of man-caused global warming are simply distorting reality and the facts.....and that is putting it politely.

Peter

Which suggests that it concludes that the whole of climatology literature theorizing that human-caused effects such as the burning of fossil fuels has caused an increase in global average temperature is “distorting reality and the facts”.

 

It has a great many links. However, many of them, in particular those to the well-known general science journal Nature, are to papers and articles that support, not refute the AGW hypothesis. For example, Prins and Rayner’s Oct 2007 commentary article Time to Ditch Kyoto) begins with the assumption that the AGW hypothesis is correct, then argues “as an instrument for achieving emissions reductions, it [the Kyoto protolcols] has failed. It has produced no demonstrable reductions in emissions or even in anticipated emissions growth”.

 

It also contains endorsements of well-know ad-hominem attacks on AGW, such as “Global Warming Snowjob” under the heading “Al Gore Watch”, a common but fallacious argument of AGW deniers

[Zythryn]

Topper, as mentioned by CraigD, many of the articles at that site actually support AGW.

Perhaps you have one in particular you are most skeptical you would like to discuss?

Or, barring that, perhaps there is something in your own words you would like to discuss/debate?

[Topper]

I do not understand why you use the pejorative term (your citation), Climate change denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I see all the thanks from other forum members, is depreciative and disparaging labeling the normal way of reacting to contrary hypothesis?

 

I enjoyed the Prins and Rayner’s Oct 2007 commentary article Time to Ditch Kyoto in Nature, it states:

 

“When single-shot solutions like Kyoto are attempted, they often produce quite unin¬tended, often negative consequences. The many loopholes that have enabled profiteers to make money from the Clean Development Mechanism, without materially affecting emis¬sions, are examples5. Therefore, there can be no silver bullet — in this case the top–down creation of a global carbon market — to bring about the desired end.”

 

I cited the Pete'sPlace: Peer-Reviewed Articles Skeptical Of Man-Caused Global Warming website because of the many peer reviewed articles that are evidence on climate change. The “Global Warming Snowjob” link is not a peer reviewed article, why do you write about ad-hominem attacks, there are none in the peer reviewed body of research? Are skeptical arguments often isolated from issue discussions? What subjects require isolation? Why is contrary evidence not included in the Climate Change evidence thread?

[Zythryn]

I do not understand why you use the pejorative term (your citation), Climate change denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I see all the thanks from other forum members, is depreciative and disparaging labeling the normal way of reacting to contrary hypothesis?

 

Where is the hypothesis? I have seen opinions and misleading information. Just what is the hypothesis so we can discuss it?

 

I enjoyed the Prins and Rayner’s Oct 2007 commentary article Time to Ditch Kyoto in Nature, it states:

 

“When single-shot solutions like Kyoto are attempted, they often produce quite unin¬tended, often negative consequences. The many loopholes that have enabled profiteers to make money from the Clean Development Mechanism, without materially affecting emis¬sions, are examples5. Therefore, there can be no silver bullet — in this case the top–down creation of a global carbon market — to bring about the desired end.”

Bold added by me. If you are looking for a discussion of facts and scientific hypothesis, why all the links and discussions of commentaries? Again, I would love to discuss the theories and data, which data and theries/hypothesis would you like to discuss?

 

I cited the Pete'sPlace: Peer-Reviewed Articles Skeptical Of Man-Caused Global Warming website because of the many peer reviewed articles that are evidence on climate change. The “Global Warming Snowjob” link is not a peer reviewed article, why do you write about ad-hominem attacks, there are none in the peer reviewed body of research? Are skeptical arguments often isolated from issue discussions? What subjects require isolation? Why is contrary evidence not included in the Climate Change evidence thread?

You may have missed this point of Craig's. Not all the links listed are skeptical of AGW. Some even support it. Thus this seems to fit in the category which is described in the Wiki link provided.

Skeptical arguments based on rational thought, or hypothesis, or theories are most welcome. Can you name one? Perhaps we can start with that.

Instead of a 'shotgun' approach, lets start with one focused point. Which is your strongest 'doubt' about AGW? Or your strongest argument against it?

[Topper]

The commentary was cited in CraigD’s post.

 

We could discuss these two hypotheses, anthropogenic CO2 is causing global warming and this global warming will be disastrous in the foreseeable future.

[freeztar]

The commentary was cited in CraigD’s post.

 

The commentary came from the link you originally posted.

 

We could discuss these two hypotheses, anthropogenic CO2 is causing global warming and this global warming will be disastrous in the foreseeable future.

 

We could, but that would require you actually focusing on a specific objection.

[Zythryn]

We could discuss these two hypotheses, anthropogenic CO2 is causing global warming and this global warming will be disastrous in the foreseeable future.

 

Ok, well that is getting somewhere. Let's focus on the first, anthropogenic CO2 is causing global warming.

First, that isn't quite accurate. Would you agree to:

'anthropogenic emmision of CO2 is leading to a build up of CO2 in the atmosphere which is leading to a number of consequences, ONE OF WHICH is a increasing trend in the global average temperature'?

 

And if so, is there a particular aspect of the above theory that you find particular fault with?

[Essay]

Would you agree to:

'anthropogenic emmision of CO2 is leading to a build up of CO2 in the atmosphere which is leading to a number of consequences, ONE OF WHICH is a increasing trend in the global average temperature'?

Because "temperature" has a fairly indirect and non-linear connection with greenhouse gases,

I think you should substitute "heat load" in for the word "temperature" in your proposition.

 

so....

Anthropogenic emission of CO2 is leading to a build up of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is leading to a number of consequences; ONE OF WHICH is a increasing trend in the global average heat load.

That heat load is then expressed in both linear and non-linear ways as increasing air temps (especially nighttime temps), melting ice, and warming oceans and crust, etc.

 

Would that work?

[Topper]

Would you agree to:

'anthropogenic emmision of CO2 is leading to a build up of CO2 in the atmosphere which is leading to a number of consequences, ONE OF WHICH is a increasing trend in the global average temperature'?

 

By that same logic, isn’t it fair to say anthropogenic emission of water vapor from irrigation and combustion is leading to a build up of water vapor in the atmosphere which is leading to a number of consequences, ONE OF WHICH is a increasing trend in the global average temperature'?

 

Or maybe anthropogenic emission of heat from fires, power plants and engines are leading to a build up of heat in the atmosphere which is leading to a number of consequences, ONE OF WHICH is a increasing trend in the global average temperature'?

 

Or perhaps, anthropogenic emission of heat from vehicle friction is leading to a build up of heat in the atmosphere which is leading to a number of consequences, ONE OF WHICH is a increasing trend in the global average temperature'?

 

Is Essay’s objection correct? Is it possible there is no increasing trend in global average temperature and instead there is an increased heat load, whatever that is?

 

I asked earlier:

I do not understand why you use the pejorative term (your citation), "global warming denial". I see all the thanks from other forum members, is depreciative and disparaging labeling the normal way of reacting to contrary hypothesis? ...The “Global Warming Snowjob” link is not a peer reviewed article, why do you write about ad-hominem attacks, there are none in the peer reviewed body of research? Are skeptical arguments often isolated from issue discussions? What subjects require isolation? Why is contrary evidence not included in the Climate Change evidence thread?

[Buffy]

By that same logic, isn’t it fair to say anthropogenic emission of water vapor from irrigation and combustion is leading to a build up of water vapor in the atmosphere which is leading to a number of consequences, ONE OF WHICH is a increasing trend in the global average temperature'?

Hmmm. As a skeptic, I'd question the assumption that water vapor and CO2 gas maintain their concentrations in exactly the same way in the atmosphere.

 

Do you think that the assumption that they're the same in that respect is supportable?

 

Does CO2 have the same sort of liquid state at ambient temperatures? Does CO2 condense and "rain" like water vapor does?

 

Just asking questions...I would think you'd be more skeptical about this theory...

 

Against logic there is no armor like ignorance, :phones:

Buffy

[Zythryn]

Topper, would you accept my rephrasing of the theory to debate?

Once you let me know if my rephrasing is acceptable, I would be more than happy to discuss the issues you raise.

Essay's suggestion was in interest of accuracy, not an objection (Essay, please let me know if I am incorrect). Heat load is a more technical term which I don't believe is necessary. It does not mean that the temperature isn't rising, it just is a more technical term with less 'wiggle room'.

For example, the silly arguments that since the temperature went down between noon and midnight global warming can't be happening really can't be made when you use 'heat load'. But since most people don't understand what 'heat load' is, it adds another level of complexity which just muddles discussions amoung lay-people (such as you and I:)).

 

So, can we discuss the topic I rephrased:

'anthropogenic emmision of CO2 is leading to a build up of CO2 in the atmosphere which is leading to a number of consequences, ONE OF WHICH is a increasing trend in the global average temperature'?

[Topper]

Before we change the debate from: anthropogenic CO2 is causing global warming" to 'anthropogenic emmision of CO2 is leading to a build up of CO2 in the atmosphere which is leading to a number of consequences, ONE OF WHICH is a increasing trend in the global average temperature', can I get some answers to my previous questions? I will not avoid Buffy’s and Zythryn’s questions:

 

No, water vapor isn’t’ the same as CO2. CO2 does not have the same sort of liquid state at ambient temperatures, and I never claimed it does. CO2 does not condense and "rain" like water vapor, tha’t not what I said either. Does anyone deny water vapor is a greenhouse gas? I did say the logic was the same (http://hypography.com/forums/environmental-studies/22419-petesplace-blog-other-global-warming-skepticism-2.html#post291306), I am not claiming man made water vapor is causing climate change.

 

No, Zythryn, I prefer my phrasing of the issue, why do you object to discussing: “anthropogenic CO2 is causing global warming?” If CO2 levels were decreasing and man was continuing to release carbon dioxide and an increasing rate, wouldn’t it be fair to say man’s share of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing even though CO2 levels are declining? Do you agree “anthropogenic CO2 is causing global warming?” is a simpler phrasing?

[Zythryn]

No, Zythryn, I prefer my phrasing of the issue, why do you object to discussing: “anthropogenic CO2 is causing global warming?” If CO2 levels were decreasing and man was continuing to release carbon dioxide and an increasing rate, wouldn’t it be fair to say man’s share of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing even though CO2 levels are declining? Do you agree “anthropogenic CO2 is causing global warming?” is a simpler phrasing?

 

To answer your question, I suggested the change because anthropogenic CO2 is NOT causing global warming.

Your phrase implies that anthropogenic is the ONLY cause. I no of NO ONE that would claim such. So a debate on the point that anthropogenic CO2 is the only cause of global warming would be very quiet (as no one would argue that).

[freeztar]

As far as water vapor being the major greenhouse gas, it's also important to realize that clouds (conglomerations of water vapor) act as sunlight reflectors, reflecting sunlight back into space before it reaches the ground which has a cooling effect.

 

I'm not sure exactly how the models account for both phenomena, but I would imagine that the net heat loss/gain from water vapor is closer to zero than most people think.

 

I found the following:

 

More water vapor in the air also gives rise to an increase in the formation of clouds in the troposphere. Clouds do consist of small water droplets, though, and, hence, they do absorb radiation. But they also have a moderating effect on the process of earth's warming because clouds reflect a significant portion of solar insolation. Thus, this portion does not reach the surface of the earth and thus surface is less heated.

 

Through this process warming of the earth is favored by means of a positive feedback. But at the same time the overall influence of clouds (as a combination of absorption of earth's heat radiation and reflection of solar insolation) is negative. Clouds exert a cooling effect.

 

One of the major problems in climate research at present is the fact that we still cannot realistically reproduce the formation of clouds in currently available climate models. Therefore an exact prediction of the influence exerted by water vapor and a prediction of the warming on the whole, remains very doubtful. This area of research calls for an enormous amount of scientific work.

Water vapour - A greenhouse gas

 

And...

 

What does this mean for climate change? Mao-Sung Yao, Tselioudis, Del Genio, and William Kovari used the GISS global climate model to predict changes in different types of clouds, and the sensitivity of the climate, to a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration. They found that low-level clouds in the model behaved much the same as anticipated from satellite and surface data. At midlatitudes, clouds became a bit thinner and less reflective in the simulated warmer climate. They became less reflective in the tropics as well, but for a different reason: clouds in the warmer climate lost more of their water due to greater rainfall. But other types of clouds did not behave in the same way. For example, the big "anvil" clouds that accompany thunderstorms at high altitudes became more extensive and brighter in the warmer climate, instead.

 

Since the changes in low- and high-level clouds mostly cancelled each other out, the net global effect of the clouds did not differ very much in the warmer climate scenario from that in today's climate. This scenario differs considerably from what many climate scientists had been assuming in the 1990s. It had been thought that brighter clouds would partly "save" us from significant global warming, by reflecting more energy into space. Instead, these results suggest that clouds are not necessarily the white knight that will rescue us from climate change. Therefore, our society should seriously consider reasonable steps to limit future emissions of greenhouse gases and soot aerosols as part of an overall strategy to reduce air pollution.

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Clouds and Climate Change

 

(good short article...worth reading)

[Topper]

I do not understand why you use the pejorative term (your citation), Climate change denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I see all the thanks from other forum members, is depreciative and disparaging labeling the normal way of reacting to contrary hypothesis?

 

I enjoyed the Prins and Rayner’s Oct 2007 commentary article Time to Ditch Kyoto in Nature, it states:

 

“When single-shot solutions like Kyoto are attempted, they often produce quite unin¬tended, often negative consequences. The many loopholes that have enabled profiteers to make money from the Clean Development Mechanism, without materially affecting emis¬sions, are examples5. Therefore, there can be no silver bullet — in this case the top–down creation of a global carbon market — to bring about the desired end.”

 

I cited the Pete'sPlace: Peer-Reviewed Articles Skeptical Of Man-Caused Global Warming website because of the many peer reviewed articles that are evidence on climate change. The “Global Warming Snowjob” link is not a peer reviewed article, why do you write about ad-hominem attacks, there are none in the peer reviewed body of research? Are skeptical arguments often isolated from issue discussions? What subjects require isolation? Why is contrary evidence not included in the Climate Change evidence thread?

 

I'll wait for answers.