The Global Warming Thread

I can read at an expert level, which is enough to know that Ball is clearly in the extreme minority, even assuming his attempts at combating climate science consensus were sincere.

But anyone who reads his works will clearly see it is politically charged writing, not scientific inquiry. He makes accusations against other scientists, promotes conspiracy theories, and generally hasn't done a single bit of climate research in any peer reviewed sense. He's like an anti-Chicken Little. The sky is not warming (it is according to scientific consensus). There's nothing to fear here (unless you count the fact that pollution of any kind, kills life on a global scale, and pollution that changes global temperature could lead humans and other life we rely on, towards extinction).

A scientist he is, by education, but not a scientist worth placing a lot of credence with when it comes to the planet's weather or the effects of pollution on the weather. Please sir, direct me to Ball's peer reviewed work on the climate, or any climate scientists of note who support his work. I fear that what you'll direct me to are essentially, editorials and pieces like the one you posted so adamantly, but without any sort of scientific industry consensus (unless you count the consensus of the fossil fuel industry, which is obviously biased against climate change science).

 

Its nice you have an opinion , but do you have any proof that the charts he is showing are wrong?, or did you even read the article?, just point to a chart showing the same years that he is showing that proofs him wrong.

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tim_Ball

If 99% of scientists say its GW is real, and 1% who are funded by oil companies say its bunkum, will a post by a random stranger in the Internet really sway your mind?

For fun heres rational wiki pointing out hes also a creationist, do you think evolution is also a lie?

ps this isnt a personal attack against mr ball, Im just trying to see how consistent avenger here is with how he evaluates sources.

 

Research how they came up with that 99% number, you are the one being scammed.

You sound just like a sheep, read the article for a change, find the facts that show his charts wrong.

 

I don't have a background in science. Could you explain to me what the GISP2 core readings were measuring, and how that is interpreted in terms of paleothermometry? Is there any reason why Tim Ball chose to only interpret less than 10% of the GISP2 record?

You said charts, plural. I don't see any other chart in that article that purports to show climate data.

 

Do you understand the flaw in logic in drawing conclusions about global climate by looking at Greenland Ice Cores? Hint: weather is not climate!

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKdcjJoXeEY"]Womp womp womp - YouTube[/ame]

 

Warming is based on temperature...!:bang:

 

Do you understand why you cannot draw conclusions about global climate based on one set of local measurements?

 

Could you answer this please? I'd like to gain some understanding of how these figure are arrived at from you:

 

HAhahaahha. OH MAN. This is the most dishonest chart I've seen in a while. So I looked into the origins of the GISP2 graph, it's originally from a fellow named Easterbrook.



If you look at the X axis, it says 'years BP (before present)'. What this actually means is 1950, as is convention in paleoclimatology. It's telling that Ball does not cite Easterbrook here or the fact that Easterbrook's last included measurement was 95 years BP, meaning 1855!!!!! Let's look at the data again with modern readings taken into account:



http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI2816.1

https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=337

ALL OF THIS NEGLECTS THE FACT THAT GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE CANNOT BE DISPROVEN BY A SINGLE LOCALITY'S MEASUREMENT.

 

Scammed by whom?

The roll on deoderant people!

 

Sure I read the "article" (which isn't science or study), and I don't have to prove the charts are anything because they have practically nothing to do with global climate science. The charts in his article are basically "I need a graph that shows a downward trend...this will do!". Meanwhile as with most climate deniers, you are cherry picking. Care to explain the hundreds of graphs and data charting that supports warming? Because all that is generally agreed to be experts, whereas Ball's "article" exists online, and is only supported by people like yourself.

Let me explain the facts to you and we'll see how much of my opinion is based on evidence. I'm fairly confident it will show Ball is a hack, you are peddling the junk science of said hack, and you've been brainwashed by reading too much climate change denial propaganda online.

FACT: Ball is not a climate scientist, and never has been
FACT: Ball has never done any notable climate research
FACT: Ball has never submitted any papers regarding climate science to any journal
FACT: Ball has no support among climate scientists
FACT: Ball doesn't just deny climate change, he denies use of the term 'greenhouse' gas in general, which puts him so far outside mainstream science, just about anything else he states about the climate is probably quackery.
FACT: The charts you posted have little to do with global climate change, and definitely don't 'prove' anything he wrote or you think he was writing about.
FACT: You couldn't find anything I asked you to find, could you? Peer reviewed work on the climate, or any climate scientists of note who support his work.

Whatever little is left over could well be my opinion, but unlike your opinion (that an internet article and some graphs are 'science' that prove something), my opinion that Ball is a quack is clearly supported by evidence.

Now I'll bring the spotlight back to you. Why would you stake such an important discussion on one man's clearly politics driven agenda, when his expertise is essentially ROCKS, as opposed to say, the overwhelming vast majority of earth's actual climate experts?

And yes sir, I noted you are yourself hedging another internet viral fantasy, the "99%" number. I don't even have to talk percentages to know that you picked up that "99% is wrong, you are sheep" line from reading climate denial propaganda (because I've read it too).

Even if it was 80%, Ball is still wrong, and thus, you are very likely completely wrong to think he's said anything correct about the climate (or could).

 

The 99% number is bogus, I will post a link to how they arrived at that number

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ge-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

I don't see why you cant see the big picture, unless your just trolling ?

It is not rocket science to see that looking at climate temperatures for the last 100 years that vary by less than a half of one Celsius is global warming epidemic, when clearly ice core analysis shows areas that were much warmer way more than 100 years ago.

 

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

NASA's stance.

 

Hey, he said it's not rocket science

Anyway, everyone knows that NASA invents stuff like global warming and the spherical nature of the earth to hold onto all that funding they got for faking the moon landings.

Sheeple

 

Want to read, here....is debate and plenty of data

http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-Man-made-Global-Warming-on-Planet-Earth-Exists./2/

 

Most "99%" statistics are bogus, however, it doesn't change the fact that scientific consensus supports the same conclusion. That was my point before, go ahead use whatever figure you like...99, 80. Nobody can determine the true number, but we know it's 1) very high and 2) the % of people who support Ball's conclusions is very low.

I'll never understand why people try to convince me of scientific conclusions while sending me links to political blogs. As far as science is concerned, the National Review is irrelevant.

Who can't see the "big picture" though brother? You and Ball apparently see eye to eye, but good luck trying to win over reasonable people or mainstream science with your own version of the "big picture". What you think is the "big picture" is more likely, information that makes you comfortable.

Yeah and a few billion years ago the Earth was too hot for any life whatsoever. That's maybe one of the few things Mr. Ball is an actual expert on (prehistoric geological dynamics). It still doesn't address his credibility problem, or the fact that how hot the Earth was in the distant past is relatively unimportant. What's very important is that human activity in the very short term, is changing things on a global scale that could mean starvation, disease, and/or death for billions of humans (and we're lucky, being one of the few species on Earth that can actually plan for survival through harsh periods...most species on Earth are already doomed due to Man's behavior).

 

Weren't you just asking if I had even read your article?

Apparently sir you didn't read that link because it debunks your whole line of argument as well as Mr. Balls:

"Resolved: Man-made Global Warming, on Planet Earth, Exists."

There were also these excellent graphs, which I'd like you to address with logic, if you could, since they're far more relevant to global climate change than any of the graphs you posted from Mr Balls opinion piece (which was not climate research). Ice cores have more prominence than the vast, sophisticated satellite and terrestrial computer telemetry today on which climate change science is based? Well then, brother, I can go dig up a pile up mud in my back yard, take its temperature, and write an op-ed piece slamming climate change science myself. Do you see how silly Mr Ball is now? Because what he did is no different.

I get that the further we go back in time, the worse CO2 levels and global temperatures. Whatever, humans couldn't survive back then anyway. What's important is that we can survive now, but are apparently sabotaging that balance by pumping our waste into the air.

 

It does not debunk it, it is 4 for and 3 against, and the 97% thing is more like about 3 or 4 % not 97%, have not looked at it lately but it is a small number..

That co2 level in the chart you show is talked about and proven that it does not contribute almost nothing to global warning, read the whole article not just parts and pick out charts that mean nothing.

 

So you're comparing what looks like a high school debating website that 7 people have voted on to a consensus in peer reviewed climate research?

And if co2 is not contributing almost nothing, you believe it is contributing something more than almost nothing? How much more?

Don't take this as an insult, but I'm starting to suspect you are of school age. Is this correct? It would explain a lot.