backtop


Print 113 comment(s) - last by EBECKC.. on Oct 8 at 4:11 PM


  (Source: Dan Crosbie)
It appears runaway warming predictions may have been fantasy

While the basic premise of global warming has a solid basis in fundamental physical chemistry -- that carbon-containing gases trap sunlight, turning it into heat -- a great unknown is how the Earth will respond to this heating by increasing levels of atmospheric carbon.  

I. Doomsday Scenarios Flop

Some researchers have claimed sensational scenarios involving "runaway warming" and dire doomsday effects, including warming-created super-hurricanes, floods, new deserts, and super-tornados.  

(Ironically recent studies have suggested that global warming may cut hurricanes, saving lives.)

Others cast doubt on such sensationalism arguing that the planet would adjust to warming, and that a slightly warmer planet would have many benefits to mankind, such as opening new resources for exploration.  Others argued that spending trillions on financially motivated schemes "to fight" warming with scientifically questionable tactics like "carbon credits" was more political corruption than science.

Doomsday signs
Warming "doomsday" predicitions have proven premature speculation.
[Image Source: Watts up With That]

In its latest report [PDF], the United Nations' International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is expected to issue its strongest statement yet that mankind has caused mild warming, commenting that it is "extremely likely" that temperature rises since the 1950s were due to manmade warming.

But the upcoming 2,000 page summary on climate change research and predictions -- scheduled to be released Monday -- begrudgingly acknowledges that for the past decade and a half warming has essentially flat-lined.

II. Five Misses so Far ... are we in for #6?

The IPCC is facing a credibility deficit after temperatures today sit at levels below those of all five of its previous reports.  After five misses, the IPCC is desperate to be right for once -- particularly after it was forced to retract a key glacial melting prediction from its last report.

IPCC models v. reality
IPCC models v. reality [Image Source: Der Spiegel]

One hypothesis that is backed by a subset of warming researchers -- which include many members of the so-called "scientific consensus" on global warming -- is that the ocean is sucking up the excess heat, preventing further warming.  Dr. Brian King, an ocean circulation and climatology researcher at the UK's National Oceanography Centre tells CBS Corp. (CBS) in an interview, "[Over the last decade the oceans] each year are warmer than the previous year and certainly each decade is warmer."

Many climate researchers have blamed the lower than expected temperatures on so-called seasonal variation and infrequent.  But with approximately one and a half decade stall in warming, some are arguing that it's time to reexamine predictions.

III. Summer Time Sadness -- IPCC Cuts its Predictions of More Warm Days

The IPCC, while acknowledging the trend is still in the "seasonal variation" mindset, choosing to ignore a decade and a half of evidence, while emphasizing trends from the four and a half prior decades.  

The IPCC in fact increased its prediction of sea and land ice melting, speculating that by 2100 sea levels will have risen 10-32 inches, a much higher range than the 7-23 inches predicted in the previous report.  However while ice-melting predictions have risen, predictions of global temperatures have been significantly cut.  The IPCC's four primary climate models show the Earth's mean surface temperature in 2100 will be between 0.3-4.8 ºC (0.5-8.6 ºF) higher than today.  That's down from a range of 1.1-6.4 ºC (2.0-11.5 ºF) in the previous report.

Suntanning
Summertime sadness -- IPCC now says temperature may only rise half a degree by 2100. [Image Source: Alaska in Pictures]

Glaciologist and climate researcher Prof. Heinz Miller of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research told Der Spiegel, "The stagnation in temperature does not negate the physical evidence of global warming.  [But a] scientific study is not a guarantee for infallibility.  There is still a considerable need for more research."

IV. Government Leaders are Frustrated With the IPCC for Acknowledging Reality

But policy makers don't want to wait for more research -- they want to take action immediately, and spend big on schemes that are claimed to "fight warming".

While some skeptics aren't happy with the IPCC for not making bigger cuts to temperature predictions over the next decade, some global warming proponents are equally outraged at the IPCC for cutting predictions at all.  Reportedly some politicians tried to pressure the IPCC to leave data acknowledging the warming stall out of the report.

Indeed it's much harder to justify trillions in spending on "fighting warming" with tactics we don't even know will work if the temperature increase over the next century is only going to be 1/2 a degree Celsius.  The Global Warming Policy Foundation's (GWPF) director Dr. Benny Peiser a skeptic agrees with the critics to an extent, saying that the cuts certainly don't help policy makers in try to push for expensive legislation.  He comments:

Today the IPCC has taken a huge gamble that will soon determine whether it is still fit for purpose. Unless global temperature begins to rise again in the next few years, the IPCC is very likely going to suffer an existential blow to its credibility.

A recent survey by Der Spiegel showed that only 39 percent of people say they're "afraid" of the effects of global warming -- down substantially from the 69 percent who responded they were afraid in 2006.

Al Gore
AGW political proponents like Al Gore stand to make billions more if they can convince world governments to fully enact their wealth redistribution schemes under the auspice of "fighting warming".
[Image Source: Associated Press]

The IPCC did cave somewhat to government leaders, removing talking points about the temperature stall from its executive summary from the report -- a simplified version of the report designed for politicians and others who don't have the attention span or time to dig into the full report.

Looking ahead in 2015, global leaders are hoping to reach a global agreement to restrict emissions.  However, much of the emissions outlook is out of the hands of the U.S. even if it was worth the economic damage of cutting emissions further (say by rationing gasoline).  China since 2007 has been the biggest emitter of CO2, and it's also the fastest growing source of atmospheric carbon.

Sources: IPCC, CBS, Der Spiegel, GWPF



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

It has always been about taxes
By troysavary on 9/27/2013 4:59:35 PM , Rating: 5
Carbon credits, carbon taxes, whatever you want to call them, have always been the desired end result. Al Gore has been profiting immensely of of this scam. Progress hating hippies love the idea. Unfortunately for all of them, reality has not been cooperating. Temperatures naturally rise and fall. We've already peaked, and are soon to be on the way back down. The cycles, which if you trace over millenia rather than decades, are quite stable. We are heading shortly into another mini Ice Age, like the one in the 1600s. I would have rather had the warming.




RE: It has always been about taxes
By Ammohunt on 9/27/2013 5:14:29 PM , Rating: 2
Buy stock in Ski-doo you won't regret it.

China's smog is so bad that its the leading cause of death in that country and the UN wants me to feel bad about the little bit of CO2 that comes out of my tailpipe? Especially when More CO2 doesn't mean more greenhouse effect i.e. does glass in a greenhouse that is 5cm thick trap more heat than glass that is 5mm thick?


RE: It has always been about taxes
By boeush on 9/27/2013 7:37:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
China's smog is so bad that its the leading cause of death in that country
And also exerts a cooling effect over SE Asia (search the web for "global dimming" if you want to know more.) Once they clean up their air, the excess greenhouse warming from increased CO2 will come through more clearly over that part of the globe.
quote:
Especially when More CO2 doesn't mean more greenhouse effect i.e. does glass in a greenhouse that is 5cm thick trap more heat than glass that is 5mm thick?
This is where you type "CO2 greenhouse saturation" into Google, read a bit on the top-most link that comes up, and learn something. Or, you could continue flaunting your ignorance...


RE: It has always been about taxes
By Ammohunt on 9/28/13, Rating: 0
RE: It has always been about taxes
By boeush on 9/28/2013 3:31:11 AM , Rating: 3
Oh god, 26 pages worth of ... not sure what, exactly. Either crank-style drivel, or deliberately malformed and intentionally misleading demagoguery. Sadly, there are quite enough cranks, and more than enough demagogues in the world, and in this case I don't (care to) know enough about the authors' background to make a final judgment.

And you actually buy this crap? (And can't notice the obvious, glaring flaws??)

I'm not going to bother writing a detailed point-by-point rebuttal here. I have better things to do with my time, honestly; and in any case it would be deep into TLDR territory (which this post is going to breach, as is.) I'll just address the first two major 'claims' in there, merely to show exactly how full of shit they are. This post, therefore, will end like this: "And so on..."

Epic Fail #1 (pages 4-5, Figure 7) : Given a constant influx of energy from the Sun, Earth in thermal equilibrium must radiate back the same amount of energy. Since radiated energy is a function of surface temperature (per the Stefan-Boltzmann law, Figure 5), that means Earth's temperature must be constant. Conversely, any increase in Earth's temperature must result in more radiated energy, which would be out of balance with incoming energy. That's the 'argument' in a nutshell.

Here's the problem: the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not only a function of temperature. It has other variable parameters, including the area of the radiating body, and the efficiency with which the body is able to radiate. That latter parameter, is what's changing with increased greenhouse gases. Earth's emissivity is dropping, which means to maintain the same flux of outgoing energy, per the Stefan-Boltzmann equality the Earth's temperature must increase.

In other words, the Earth is not an ideal blackbody. And the form of Stefan-Boltzmann law given in Figure 5 is incorrect in that context, because it applies only to ideal blackbodies. It's missing an extra parameter (called "emissivity", which for ideal blackbodies is equal to 1) that encapsulates the deviation from ideal, and it's that extra parameter that's changing.

For the CORRECT way of applying Stefan-Boltzmann to Earth's radiative balance, see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzm...

By the way, this is very basic stuff. Any physics freshman would have no problem getting this. That this ... paper ... you linked totally misses the boat on something SO BASIC , well it speaks volumes. To me, at least. I might have stopped right there (because it already establishes quite well the level of flunky "discourse" we're dealing with...), but I'll do just one more example, which just so happens to directly follow the above doozy.

Epic Fail #2 (pages 6-7) : The long diatribe on how the greenhouse effect is actually a misnomer -- the mechanisms of heat accumulation and retention that apply for actual greenhouses, are not the same type of mechanism that acts in Earth's atmosphere.

Yeah well, no shit, Sherlock. Everyone knows that the atmospheric greenhouse effect has nothing to do with holding in warm air and preventing it from convectively cooling the plot of ground covered by an actual greenhouse. The greenhouse is a loose analogy, and like any analogy it contains a grain of truth but also a doze of inaccuracy. The grain of truth, is that analogously to actual greenhouses, the atmospheric greenhouse effect causes a buildup of heat at the Earth's surface. The doze of inaccuracy is that the atmospheric greenhouse works primarily through inhibiting radiative cooling, whereas actual greenhouses work primarily by impeding cooling through sensible heat transfer.

Any textbook or introductory brochure covering the topic of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, would start by clarifying the above basic distinction, particularly since the unfortunate choice of terminology (that persists due entirely to historical inertia) is indeed a major source of confusion among the uninformed laymen.

But apparently, these geniuses never read any textbooks or even introductory brochures on the subject matter, since they see fit to spend two pages of their 'paper' beating on that particular dead horse. Nicely done! [I expect them to eventually write a dissertation on how medical science got it utterly wrong when it comes to "thinking with the gut", "breaking a heart", and "getting off on the wrong foot".]

Then they crown their achievement, with "Error 3" (page 7), by discussing a temperature difference in an experiment where (a) the cavities in question reached 55 C, (b) the systems under measurement were being cooled for the most part convectively (i.e. via sensible, rather than radiative, heat transfer) due to contact with surrounding cooler air, (c) the actual greenhouse thermodynamics studied by Wood had virtually no bearing upon the mechanisms involved with the atmospheric greenhouse effect. So, let's compare apples and crocodiles, thereupon concluding with something like this: "A hypothesis is disproved if it is based on incorrect assumptions. This is the case for the 'greenhouse gas theory'." O. M. F. G.

And so on...


RE: It has always been about taxes
By Ammohunt on 9/29/2013 9:45:29 AM , Rating: 3
So what you are saying is you disagree? (I honestly didn't read it).

Either way whether AGW is as significant as the "Scientists" say it is doesn't change the fact that AGW has always been a political effort to control the larger consumer societies on the planet based on the methods they have come up with to "Fix" the problem i.e. regulate western economy to extinction while countries going through their industrial revolution can pollute with all abandon. Marxist academia have been beating the anti-capitalism drum since the turn of the last century. Where you you think all the counter culture hippies from the 60ies are now?


RE: It has always been about taxes
By boeush on 9/30/2013 7:15:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
So what you are saying is you disagree? (I honestly didn't read it).
Which didn't you read? The 26 pages of drivel you linked, or my response? If the former, you do realize that would be the behavior of a total JACKASS, don't you? If the latter, why should I bother continuing to converse with you? Actually, that last question is eminently pertinent in either case...

So I'll make this relatively brief, and my last reply to you. "Disagree" isn't the right word. On something nebulous or unclear, with plausible arguments on either side, one might disagree. On something blatantly, gratuitously, atrociously incorrect and incompetent, when it comes not from a naive student trying to learn but from a self-styled "contrarian expert", one doesn't merely disagree: one rejects and castigates, categorically and mercilessly.

When someone (who claims to have at least finished High School) gives you an argument like the following:

Given that X + Y = 4,
and that Y is even,
therefore it follows that X cannot be negative.

Do you respond, "I disagree"? I would respond, "Go back to grade school, review basic arithmetic, and (re)learn the fundamentals of logical argumentation. Then get back to me, you incompetent clown."

Granted, to understand how ridiculous the example I gave is, you'd have to know basic rules of arithmetic and logic yourself, and be reasonably competent in applying them. Same goes, by analogy, to 99% of all "skeptic" arguments. They tend to be not just wrong, but preposterous : be it in ignorance of known empirical facts, in blatant contravention of well-established physical theories and laws, in fundamental mathematical incompetence, in self-inconsistent or just plain-fallacious argumentation, and most frequently in a gratuitous combination of all of the above. Of course, to see that, one must be able to speak the language and know at least the basic underpinnings of the subject matter...


RE: It has always been about taxes
By Ammohunt on 10/1/2013 10:28:55 AM , Rating: 1
Do you believe in God?


RE: It has always been about taxes
By SoCalBoomer on 10/3/2013 12:29:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Given that X + Y = 4,
and that Y is even,
therefore it follows that X cannot be negative.

Do you respond, "I disagree"? I would respond, "Go back to grade school, review basic arithmetic, and (re)learn the fundamentals of logical argumentation. Then get back to me, you incompetent clown."


Just nitpicking - but your logical statement isn't true. I can come up with a number of values for X that are negative with Y being even.

-42 + 46 = 4

I did try to figure out what you MEANT (and I don't disagree with your overall argument) - possibly:

Given that X * Y = 4
And that Y is even,
Therefore it follows that X cannot be ODD

Be careful when you present logical arguments as examples - make sure they are what you are wanting them to be.


RE: It has always been about taxes
By boeush on 10/3/2013 1:32:03 PM , Rating: 2
*whoosh*

Looks like you failed to get the point. Yes, the "logical statement" presented was patently untrue. Intentionally and gratuitously so.

It was an illustration of an obviously fallacious argument, wrong to such a degree that when presented with such, "I disagree" is not quite the appropriate response; a more appropriate response might be something like "You've got to be ****ing kidding me..."


RE: It has always been about taxes
By dgingerich on 9/30/2013 11:10:51 AM , Rating: 3
This is why higher education is constantly promoting "wallow in complexity" in recent years: added complexity allows them to hide manipulation of the fact in scientific study and loopholes in laws. Face it, few people actually read and entirely understand things when they get overly complex. This allows them to hide whatever they want. Perfect examples of this are the TARP and ACA laws recently passed, as well as "global climate studies" educational tracks.

In science, they use over-complication to manipulate the science itself to fool people into believing whatever conclusion they want to push. They introduce false conclusions, such as a linear relationship between CO2 levels and certain wavelength absorbtion, to fool the students into believing something is "true." Then they generate hundreds of new "scientists" over decades who don't really understand all the mechanisms they supposedly study. They use what they were taught. The problem here is that this has been going on for almost 50 years, so now we have scientists from old to young all believing this political position and pushing a "experts," never even realizing they have been fooled their whole lives.

In laws, they introduce more and more complex laws, like the "Affordable Care Act," that are far too complex to even ready through before they are forced through. Now we have something that is going to do major damage to our economy over the next year, by intent and design to keep poor people poor and under government control and to push more people from the middle class into the lower class so they too can be under government control. Don't misunderstand, this damage to our lifestyle is ENTIRELY INTENTIONAL. The recent push for gun control is also in this line. They want to put their thumbs down on us. They want to consolidate their power. All the while, the majority believed and followed these people who say they just want to take care of us, swallowing push after push to take power away from the people.

Basically, we're all screwed by the stupid majority, and the power mongers used over-complexity and nice words to do it.


RE: It has always been about taxes
By 3DoubleD on 9/30/2013 12:25:59 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Basically, we're all screwed by the stupid majority, and the power mongers used over-complexity and nice words to do it.

There is no conspiracy whereby people are overcomplicating things so you can't understand. If people are really motivated to become scientists, then they should well understand that they should take nothing for granted. Science requires active thinking. If a professor was spouting incorrect garbage, decent students should challenge them on it and if they can't follow, then it is the sole purpose of a student to study hard so that they can.

No, the reason why experts release highly complicated reports is because the systems they are studying are REALLY COMPLICATED. They have spent their entire lives devoted to understanding these systems so that they (hopefully) can make a positive contribution towards furthering our collective understanding. It is instead in the process of oversimplification such that the masses may understand where confusion and misunderstanding take root.

Climatology, economics, physics, biology, philosophy, theology - beneath the superficial facade that popular culture has created for them, they are all incredibly complicated subjects.

Yet self-proclaimed experts are easily found across the internet and in the world of politics to tell us that they know the answers, they know global warming surely isn't/is happening, increasing/decreasing government spending will surely fix the economy, the ACA will make/break America, nuclear power is/isn't safe, there is/isn't a god ect. ect.

Don't rely on other people to tell you how things are and if people are telling you that they concretely know the answer to something then they better be able to give you the proof so you can come to that conclusion yourself. In the end though, it is always on your shoulders to understand these complex ideas and whenever you hear someone talking in absolutes, you should highly suspect that they are full of it until proven otherwise. This means almost everything you see on TV is baloney as is the majority of the drivel on the internet. The same goes for politicians. If someone's theory about a complex system doesn't have a list of credible references available for scrutiny, then it is doubtful it is credible itself.

The real stupidity is the number of people that blindly follow, or even worse, the number of people willing to blindly lead.

[Insert references here ;-P]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave


RE: It has always been about taxes
By dgingerich on 9/30/2013 3:29:23 PM , Rating: 1
Oh, I understand far better than most people. I have a 170 IQ according to Mensa, I got As in all my math, physics, chemistry, and history courses, and I self taught everything I know on being a systems admin. (I never could pass English comp courses, though, but not for grammar, spelling, or sentence, paragraph, or overall construction. I failed for "I don't like the formulation of this argument" or not having one word on one of my credits at the end of the paper costing me 40% of the grade, just because of the whims of the idiot liberal "teachers." Well, I also ramble and have run-on sentences when I'm frustrated. The current political situation and the way they are directly affecting my life have made sure I've been frustrated at my employment outlook for 3 freaking years.) Oh, I understand all too well.

The problem is the lazy idiots of the rest of the population who don't even bother to look over the people for whom they vote. We get people voted in time and again who are totally screwing up the country, making sure we all have out lives slowly drop into the poverty level. They're letting the current President and Senate screw us over even more with another major hit arriving tomorrow. They do it all supposedly "protecting the environment" and "providing for the poor," when what they're really doing is enslaving the poor and forcing the rest of us into the poor.

8 years ago, I made 40% less and could still afford a car payment, one bedroom apartment, and keeping my computer and A/C on all summer. Now, if I keep my computer and A/C on, my electric bill is more than ten times what it was 8 years ago. My rent is more than 35% more than it was 8 years ago. Gas is more than twice what it was 8 years ago. My grocery runs are more than twice what they were 8 years ago. I can't even afford a fast food lunch anymore. Finally, I can't afford to get a new car, despite the major malfunctions on my now 8 year old car, because my income, despite being 40% higher, is barely enough for basic living expenses.

On top of all that, now Obamacare comes along and threatens to cost me $80 more per month in taxes (yes, that is $80/month in taxes on my health insurance) just to provide health insurance for drug addicts, twenty somethings who want to roam the country and "find themselves" instead of working for their living, and welfare mommas who refuse to get up off their butts and educate themselves to do better than a freaking minimum wage job.

The liberal politicians keep preaching they'll take care of people, but they know this isn't sustainable. This country will collapse soon. They want it to! They want it to collapse into what Venezuela has become or what Cuba has been for half a century, with the vast majority in total poverty while the ruling class lives it up in opulence.

Stressed? Yeah. I'm already stretched thin because of the rising costs of electricity, gas, and food, and the past 3 years have been nothing but more and more taxes to provide for lazy asses, with the train bearing down on use that will throw this whole country into poverty and completely ruin my lifestyle in a matter of two to three years, if this keeps up. The only reason we haven't completely collapsed is because the Republicans have a majority in the House to stall the inevitable. I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO PAY FOR THESE IDIOTS. I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT MY WHOLE LIVE RUINED BECAUSE OF THEM! THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE STARING US IN THE FACE RIGHT FREAKING NOW!


RE: It has always been about taxes
By Ammohunt on 10/1/2013 10:31:02 AM , Rating: 2
Keep your chin up you are not alone and not powerless.


By omgwtf8888 on 10/1/2013 12:44:23 PM , Rating: 1
Glad you didn't write a point by point rebuttal... Now time to get back on the meds...


RE: It has always been about taxes
By Mint on 9/28/2013 1:41:18 PM , Rating: 2
This is just a bunch of garbage from people who have very little understanding of fundamental physics.

I didn't read all of it, but they put a bunch of stock in the 'greenhouse' misnomer. Everyone knows that greenhouses work by preventing convection while the atmospheric 'greenhouse effect' works by absorbing and re-emitting radiation.

But they go further by suggesting convection being more important than radiation in Woods' ground scale experiment means the same is also true for atmospheric-scale processes. It's basic knowledge that physical processes scale differently with size, e.g. bumblebee flight physics don't work at human scale. Radiation travels at the speed of light, and absorption increases with distance. Convection/conduction slow down dramatically with distance. Obviously a 1m container will exhibit a different balance of physics than in a 100,000m version of the same experiment.

They also put huge stock into the "adiabatic lapse rate" theory for why the earth surface is warm, citing Chilingar, Khilyuk and Sorokhtin. These denialists' theory has been thoroughly debunked, e.g.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/08/life-is-too-sho...


RE: It has always been about taxes
By Reclaimer77 on 9/29/2013 10:29:20 AM , Rating: 5
I didn't click his link so I'm not making a statement on any particular point.

I just want to say it's amazing how your side is quick to accuse other scientists of being ignorant or have "little understanding" of basic physics when they put forth a theory counter to your beliefs. But any other time we're all to worship at the altar of pro-AGW scientists, almost blindly.

So when people question pro-AGW theories and papers, they're just all stupid mouth-breathers who couldn't possibly understand all the science that goes into it. Yet when it comes to a theory or paper that goes counter to your beliefs, YOU understand all the complex science and models, and easily dismiss it.

I'm not sure if that's hypocrisy or just blind faith. I suspect the latter, since you use the term "denialists" to classify those who don't go to the same church as you...

And to follow it all up you link...a blog. A very unprofessional looking one at that. Who is apparently a professor, and not a climatologist.

But why bother with details? If the message syncs up with your ideology, it's automatically valid. If it's not, it's rejected.


RE: It has always been about taxes
By maugrimtr on 9/30/2013 8:49:40 AM , Rating: 2
They didn't raise a theory, they raised a hypothesis. For example, God created the Universe. That is a hypothesis since there's no actual evidence that a supernatural being did anything of the sort. Of course, as a practicing Catholic, I "believe" it anyway ;). The point however, is that an unsubstantiated hypothesis is not a Theory.

Each time I say what follows, it gets rated down to oblivion, but unless people are being deliberately stupid, science follows a strict method. You hypothesize, check the available data, graduate it to a real theory if it actually explains the data (both historically and per the predictions the theory offers), and then you never ever stop accumulating data and refining that theory until a better one replaces it.

All scientists rely on models and assumptions to guesstimate what happens. It's done, not only in climate science, but in chemistry, physics, cosmology, biology and practically all other scientific disciplines. They are the cutting edge...and they are always wrong.

The Theories of Relativity, for example, are considered a work of perfection by the masses. In reality, they are wrong. They merely approximate a subset of rules that apply solely to large objects and become meaningless at the tiny scale of atoms and subparticles. Despite being wrong, it's still really good at predicting future behaviour. In fact, Newton's Laws were themselves a pretty good approximation of Relativity. In another century, we'll have something else.

The anti-climate change group aren't homogenous. Some are serious scientists questioning accepted knowledge by doing something useful - accumulating data and TRYING to find new theories. They deserve everyone's support - Darwin was his day's wacky crazy guy and Einstein was a patent clerk. The rest, unfortunately, are busy trying to criminalise scientists because shooting them casts doubt on the science - not in scientists' minds, since they expect politics to play its silly illogical mind games, but in the publics' eye where doing something about any problem must be supported.

So, are humans causing climate change? Scientists don't know but they have sufficient evidence to support a good probability that we are. It's not certain, it never will be certain, but we can call those who prefer the longer odds of humans not being responsible...possibly misled by the bookies.

Finally, scientists are specialists. If someone from the field of biology commented on the field of quantum mechanics, you can bet the biologist would be treated with a lot of skepticism unless he actually has a secret doctorate hidden somewhere. The generic term "scientist" doesn't make you a magical expert in all areas not make you qualified to comment on other areas.


RE: It has always been about taxes
By Paj on 9/30/2013 8:55:43 AM , Rating: 1
All excellent points.


RE: It has always been about taxes
By 3DoubleD on 9/30/2013 12:32:22 PM , Rating: 1
Yep, +1 if I could


RE: It has always been about taxes
By boeush on 9/30/2013 7:20:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I didn't click his link so I'm not making a statement on any particular point.

I just want to say it's amazing how your side is quick to accuse other scientists of being ignorant or have "little understanding" of basic physics
WTF, then? Why don't you click on the link, go through the effort of actually reading it, and THEN try and cast aspersions on "your side"? UNTIL you do that, anything else you say on this particular issue, is of zero relevance.


RE: It has always been about taxes
By Ammohunt on 10/1/2013 10:33:28 AM , Rating: 3
I think all his points are more than relevant no one is going to change the other sides mind here AGW is a religion that you can't convert from.


RE: It has always been about taxes
By Samus on 9/28/2013 1:33:51 AM , Rating: 2
My concern has never been with global warming/instability (because although it's plausible, it isn't factual) but with pollution, where there is hard evidence it causes cancer, birth defects, and all sorts of ailments. Some cities in China, especially in areas of demanufacturing electronics, birth defects are incredibly high.

That is my concern here. Unfortunately it isn't all peaches and pie, because the regulations of pollution, which I am a favor of, hurt manufacturing in the United States to the point it is expensive to do it environmentally soundly. Motorola and Apple, however, are doing it.


RE: It has always been about taxes
By troysavary on 9/28/2013 6:35:13 AM , Rating: 5
Exactly. Pollution sucks. CO2 is not pollution, it is plant food. But we are so infatuated with carbon credits that real pollution is often ignored.


RE: It has always been about taxes
By maugrimtr on 9/30/2013 9:03:10 AM , Rating: 1
CO2 is pollution. Obviously. If you pump it out of your tailpipe and it doesn't come with the formula O2 or H2O then you're elevating the environmental level beyond what nature is currently calibrated for. It's also toxic - you might recall that O2 breathers have a habit of dying from CO and CO2 poisoning. The extra CO2 is absorbed by the atmosphere and oceans (where it causes acidification) in a roughly 60:40 split if I recall.

If you completely ignore the global warming issue, higher CO2 will cause greater ocean acidification. Until (and assuming if) Evolution corrects ocean going life, that life is going to suffer pretty dramatically. It's an issue largely ignored because out of sight, out of mind - who cares about shellfish, plankton and coral reefs (and the massive food chain they support)? Afterall, only 70% of the planet is under water.


RE: It has always been about taxes
By dgingerich on 9/30/2013 11:57:54 AM , Rating: 1
Obviously, you don't know that the CO2 levels were actually much higher 500 million years ago, yet that time was one of the most prolific times for life in general. That's the time period where huge freshwater swamps covered nearly all coastline and much of the inland land mass, eventually creating the coal we use today. Also, the higher CO2 levels allowed for huge algae colonies out at sea (the only ocean Earth had at the time) that created huge dead zones below them, causing the mechanism that formed our oil today.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairyta...


RE: It has always been about taxes
By bsd228 on 9/30/2013 3:11:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Obviously, you don't know that the CO2 levels were actually much higher 500 million years ago, yet that time was one of the most prolific times for life in general.


Yes, but not the same sort of "life" that inhabits the planet now. So if you're willing to endure a few mass die-offs while "life" recalibrates, then no, there's nothing to be concerned about.

I'm not really in the alarmist camp, but this sort of argument holds little water with me. A break down in the plankton food chain would be very bad for existing life. But no doubt, the planet itself would sort itself out over several thousand years.


RE: It has always been about taxes
By SPOOFE on 9/30/2013 3:35:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So if you're willing to endure a few mass die-offs while "life" recalibrates, then no, there's nothing to be concerned about.

The alternative is a huge reduction in our use of fuels to generate the electricity and useful work that allows us an abundance of food, comforts, health care, and safety measures.

Such a reduction would mean the mass die-offs would be humans. By the billions.

What's the concern, now?


RE: It has always been about taxes
By boeush on 9/30/2013 10:00:45 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, OK Chicken Little. Taking emissions back to 1990 levels through improvements in efficiency and introduction of alternative energy sources, will result in mass death. Let me guess: your day job title is "Sr. Staff Hyperventilator".


RE: It has always been about taxes
By Paj on 10/1/2013 8:29:15 AM , Rating: 2
Or: generate our energy cleanly and improve energy efficiency so they we can continue to enjoy our lifestyles and industry thanks to new technology.


By maugrimtr on 10/1/2013 7:39:11 AM , Rating: 2
This is how people discredit science. They make illogical arguments, relay dumb ideas as fact, and then attack anyone who disagrees.

You are stating what Earth was like 500 million years ago without actually pointing at any evidence and stating that makes it okay. You know what didn't exist 500 million years ago? Land plants. Of course, maybe you prefer simple algae to massive ferns (modern trees are actually a recent development - do some reading on what dinosaurs ate).

Plants, as you might know, consume vast quantities of C02 and convert it into something else...Oxygen. Plants drag down C02 levels so something else can happen. You. Me. And a Cambrian explosion of land dwelling vertebrates.

You want to turn the clock back? Good luck. I very much like my air without lethal levels of C02 and with the nice 21% level of Oxygen my Homo Sapien meatsack has evolved with.


RE: It has always been about taxes
By tim851 on 9/30/2013 7:33:14 AM , Rating: 3
Hear! Hear!

I've never understood why people were piling onto the Global Warming bullshit. So much of it is hysteria and it jades people against actual, fathomable downsides of fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels are bad because they pollute.
And they are finite. Yes, we might be blissfully ignorant to that fact and hope they'll be around for 200 years, but with global demand rising every year, I wouldn't bet any money on oil not running out in my lifetime. And - fun fact - it doesn't have to actually run out, once global demand outpaces oil production, cost will explode.

I support any gov funding renewable energy gets, because when the sh*t hits the fan, I want it to be ready for primetime, ready to take over.

I think of it as paying for a redundant power supply. It is obviously an extra expense for as long as your primary PSU is working. But that expense pays off once it dies.
Society is like a important server. We don't want to go shopping for a new PSU after the old one dies, we can't afford any downtime.

And nuclear is just morally wrong. Stuff like Fukushima is not even what I mean. That nuclear power station ran for 40 years and had a power ouput 10x of a coal power plant. Ten coal power plants running for 40 years would have done the same damage to the environment, just spread over time and a greater area.

But nuclear waste is problematic. That shit is dangerous for a couple of THOUSAND years. It's like taking a drug that gets you high once, but damages you DNA. And then you have to explain to your kids and grandkids why they have some birth defect just because you got high 50 years ago.


RE: It has always been about taxes
By Dorkyman on 9/30/2013 9:34:50 PM , Rating: 3
I humbly suggest you take an econ class. As fossil fuels become more expensive to extract, prices will gradually rise. Eventually some other energy source will become cost-competitive. But don't hold your breath. Humans are pretty clever, especially when allowed to profit from their cleverness (yay Capitalism!) and all the "peak oil" folks have repeatedly gotten egg on their faces. We have lots of hydrocarbons and will for a very very long time.

As for nukes, they could be very cost-efficient and many designs can "eat" the legacy fuel, so very little waste. But the public has a irrational phobia about nukes. As for Fukushima, turns out it wasn't that big a deal (from a death-due-to-radiation viewpoint). Far more rooftop solar installers die every week than have died from Fukushima radiation.


RE: It has always been about taxes
By boeush on 9/30/2013 10:12:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
prices will gradually rise
Yeah, nice assumption there, Polyanna...

I mean, it's not as if there had ever been oil shocks (with devastating economic repercussions) before, due to production failing to keep up with demand. I mean, history would record any such major calamities, wouldn't it?

And after all, it would be of such vast importance to our national security, we'd care enough to eliminate such risks, particularly with so many oil-producing states being so at risk of war (and oil prices being determined on a world market, according to world supply and demand, and regardless of production origin...) Since we obviously don't care, then it follows that it isn't a concern to worry about, naturally (or maybe we're planning to take a page from Hugo Chavez' playbook, and reserve the right to impose price controls on domestically produced oil in case of a global oil crisis?)

And it's not as if oil producing nations (like Saudi Arabia, most notably) had ever been caught vastly exaggerating their claimed economically recoverable reserves...


RE: It has always been about taxes
By ShieTar on 9/30/2013 8:56:06 AM , Rating: 1
Regulations are challenges for an industry, and challenges tend to have a positive impact on any high-tech industry in the long run. For an interesting comparison, have a look at the development of energy efficiencies between Germany and the US:

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/EG.GDP....

Considering also the largely comparable economic growth in the two economies:

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/NY.GDP....

And also considering that industry in general is more important to the German economy than it is to the US economy:

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/NV.IND....

You can see how the strong increase of pro-environmental regulations in Germany over the last two decades has not had a negative impact on our economic capabilities. Sure, the captains of industry have complained about every new regulation, but when that didn't work, they went on to successfully adapt to the new realities.

Of course Germany also has the benefit of not having a anti-scientific lobby, so there is at least a general agreement among everybody that we need to work against a further aggravation of climate change. With the majority of glaciers in the alps gone, and the occurrence of two "once a century" floods and three "once a century" droughts within the last 10 years, the theory of "There is no anthropogenic climate change." is basically restricted to the "IQ<90" demographic.


RE: It has always been about taxes
By Nutzo on 9/30/2013 4:36:49 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
There is no anthropogenic climate change." is basically restricted to the "IQ<90" demographic.


Actually you have that reversed.

Based on my observations, more clueless the person is, the more likely they are to support all this global warming, I mean climate change nonsense. Any warming (or cooling for that matter) that has happened over the past 100 years has way more to do with the normal solar cycles and the sun, than anything man is doing.

As for me, based on the few tests I’ve taken over the years, I could probably get into Mensa if I wanted to. You can google that if you don’t get it.


RE: It has always been about taxes
By Paj on 10/1/2013 8:32:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Any warming (or cooling for that matter) that has happened over the past 100 years has way more to do with the normal solar cycles and the sun, than anything man is doing.


They have accounted for that in the IPCC report. You think thousands of studies over decades would fail to account for that?


RE: It has always been about taxes
By ShieTar on 10/1/2013 8:42:44 AM , Rating: 2
Nope, nothing reversed. The problem is most certainly with your observation.

quote:
Based on my observations, more clueless the person is, the more likely they are to support all this global warming, I mean climate change nonsense.


So, according to your observations, almost everybody with a PhD in nature science is clueless? The complete governments of all European nations as well as the boards of most European high-tech companies are clueless?

quote:
Any warming (or cooling for that matter) that has happened over the past 100 years has way more to do with the normal solar cycles and the sun, than anything man is doing.


The slow temperature drift over the last century is clearly correlated to the 11-year solar cycle in your understanding? You have noticed distinctive temperature maxima in 1980, 1991 and 2002, which nobody else has noticed so far? You've proven wrong the Stefan–Boltzmann law which predicts that the 2W/m² variation in the solar irradiance can only lead to a 0.1°C temperature variation on Earth, while the observed rise in mean surface temperature since 1850 has been more than 1°C?

Seriously, debunking this solar cycle myth is a 30 minutes task for a high school kid of average intelligence.

quote:
As for me, based on the few tests I’ve taken over the years, I could probably get into Mensa if I wanted to.


Making an uninformed, easily contradicted statement, and then following it up with a declaration of your own intelligence is not very effective. You might want to rethink your strategy here.


RE: It has always been about taxes
By senecarr on 10/2/2013 11:13:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The complete governments of all European nations as well as the boards of most European high-tech companies are clueless?

Assuming he's American (as I am), you'll have to forgive him. In the US, we do have an example set of around 50% of politicians that can't understand science. We also have billionaires who made a fortunate in real estate that can't understand how the electoral college works.


By lagomorpha on 9/29/2013 7:55:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
does glass in a greenhouse that is 5cm thick trap more heat than glass that is 5mm thick?


The amount of light reflected by glass (or any partial reflection by two surfaces) is actually a sine wave as the thickness of the glass increases. It has to do with combining the probability of photons being reflected off the front and back surface of the glass. The duration of the sine wave is the wavelength of the light so difference colors of light will be reflected in different proportions for varying thicknesses of glass. This is the effect that causes iridescence.

So the answer to your question is 'maybe' but doesn't really apply here as the greenhouse effect and an actual greenhouse aren't describing exactly the same phenomena.

Also f you for reminding me that quantum electro dynamics is a thing before I've had my breakfast and coffee.


By marvdmartian on 9/30/2013 9:32:02 AM , Rating: 3
The EPA finally admitted, in a recent report, that their vendetta against new coal power plants will have ZERO effect on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere....but will continue on their holy crusade, led by their potentates, Al Gore and Barry Obama. And make no mistake, that's all this is, is a crusade.

While I appreciate the awareness this has brought to some people, of how their actions can affect the world, and the importance of not wasting resources, the way at which they've gone about beating this over people's heads, and enforcing their edicts with hokum "science" that "proves" they're right, and everyone else is wrong, has been nothing short of despotic and tyrannical.


RE: It has always been about taxes
By Uncle on 9/30/2013 5:23:46 PM , Rating: 3
What is it that vegetation needs to grow, co2, what is it that vegetation releases in return o2, just what I need for survival.


RE: It has always been about taxes
By phatboye on 10/1/2013 2:52:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Especially when More CO2 doesn't mean more greenhouse effect i.e. does glass in a greenhouse that is 5cm thick trap more heat than glass that is 5mm thick?


Your analogy is really bad because glass unlike CO2 does not absorb IR radiation and reflect it back into the greenhouse.


RE: It has always been about taxes
By senecarr on 10/2/2013 11:08:48 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
i.e. does glass in a greenhouse that is 5cm thick trap more heat than glass that is 5mm thick?

Why yes, yes it does. You don't think people in colder climates put thicker insulation in their houses for shits and giggles do you?


RE: It has always been about taxes
By DocScience on 9/29/2013 1:53:35 PM , Rating: 2
Toll taking is the preferred route to wealth by the lazy, the corrupt and the incompetent.


RE: It has always been about taxes
By ShieTar on 10/3/2013 2:46:42 AM , Rating: 2
I think the toll you are talking about is called "profit margin", not "tax".


RE: It has always been about taxes
By Paj on 10/1/2013 8:24:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Carbon credits, carbon taxes, whatever you want to call them, have always been the desired end result.


No theyre not.

quote:
Al Gore has been profiting immensely of of this scam


How would Al Gore profit from carbon credits? They arent paid to him.

quote:
Progress hating hippies love the idea.


Environmentalists want things to change, not stay the same.

quote:
Unfortunately for all of them, reality has not been cooperating. Temperatures naturally rise and fall. We've already peaked, and are soon to be on the way back down.


Actually, the temperatures have been rising - read the report. How do you know they have peaked? Can you see the future?


AGW theory in a nutshell
By Tony Swash on 9/28/2013 10:02:06 AM , Rating: 2
As far as I can see the theory that CO2 caused the late 20th century warming goes like this:

The early 20th century warming: Natural

The mid-20th Century Cooling: Natural

The late 20th century warming: 95% certain caused by humans

The early 21st century temperature stabilisation: Natural

Some theory ;)




RE: AGW theory in a nutshell
By ShieTar on 9/30/2013 9:50:23 AM , Rating: 2
So "As far as you can see" stops just short of anything that any scientist has ever actually said? Fair enough, but you have nobody but yourself to blame for that.

Climate change is discussing the difference over decades, if not centuries. No scientists in his right mind would look at the year-to-year surface air temperature data and make a prediction like "it stabilized this decade". A reasonable measurement point is the mean temperature over a complete decade, if not over 25 years.

So if you want to disagree with the scientists, at least find out something they have actually published, and then go and disagree with that. Don't make up statements and attribute them to other people for the sole purpose of disagreeing with them.


RE: AGW theory in a nutshell
By Tony Swash on 9/30/2013 12:23:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So "As far as you can see" stops just short of anything that any scientist has ever actually said? Fair enough, but you have nobody but yourself to blame fo


I notice you don't challenge my admittedly rather concise summary of current IPCC climate theory merely dismiss it.

The fact of the matter is that the position of the IPCC is that the human signature in the climate appears in the second half of the 20th century. In the IPCC, "Summary for Policymakers", Understanding and Attributing Climate Change, in IPCC AR4 WG1 2007 it said that "[most] of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.".

This means that the IPCC view is that warming in the second half of the 19th century and first half of the 20th century (which in the larger climate context is just the slow recovery from the Holocene low point of the Little Ice Age) is natural in causation.

Similarly nobody, including the IPCC has suggested that the cooling period in the middle of the 20th century was caused by humans or by CO2 and is thus natural.

Finally the IPCC position is that the 15 year plateau in global temperature since 1998 is also natural and is a result of the non-man made variability of climate.

The only phenomena that the IPCC attributes to human causation is the warming that occurred in the second half of the 20th century.

So I think my summary of the official IPCC position is very accurate if concise:

The early 20th century warming: Natural

The mid-20th Century Cooling: Natural

The late 20th century warming: 95% certain caused by humans

The early 21st century temperature stabilisation: Natural

I can't help it than when presented like that it looks silly. That is entirely the fault of the theory.


RE: AGW theory in a nutshell
By ShieTar on 9/30/2013 2:28:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I notice you don't challenge my admittedly rather concise summary of current IPCC climate theory merely dismiss it.

Incorrect, I do challenge that your list of statements is related to the IPCC report. As you correctly quoted, the IPCC concludes that there was a distinct warming between the mid 20th century and the present time. At no point is it stated that man-made influence were absent in the climate development in the first half of the 20th century, and at no point does the report identify a "15 year plateau". Quiet the contrary, the new report is rather precise on this topic:

quote:
In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends.

Anthropogenic and natural forces do obviously co-exists, and the later can counteract the former on short timescales of up to about two decades. Noone in his right mind would predict that there is some kind of exclusion principle due to which one of the two affects is put on hold while the other one is active.

quote:
This means that the IPCC view is that warming in the second half of the 19th century and first half of the 20th century (which in the larger climate context is just the slow recovery from the Holocene low point of the Little Ice Age) is natural in causation.

Similarly nobody, including the IPCC has suggested that the cooling period in the middle of the 20th century was caused by humans or by CO2 and is thus natural.

Finally the IPCC position is that the 15 year plateau in global temperature since 1998 is also natural and is a result of the non-man made variability of climate.

None of the above statements have been made by the IPCC or any scientist involved. Nobody in the science community has identified a "warming in the first half of the 20th century" or a "cooling period in the middle of the 20th century" or a "plateau in global temperature since 1998". The smallest unit that the IPCC will even make a statement upon is a full decade, as in

quote:
Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850

Which is correct, thus there is no agreement on an existance of a "plateau".

In conclussion, you have spotted an inconsistency between 4 statements, one of which is only similar to an actual statement of the IPCC, while the other 3 have been made up entirely by yourself.


RE: AGW theory in a nutshell
By Tony Swash on 9/30/2013 3:37:40 PM , Rating: 2
If you look at the any of the global temperature data sets which are used by everyone involved in climatology and the IPCC, such as HADCRUT, GISS, RSS and the satellite data set that has been collected since 1979, they all show without a trace of ambiguity that there was a warming trend from the 19th into the 20th century, a cooling trend in mid-century, a warming trend between the mid 1970s and the late 1990s and since then a plateue with no warming trend. Personally I think the mostly likely trend in the next couple of decades will be a cooling trend. Time will tell.


RE: AGW theory in a nutshell
By boeush on 9/30/2013 10:33:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the theory that CO2 caused the late 20th century warming goes like this:
(1) For every effect, there has to be a cause. (That keystone scientific principle, is called "Causality".)

(2) Known causative factors acting through known mechanisms should produce quantifiably pridictable outcomes. (That keystone scientific principle, is called "Deduction".)

Since we have empirically eliminated all known potential natural causes for the recent and abnormally abrupt warming trend, which took us out through the ceiling of an at least 800,000-year global temperature range, in a geological eye-blink -- and since we actually have measured the rapid (and ongoing) global warming spike, together with its various detailed characteristics (i.e. rates of temperature change in night-vs.-day, high-latitude vs. equatorial, troposhere vs. stratosphere; rates of mass loss in glaciers and ice shelves; rates of heat buildup in oceans; dates of onset for biological events like flowering, etc.) -- by (1) we are thus justified in seeking the underlying causes for all of these various effects, among non-natural sources.

On the other hand, we understand the quantum and hydrodynamic mechanisms behind the flow of energy through the atmosphere both from/to the ground and from/to space, quite well. From this basic knowledge, we deduce (2) that AGW is the expected outcome. Having observed what we've been expecting (with the vast majority of the predicted effects lining up very nicely with observations, especially considering how simplified our models really are), and having eliminated competing explanations to high levels of statistical confidence, we are now more confident than ever that we understand what's going on -- and can even attempt to predict (within bounds of uncertainty, and keeping in mind that we're still using vastly simplified models capable only of predicting gross trends with any fidelity) what will happen in the future.
quote:
Some theory ;)
Indeed.


By stm1185 on 9/27/2013 10:13:51 PM , Rating: 5
What's the penalty for being wrong over and over again while crying wolf? How many times do they completely fail before they are called to account?

Sick of hearing these "scientists" preach doom and gloom, turn out to be wildly wrong, and never hear about their come comeuppance.




By ShieTar on 9/30/2013 9:42:27 AM , Rating: 2
Have you ever even tried to read any scientific publication? I mean really, just one? Could you please point out to me, in which publication any scientists involved in climate predictions has ever made any prediction which has been proven wrong by reality?

As far as I can see, from absolutely everything I ever read, the climate scientists have only reported what some of the worst case, best case and realistic scenarios for climate change are. It was correct and useful for them to point out the worst case, but at no point has anybody ever written in any publication "This worst case is absolutely guaranteed to occur".

If you are so sick about hearing about preaching scientists, just stop reading some biased second-hand reporting, pick up a copy of Nature or Science, or even the full IPCC report available on-line, and try to understand for once what those scientists are actually saying.


By 3DoubleD on 9/30/2013 3:20:40 PM , Rating: 2
+1 Watching the news or even reading the newspaper or an internet article doesn't make you an expert.

Still, people continue to believe this fallacy when they make their minds up on the economic, political, and scientific issues that they so passionately argue for or against.

It is great that people try to be informed, they just need to do a better job of it.


By jimbojimbo on 9/30/2013 4:44:45 PM , Rating: 2
No kidding. It's no wonder why they're saying that global warming will cause temperatures to rise and/or cause an ice age to occur! Global warming will increase hurricanes or it could decrease hurricanes. Wow, with predictions like that how you can go wrong?
I predict it will be warmer tomorrow than today or it will be cooler tomorrow than today. Call me a climatologist!!


In other news...
By McDragon on 9/27/2013 7:06:05 PM , Rating: 2
A Danish ship has just traversed the North-West passage.
http://gcaptain.com/nordic-orion-northwest-passage...
A pretty clear indication that something is happening up there...




RE: In other news...
By Morvannec on 9/27/2013 9:23:22 PM , Rating: 2
Not to say you don't have a point, but isn't it more likely that that has something to do with the ship being a very modern ship (2011) with a strengthened hull?


RE: In other news...
By troysavary on 9/28/2013 6:41:10 AM , Rating: 2
Nobody is denying the earth warmed. What we are denying is that man caused it. The earth warms and cools in tandem with solar activity. It has been going on for and long as there has been an earth and a sun. 1000 years ago, the Norse settled Greenland. It was green at the time. What heavy industries caused that warming? In the 1600s, Europe had mass starvation because summer barely came and crops failed. In the 1800s, people skated on the Thames. Temps cycle up and down.


RE: In other news...
By Tony Swash on 9/28/2013 9:46:05 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
A Danish ship has just traversed the North-West passage.
http://gcaptain.com/nordic-orion-northwest-passage...
A pretty clear indication that something is happening up there...


Arctic sea ice has retreated before and by more than now because of natural climate variation. Nothing unique or even unusual is happening in the Arctic.

A paper published in Science recently which found that summer Arctic Sea Ice extent during the Holocene Thermal Maximum 8,000 years ago was "less than half of the record low 2007 level." The paper finds a "general buildup of sea ice from ~ 6,000 years before the present" which reached a maximum during the Little Ice Age and "attained its present (year 2000) extent at 4,000 years before the present"

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6043/747.ful...

Excerpt: In general, our sea-ice record for North Greenland follows the Holocene climate development, with an early warm period followed by declining temperatures, which were punctuated by relatively warmer and colder intervals (17, 25). The reduction of the HTM sea ice in northern Greenland fits with the simulated ice distribution and surface temperature in orbitally forced ECHAM5/JSBACH/MPI-OM (EJM) and LOVECLIM general circulation climate model simulations (3, 4, 10). A tentative first approximation of the large-scale changes associated with the observed ice retreat north of Greenland can be obtained by selecting among the numerical experiments performed with the LOVECLIM model those that are the most similar to our observations [experiments E3 to E5 (3) and fig. S3]. In this exercise, our records would correspond in the model to an Arctic Ocean sea-ice cover in summer at 8 ky B.P. that was less than half of the record low 2007 level. The general buildup of sea ice from ~6 ky B.P. agrees with the LOVECLIM model, showing that summer sea-ice cover, which reached its Holocene maximum during the LIA, attained its present (~2000) extent at ~4 ky B.P.

Another paper ( Climate change and the northern Russian treeline zone) found that the northern tree line as recently as the Medieval Warm Period was considerably to the north of where it is now indicating that conditions in the Arctic region then were not only warmer but warmer for long enough for trees to grow.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC260678...

ABSTRACT
The Russian treeline is a dynamic ecotone typified by steep gradients in summer temperature and regionally variable gradients in albedo and heat flux. The location of the treeline is largely controlled by summer temperatures and growing season length. Temperatures have responded strongly to twentieth-century global warming and will display a magnified response to future warming. Dendroecological studies indicate enhanced conifer recruitment during the twentieth century. However, conifers have not yet recolonized many areas where trees were present during the Medieval Warm period (ca AD 800–1300) or the Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM; ca 10?000–3000 years ago). Reconstruction of tree distributions during the HTM suggests that the future position of the treeline due to global warming may approximate its former Holocene maximum position. An increased dominance of evergreen tree species in the northern Siberian forests may be an important difference between past and future conditions. Based on the slow rates of treeline expansion observed during the twentieth century, the presence of steep climatic gradients associated with the current Arctic coastline and the prevalence of organic soils, it is possible that rates of treeline expansion will be regionally variable and transient forest communities with species abundances different from today's may develop.


Even more incredible
By PaFromFL on 9/27/2013 5:14:05 PM , Rating: 5
It is even more incredible that all the hot air expended to preach about global warming had no effect on global temperatures.




Sadness? Nah
By rudolphna on 9/27/2013 5:16:34 PM , Rating: 2
On a slightly less serious note: dat flat chest~ :3




RE: Sadness? Nah
By spamreader1 on 9/27/2013 5:20:40 PM , Rating: 2
Considering the plastic sunglasses, it's probably a minor...


the constant answer
By DocScience on 9/27/2013 6:59:18 PM , Rating: 5
For greens, reds, and progressives, the answer to ANY problem, ANY issue, is always the same, a powerful global government with the power to control all aspects of business and life and to redistribute wealth (with much of the cash sticking to the fingers of those doing the redistributing)... for the good of all, of course.

The corrupting influence of this should not be ignored. Grant-based "science" quickly fell into line to keep the bucks coming.

But reality diverged from the alarmist models.
And here we are.
No doubt, reality is wrong.




RE: the constant answer
By Nagorak on 9/27/13, Rating: -1
RE: the constant answer
By ZorkZork on 9/28/13, Rating: -1
RE: the constant answer
By ZorkZork on 9/30/13, Rating: -1
RE: the constant answer
By inperfectdarkness on 9/30/2013 3:22:15 AM , Rating: 2
Global government? Sure...but what happens when the entire world goes bankrupt--which is the inevitable state of affairs for the vast majority of governments currently in power?

How much further does the world have to devolve into depravity before we once again realize that austerity and self-reliance trump social-welfare & nanny-state EVERY TIME.


The ignorance!
By ZorkZork on 9/28/2013 9:04:01 PM , Rating: 1
First, I am surprised that people ignore the rapid change in CO2 - growing at a faster rate than ever seen before in the 400000 years it has been measured. It seems fairly obvious to me that changing the composition of the atmosphere will lead to a change in climate.

Then some idiot calls says that CO2 is just plant food. Yes it is food for plants, but too much food is still a problem. Try dumping too much food in an aquarium and see what happens. CO2 in the atmosphere would not be a problem if plants were able to capture it at the same rate we are releasing it. The rapid change in CO2 levels proves that plants are not (at least not in the short term).

Then we have the usual stuff that this is just about taxes or government grants. Well, this so called green/red/whatever conspiracy seems to be worldwide involving distinguished scientist from pretty much every country on the planet. Some from countries where the whole idea of tax on emissions makes no sense. It would take more than a genius to put together such a conspiracy. Most of the tax schemes that have been proposed (though you can always find a socialist who wants to use this to increase taxes) would be neutral to governments.

Some of the authors have been appointed by developing countries to whom climate change will become a serious impediment to reaching their development goals – they would much rather this issue vanished. Why would they put work into this? For the laughable sums of money that the industrialized countries could end up paying (not bloody likely)? India and China does not need those small sums – they are perfectly capable of creating wealth it would appear.

The whole idea about that this is about government grants is even more laughable. Government grants are usually small whereas grants from commercial companies that have a vested interest in the research can be huge. If I was working in the fields of earth climate and had any real evidence could disprove anthropoid warming then I’m sure I could find 20 oil companies that would generously sponsor my research.

And then the armchair scientists criticize the IPCC for not being spot on in their predictions. We are in unknown territory – we have never in “recorded” history been at these levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Every year new research will come out – long term predictions will get better. Keep in mind that the IPCC does not do any research themselves – they simply combine research done by scientists around the earth. They are just a few scientists that compile the research into a more readable form. And the group changes from year to year (which will also account for changes in predictions).

What is clear is that earth is warming constantly (when you remember to include the ocean temperature). Climate is not weather – you cannot use the climate predictions to estimate how the weather will be tomorrow or next year. Climate is about long term trends.

And all of this coming from someone who is not green/red/progressive. I love driving my car, I hate public transport, I don’t want a bigger government, my family flies on vacation 3-4 times a year; we use way more electricity than the average family, etc. The science behind this stuff seems real when I poke around and that scares the heck out of me. The scientists who have opposing theories seems to be crackpots from other fields of science. Moreover, the commenters on this site are the “lets ignore science and continue the party” types – both on this topic and others.




RE: The ignorance!
By wookie1 on 9/29/2013 4:14:55 AM , Rating: 1
You may have set a record for the longest post that is completely devoid of any facts. The earth is warming constantly? You mean except for the last 18-20 years, right?


RE: The ignorance!
By KurgSmash on 9/29/2013 4:08:01 PM , Rating: 2
Cherry pick data much
By futrtrubl on 9/27/2013 6:05:35 PM , Rating: 3
For someone who has criticized people for cherry picking data you managed to do it quite well yourself.

ZOMG The worst case predictions that the authors said were unlikely to happen didn't happen! This invalidates everything they said!!!1!!one




Better models please
By Shig on 9/27/2013 5:11:07 PM , Rating: 2
I have yet to see a study try to make accurate predictions at the month resolution over a 10 year time period.

The amount of data and computation you need for a valid comprehensive weather model is beyond us at the moment. Right now we're trying to base policy on snapshots of the weather.

The slope of CO2 emissions is also important. Not just the bulk amount of CO2 up in the atmosphere, but the rate at which it is currently being added per month, per year, etc. Not only that, but where is it being added? Emissions from the west are dropping while emissions from the east keep going up, if you take mostly western data inputs on weather, well you see the problem.

This is an exascale problem and we don't have exascale systems yet.




By foxalopex on 9/30/2013 1:06:02 PM , Rating: 2
I find it interesting that while air temperature is remaining stable that ocean temperatures are rising. Maybe I'm wrong but isn't most of the earth covered by ocean? (Hence the "blue" planet) This to me still seems like a bad sign.

I took a tour of a coal generation station this weekend and during the tour they were looking for a way to convert to wood pellets instead of using coal. They discovered that aside from being carbon neutral (trees take up CO2 which are burned) the other advantages are it produced less than half the leftover toxic ash, no mercury and less radiation is released in the atmosphere. The big problem was there is no local wood pellet plant. The wood pellets had 25% less punch as well meaning you needed for but I think for that trade-off it would be worthwhile.

The problem is this would require a substantial investment to build a plant, while in many ways it's just easier to keep burning coal even thou it's worse for the environment. This is sadly the reality we face. Do we invest in a better future or do we keep doing what we do, and worry about disasters as they come.




Well this is what I know...
By dxf2891 on 9/30/2013 4:17:52 PM , Rating: 2
Growing up in the Midwestern United States in the 70's and 80's, you heard about the North Pole as some winter wonderland. We experienced winters that lasted 3 to 4 months (snowfall usually began in November and ended in March). In 1988, during cold weather training at the true North Pole, it was a massive iceflow. Massive enough that some Marines and US Navy sailors played baseball "around the world" with true north as the pitchers mound. Winters in the Midwestern United States recently have been reduced to possibly one month and an average temperature of 60 degrees. That same iceflow where they played baseball is now tantamount to a lake. No more ice flow. We hear about brush fires more often as well. What does this all mean? Make your own conclusions.




Warming shwarming
By Nephelai on 10/1/2013 8:57:15 AM , Rating: 2
Talk about play side politics to make $$$ rather than address the real issue.

In about 4B years the Sun will start to destroy the Earth. The only two priorities for humanity are space travel so we can escape and to stop making people so we can survive until we leave.




Oceans Absorbing Heat
By EBECKC on 10/8/2013 4:11:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
One hypothesis that is backed by a subset of warming researchers -- which include many members of the so-called "scientific consensus" on global warming -- is that the ocean is sucking up the excess heat, preventing further warming. Dr. Brian King, an ocean circulation and climatology researcher at the UK's National Oceanography Centre tells CBS Corp. (CBS) in an interview, "[Over the last decade the oceans] each year are warmer than the previous year and certainly each decade is warmer."

I would like to point out that we are not certain that is going to happen. And even if we were, if the oceans DID absorb heat, then it would not make much of a difference because prevailing winds are going to be pushing the ocean currents, whether they are warm or cold, and carrying the warmth over land, therefore returning it to it's original place. Please comment below and tell me whether or whether not I am accurate.




Rubbish.
By KurgSmash on 9/29/2013 3:59:19 PM , Rating: 1
Man is contributing to global warming. It's easily proved.

That said - there are indeed chicken littles and profiteers (like Gore) out there trumping it up and trying to start a panic.

So what. Science is self-correcting by its nature and climate modeling is _incredibly_ complex.

So if you want to present this as an instance of how some people are chicken-littling on AGW then by all means they are. If you want to pretend this somehow means we can all wipe the sweat from our brows, say "Whew!", and ignore the vast, massive preponderance of evidence that says humans are contributing to global warming which could have a negative impact on humanity in decades or centuries then you are a fool.




Kill all clean energy now!
By sulu1977 on 9/27/13, Rating: 0
Sure, if they say so
By aharris02 on 9/27/13, Rating: -1
RE: Sure, if they say so
By PaFromFL on 9/27/2013 5:16:19 PM , Rating: 2
... or just another Dust Bowl cycle.


RE: Sure, if they say so
By spamreader1 on 9/27/2013 5:19:19 PM , Rating: 4
Anyone with any sense in Texas already knows, our weather patterns are quite consistent with the pacific warming/cooling patterns(el nino,la nina), with a mix of hurricane activity from time to time to throw things off.


RE: Sure, if they say so
By ZorkZork on 9/28/2013 9:26:38 PM , Rating: 1
Nothing like common sense for the common man to ward off science. Common sense also said the earth was flat ...


RE: Sure, if they say so
By Nutzo on 9/30/2013 4:44:28 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it was the Scientific consensus of the day that the world was flat, just like it's the Scientific consensus today that man is to blame for global warming.


RE: Sure, if they say so
By ZorkZork on 9/30/2013 5:15:50 PM , Rating: 2
Actually there was no such thing as a scientific method at that time. That came much later ...


RE: Sure, if they say so
By Gondor on 9/29/2013 1:00:19 PM , Rating: 2
Shouldn't increase in CO2 levels and additional water (coming from polar regions due to temperature increase) actually stimulate vegetation growth in now-arid regions ? Plants need CO2 and H2O for growth, more plants -> more CO2 to O2 reprocessing.


RE: Sure, if they say so
By Paj on 9/30/2013 8:54:23 AM , Rating: 2
You should go and contact the IPCC, I'm sure they left that bit out.


RE: Sure, if they say so
By ShieTar on 9/30/2013 9:29:54 AM , Rating: 2
No, I'm sure they did not leave it out. I've personally read half a dozen articles on the observed massive increase of habitable zones, especially in the north of Canada and Russia, when comparing the current reality with photographs from the early 20th century.

Nevertheless, the increase in global vegetation is not nearly enough to offset our current emission, that would require close to 70 million hectares of mature Forrest per year (i.e. about the size of Texas). At the same time, basically all the deserts in the world are growing. And also, almost 1 million hectare of forest is still destroyed every year world-wide.


RE: Sure, if they say so
By boeush on 9/30/2013 7:46:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Shouldn't increase in CO2 levels and additional water (coming from polar regions due to temperature increase) actually stimulate vegetation growth in now-arid regions ? Plants need CO2 and H2O for growth, more plants -> more CO2 to O2 reprocessing.
Not necessarily.

A warming climate does not just increase water content in the atmosphere, it also increases the rate of water evaporation from the ground. Whether or not a given plot of land receives and retains more moisture on the whole, varies depending on the specifics of local topography and local climate. So yes, some arid areas will get wetter. Yet, some other arid areas will get even more arid, and some formerly-wet areas will trend toward arid as well. Other, currently wet areas may turn into outright swamps, or at least become subject to more frequent floods. With an overall warmer climate, the odds and intensity of wildfires also go up.

Additionally, high latitudes while getting warmer, will still remain snow-bound for much of the year. For instance, warming up from an average winter temperature of -10 C to -5 C, still means you're covered in snow. More moisture in the air might actually mean you get covered in deeper snow than before the warming, which takes longer to melt and dry up, which means that you might wind up turning much of the present-day tundra into swampland -- not exactly a boon to agricultural production or to the economy in general... And even during the summer, high latitude regions don't get nearly as much sunlight per unit surface area (due to the low angle of the Sun in the sky); if you recall, sunlight is also an indispensable key "nutrient" for plant growth.

On balance, virtually every ecosystem will be disrupted to various degrees, in the long term some with net positive effect on productivity and diversity, and some with net negative effect. In the short term, the rapidity of the changes, and the increased segregation of ecosystems due to surrounding urban/infrastructure developments, in combination with already-present and growing stress from human activities, greatly boost the odds of a mass extinction among land-dwelling species.

Lastly, in terms of economic impact, melting permafrost augurs enormous damage to existing infrastructure (rail, pipelines, roads, bridges, villages, small towns, and entire cities) already built on top of it. It's like turning a bedrock foundation into quicksand: good luck trying to "adapt" to that without breaking the bank. Also, melting permafrost and peat bogs will produce a massive out-gassing of methane and CO2 (due to revitalization/invigoration of the decomposition processes active in those environments, as well as just previously-trapped biogas escaping into the atmosphere.) This is a potentially very strong positive feedback to AGW (could greatly speed up/amplify the warming trend), the magnitude of which is highly uncertain and hard to model (and the processes involved are under intense study currently), but it is a well-known and major systemic risk to Earth's entire climate system. The accelerating outgassing from melting permafrost is already being observed and monitored at a number of arctic study sites.


RE: Sure, if they say so
By hubb1e on 9/28/2013 3:04:32 PM , Rating: 2
You've got some learnin' to do. There's a big difference between weather and climate. Cyclical droughts and regional weather have nothing to do with global climate which takes into account the entire earth and over many decades of time. You'll notice that the greenies know this too, and they'll tell you that cold winters and mild hurricane seasons are just weather, but when you get a hot spell or a drought they'll blame Global Warming.


RE: Sure, if they say so
By Nfarce on 9/29/2013 12:14:03 PM , Rating: 2
You know what, junk science lover? If it floods, you people blame it on man-made global warming (AGW). If there are too many hurricanes, you people blame it on AGW. If there are too many tornadoes, you people blame it on AGW. IF it doesn't rain ENOUGH, you people blame it on AGW. If the hurricane season is scaled back in quantity forecast, you people blame it on AGW.

Tell ya what bub - take your junk science/religion and go start your own church and nation, and let the rest of the sane Western World live in modern times, mmmkay?


RE: Sure, if they say so
By PaFromFL on 9/29/2013 8:38:32 PM , Rating: 2
Times have changed. Those people no longer blame every bad thing on AGW. They were obviously wrong too many times. They now blame every bad thing on Anthropogenic Climate Change. Now they are only wrong if nothing changes. They are safe because everyone believes in Climate Change and it is hard to prove or disprove the Anthropogenic part (because no one lives long enough to realize climatologists are even worse at predicting the future than meteorologists).


Notice the "Range of Forecast"
By Nagorak on 9/27/13, Rating: -1
By troysavary on 9/28/2013 6:44:17 AM , Rating: 2
Wait 5 years and we will be wishing that the trend was right. It will be colder. And we are in for a few years of crazy weather. The transition period between the warming trends and the cooling trends has always been accompanied by violent weather. Man is neither causing it, nor can he do anything to prevent it, unless you have some thermostat for the sun.


STFU
By Da W on 9/27/13, Rating: -1
RE: STFU
By Ammohunt on 9/27/2013 5:35:46 PM , Rating: 2
Only if you find the girl with the Tatoo on her back. Good luck getting away from me on my smoker.


RE: STFU
By retrospooty on 9/27/2013 5:45:01 PM , Rating: 2
meh, stop panicking. The Sea may or may not rise depending on which batch of scientists you believe. NOthing to stresss about... Not a good time to buy beachfront property, other than that just breathe, and repeat.


RE: STFU
By SPOOFE on 9/27/2013 5:57:23 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
And I sure hope that, when the sea level rises, you and your descendants will be the first to die!

A perfect summation of the pro-AGW argument. "I don't like you so I hope you die." Science, everybody!


RE: STFU
By Jyrioffinland on 9/30/2013 9:23:47 AM , Rating: 2
Can you be more childish and pathetic if you really tried? Both of you.


RE: STFU
By talonvor on 9/27/13, Rating: -1
RE: STFU
By boeush on 9/27/2013 8:59:34 PM , Rating: 2
It's rare to see a post so crammed full of strawmen and red herrings. Quite a messy (and smelly) load.

Well, OK I'm in a masochistic mood today, so I'll hold my nose for the time being...
quote:
the small amount of CO2 that humans have contributed to the planets atmosphere
Define "small amount". Pre-industrial concentration was ~280 ppm. We know that CO2 never rose above that mark over the last 800,000 years (at a minimum), across multiple glacial/interglacial cycles. This much is factually determined from Antarctic and Greenland ice cores. Today, CO2 is toying with 400 ppm. Let's do some simple math: (400 - 280) / 280 = ~0.43

In other words, since the onset of industrialization (in about a century and a half) humans have raised atmospheric CO2 concentration by 43% above long-term average.

That is no small feat, considering something like 50% of all CO2 emissions so far had been absorbed by the oceans (resulting in ocean acidification, and threatening marine food webs as a consequence.) For additional context, with the oceans warming they become less effective at absorbing CO2, and if they warm enough, they'll actually start to outgas CO2 rather than acting as sinks. And to complete the picture, global yearly CO2 emissions continue to grow superlinearly.
quote:
is not enough to cause the planets temperature to spiral out of control like the IPCC wants people to believe it will
You flat-out lie here. IPCC never made any such claims.
quote:
they only say that human activity is not the sole reason for that warming
What, other than human activity, should we blame then? We know it's not the Sun, because we've directly measured solar output, using special research satellites, for the last ~40 years -- and find it not only level overall, but on a slight downtrend over that time span. We also know it's not the Sun, because night-time temperatures have been rising much faster than day-time temperatures, and also because temperatures have been rising much faster at high latitudes than around the equator, and also because the troposphere has been warming even while the stratosphere has been cooling. Really, what possible factor other than fortified greenhouse effect, could possibly result in such a collective pattern of changes? I'm all ears...
quote:
why during the Earths past, was the temperature 4 times higher than today while CO2 levels were about 1/3 of what they are today?
Eh? Current average temperature of the planet is somewhere around 15 C, which is 283 K. Four times that would be 1132 K. I don't think Earth's temperature has been anywhere nearly that high, at least since its surface re-solidified after the Moon-forming impact...
quote:
And another scenario that they avoid like the plague, why were there periods in the Earths past that CO2 was up to 15 times higher than today, but global temperature was 20% lower than it currently is?
You neglect to consider that this last occurred hundreds of millions of years ago, and that consequently there are large uncertainties around those numbers in the first place (i.e. instead of 6,000 PPM, actual concentrations might have never exceeded 3,500 PPM.) Also, because of the ancient nature of those events, data on their causes is hard to come by, and there are multiple competing hypotheses involving multiple plausible mechanisms (like changes in ocean circulation due to continental drift, changes in cosmic radiation or meteorite/asteroid impact rates as the solar systems slowly orbits around the galactic center and crosses through the galactic disk as well as through galactic arms, to periodic and geologically slow changes in Sun's output, slow geological cycles of rock weathering and renewal, etc.)

Secondly, you neglect to consider that the high CO2 concentrations tend to coincide with the final phase of global glaciations (which make the more recent Ice Ages look like tropical vacations), and it is precisely those super-high CO2 concentrations that are hypothesized as the cause for the Earth eventually thawing out (the current understanding is that when Earth is in "snowball" mode, most oceans are covered by ice, which inhibits oceanic uptake of CO2, which gradually accumulates in the atmosphere via volcanic emissions, until it is concentrated enough to overcome the high albedo of the global ice/snow cover and instigate global 'melting'.)
quote:
Those two scenarios have them stomping their feet and walking away like a 3 year old
Who is "them"? Have you ever actually talked to a real scientist -- or at least to anyone remotely versed in the subject matter? Or are "they" nothing more than stereotyped caricatures inhabiting your imaginary reality?
quote:
It really doesn't matter what we do because there is no way we can stop that temperature change either.
The simple truth is that you know about as much about climate science, as you probably do about any other field from applied physics to abstract mathematics and anything in between. Yet paradoxically you feel confident in constructing conclusions from nonexistent building blocks on top of illusory foundations.

And... you are SO TYPICAL of your ilk, it's almost as if you people are being manufactured on some assembly line somewhere...


RE: STFU
By boeush on 9/27/2013 9:04:46 PM , Rating: 2
273+Whoops...
quote:
current average temperature of the planet is somewhere around 15 C, which is 283 K. Four times that would be 1132 K.
typo there; 15 C is actually 288 K, which times 4 actually gives 1152. Well, not a substantial enough error to change the argument...


RE: STFU
By Dorkyman on 9/28/2013 6:56:29 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, we really are doomed! Or maybe not.

There is debate about whether CO2 drives temperature, or vice-versa.

Also, debate regarding cloud cover and cloud formation from ionized particles.

Me, I'm agnostic. But short of thermonuclear war a wholesale return to <300ppm simply will not happen. WILL NOT HAPPEN. So we learn to live with a changing climate.

A huge turnoff for me is the religious fervor that festers within the climate-doom community. My way or off with your head. Sorry. I've seen what religious fervor has done in the past.


RE: STFU
By ZorkZork on 9/28/2013 9:17:43 PM , Rating: 2
So you are willing to venture into unknown territory with the earths climate? You are willing to gamble with it simply because you think your are right? (while science seems to say something different)

You are like the commies who think they have figured out how to run the economy using a perfect plan and who ignores every fact about economic theory for the past 300 years. Every time commies get to run the economy it ends in tears and worse.

Same will happen if you disregard science when it comes to climate ...


RE: STFU
By wookie1 on 9/29/2013 4:18:47 AM , Rating: 2
It seems that the earth's climate itself is unknown territory. These scientists can't even figure out the climate system's sensitivity to increases in CO2, while at the same time declaring that the planet is going to warm catastrophically - somehow ignoring that CO2 levels have been much higher in the past and yet we are still here.

You're willing to gamble your kids and grandkids financial future on the chance that these scientists are right, even though every day there is new data that contradicts their predictions?


RE: STFU
By ZorkZork on 9/30/2013 4:03:58 AM , Rating: 2
Dealing with this problem can be done without gambling with anyones financial future. A few percentages of GDP should suffice ... something equivalent to taking away one or two years of growth.

Reading the report it is pretty clear that there is a general agreement that earths climate is sensitive to CO2 levels. How much it is sensitive to CO2 is another question. Expect that to never be fully answered ... even if temperature rises 5 Kelvin.


RE: STFU
By ShieTar on 9/30/2013 10:01:35 AM , Rating: 2
Who is ignoring anything? We know life has existed the last time CO2 levels were above 400ppm. But we also know that the ocean levels were about 80m higher than, and the antarctic was ice-free. Sure humanity as a species can survive that kind of change. Just not all 7 billion of us.

On the other hand, the fear that the development of new and improved technology leads to a breakdown of industry and wide-spread poverty has been very effectively proven wrong over the last few decades. Quality of life and economic conditions in ecologically advanced nations in Europe, like Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, are now the same or even higher than those in the US, while consumption of fossil fuels per capita is still 50% lower.


RE: STFU
By Tewt on 9/27/2013 9:16:07 PM , Rating: 2
How do you explain this article then, talonvor? It just came out too. Funny how, at least to me, two different studies report such an contradictory outlook. I weep that in this age of information we must become experts in the field for every major issue so we can get the truth without some agenda attached.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57604784/u.n-p...


RE: STFU
By ShieTar on 10/1/2013 4:18:28 AM , Rating: 2
Well, that is exactly the point of the IPCC, to help people which are not experts in the field (reporters, politicians, interested laymen) get an overview of of which results of research are currently agreed upon by the majority of researchers who are indeed experts in this field.

Of course the IPCC has a problem, as they have to convince almost everybody in order to achieve anything. The anti-scientific lobby groups on the other hand merely have to confuse half the people in order to achieve their own goals.


RE: STFU
By Schrag4 on 9/27/2013 8:00:16 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
And I sure hope that, when the sea level rises, you and your descendants will be the first to die!


David Guth, is that you?


RE: STFU
By troysavary on 9/28/2013 6:48:24 AM , Rating: 2
The radical left hates humanity. They are always cheering for man extinction of humans.


RE: STFU
By Jyrioffinland on 9/30/2013 9:21:55 AM , Rating: 2
Nay, they are busy turning innocent youth gay.


"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997














botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki