Global Warming

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Some different versions of the debate. http://http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Local/newEAST01ENV051207.htm One scientist puts it this way..

Let's see, this about the Al Gore film which I have not watched and neither do I draw material from it.
I'll quote something else in the article that seem to be unable to comprehend.

"You want certainty, but it's hard to get that," he said. "Science isn't about certainty."

Quote by: xyzer Another academic posits.. Another source.. http://http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/inconvenient-truths

Another attack on Al Gore? I don't mind, he isn't a source of mine.

Quote by: xyzer A revelation of some slight of hand that bothers me? How do we come to believe that CO2 causes warming if data shows warming trends precede CO2 increases?

So the effects of increased CO2 cannot have a time lag?
Do you really have to post blogs from think tanks funded by Oil companies?

Quote by: xyzer I can only ask again. is it prudent to divert resources in an uncertain task to change climate(concentrating on one minor atmospheric ingredient CO2) when climate develops from so many variable sources? Where is the certainty?

Here's a question, what if cost more to do the "repairs" later in the line when we have better modelling? Are you just going to brush it off as wishful hindsight thinking?

Quote by: xyzer Even the IPPC interpretation of the generously used term "likely" is not more than an "estimated" 50% possible?

No, the current IPCC term is very likely and they gave a percentage of 90%.

The new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report says there is 90% certainty that the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities are driving climate change.

Quote by: xyzer Even when humans contribution to the less than 1% of atmospheric gas in a fraction of that 1%?

Again, you're playing with numbers game. The CO2 ppm has increased 280 to 380 due to human activity and this gas contributes up to 26% of thermal absorbance, as was cited earlier. It's not as simple as you'd like to put it.

I find that this debate is like talking to a brick wall, I mean, the last two points I have addressed has been done so previously on several occasions over the past few months.

[xyzer]

Do you really have to post blogs from think tanks funded by Oil companies?

This says it all pooey! When you resort to this type ad hominem stuff you transcend the limts of logic. You open the door to the funding sources of any experimenter, do you not? The illogical syllogism concludes...All persons associated with oil companies are evel and untruthful? Because all oil companies are bad?

[xyzer]

Again, you're playing with numbers game. The CO2 ppm has increased 280 to 380 due to human activity and this gas contributes up to 26% of thermal absorbance, as was cited earlier. It's not as simple as you'd like to put it.

I should point out here, you have just played the numbers game ! Your illogical twist is contained in the phrase following your numbers.."due to human activity"? You assume that, do you not? How do you know that the increase you cite was due to human activity?..Remember there are other variables, which include oceans heating and cooling. suns irradiance, etc? You are doing just what the IPCC did with the studies it consulted. Assuming that the cause was due to CO2 and virtually ignoring the primary sources of climate change in an effort to confirm your hypothesis? CO2 increased in the middle 20th century and yet we had a cooling period(1950-70) as it increased? Explain that one.

Your mind set is so rigid that when I point out experts who shoot down Gores..Inconvenient truth nonsense you dismiss it with statements you don't pay any attention to Gore. But pooey, its the guys like him who started the panic. Your whole belief system about climate change is so slanted towards CO2 and its anthropogenic causes you shut out any dissenters?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer This says it all pooey! When you resort to this type ad hominem stuff you transcend the limts of logic. You open the door to the funding sources of any experimenter, do you not? The illogical syllogism concludes...All persons associated with oil companies are evel and untruthful? Because all oil companies are bad?

Ah, I love it when someone gets all righteous and rhetoric. Luckily, I do have an answer to that.

Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial Britain's leading scientists have challenged the US oil company ExxonMobil to stop funding groups that attempt to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change. In an unprecedented step, the Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific academy, has written to the oil giant to demand that the company withdraws support for dozens of groups that have "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence". The scientists also strongly criticise the company's public statements on global warming, which they describe as "inaccurate and misleading".

Source

That's the Royal Society for Science in the UK, equivalent to the PNAS.

I love your strawmen's as well but as you can see in the above article, my accusations are not just my own unsubstantiated views.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer I should point out here, you have just played the numbers game ! Your illogical twist is contained in the phrase following your numbers.."due to human activity"? You assume that, do you not?

Not at all, the human footprint is quite evident. I have already presented the case to you before, but once again, like talking to a wall it's just not quite comprehended by you.

Quote by: xyzer How do you know that the increase you cite was due to human activity?..Remember there are other variables, which include oceans heating and cooling. suns irradiance, etc?

The carbon in the CO2 has variations in isotopic levels, this forms the basis of working out which portion of CO2 is human induced. Read here and look at it's scientific papers for further details.

Quote by: xyzer You are doing just what the IPCC did with the studies it consulted. Assuming that the cause was due to CO2 and virtually ignoring the primary sources of climate change in an effort to confirm your hypothesis?

Again, I ask for evidence that the reports have ignored the other primary sources.

Quote by: xyzer CO2 increased in the middle 20th century and yet we had a cooling period(1950-70) as it increased? Explain that one.

Are we going through that global cooling myth again? Again, I'll stress there was no global cooling period.

Quote by: xyzer Your mind set is so rigid that when I point out experts who shoot down Gores..Inconvenient truth nonsense you dismiss it with statements you don't pay any attention to Gore.

Yes, I do ignore it because they're statements refuting Gore. I don't care what Gore said, I care about what the IPCC's review said as it is an amalgation of all the literature and not just a pick & mix. I'd probably rank Al Gore's film with Michael Moore's stuff in terms of documentary levels.

Quote by: xyzer But pooey, its the guys like him who started the panic. Your whole belief system about climate change is so slanted towards CO2 and its anthropogenic causes you shut out any dissenters?

What panic? What belief system? I am merely reflecting the views of an International panel's review. Their report is far from doomsday-like. I would like to call your views panic-driven, you seem to have this view that if we were to lower our carbon dioxide emissions, we'd have to collapse our economies. As I cited earlier, that is not the case.

If you want to learn about the reason for CO2 lag and temperature, read here.
I eagerly await your critical analysis.

[Sugar]

Use of nuclear power may be our only hope left to reduce global warmings.

[insanegloss]

A mixture of decentralisation and centralised power production seems to me the best way of reducing our power use from dirty power production such as coal. By this I mean installing and retrofitting housing and businesses such things as solar heating, micro turbines in places that it would be beneficial.

Also teaching people and installing an ethic to cut waste usage, for example to switch a light off when they leave the room, turn the TV off instead of just putting it on standby and so on.

Then we will be on our way to a greener, more efficient world and reduce the impact global warming is to have.

[xyzer]

I use to read posts by pooey about how there was a consensus of scientists about anthropogenic influences on the latest shift to a warming climate cycle..
Here is the latest list of prominent dissenters in the theory. If you care to read their comments you will see there is a growing uncertainty with the IPCC conclusions...

http://http://epw.senate.gov/public/..._id=&Issue_id=

:)
Read it and put away your tools pooey, there is no need to build an Ark!

[Sarah22]

I say, bring on the global warming... warm weather all year round? yes!

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer I use to read posts by pooey about how there was a consensus of scientists about anthropogenic influences on the latest shift to a warming climate cycle.. Here is the latest list of prominent dissenters in the theory. If you care to read their comments you will see there is a growing uncertainty with the IPCC conclusions... http://http://epw.senate.gov/public/..._id=&Issue_id= :) Read it and put away your tools pooey, there is no need to build an Ark!

Ah, more anecdotes to liven up my day.

Now, here's a collection of myths (it's not biased as states points of the other side, such as the myth that Hurricane Katrina was due to GW).

[Mr.Vicchio]

Anecdotes?


Real scientist questioning your version of what's going with the climate is Anecdotes?

Hey that's right, you have "consensus" you don't need to hear dissent.

[rez]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Anecdotes? Real scientist questioning your version of what's going with the climate is Anecdotes? Hey that's right, you have "consensus" you don't need to hear dissent.

The link that xyzer provided does not work, so what are you referring to?
Are you making a claim based on something you did not read?

[rmnunez]

Alarm:

Our planet is just five years away from climate change catastrophe -but can still be saved, according to a new report. WWF warns governments have until 2012 to "plant the seeds of change" and make positive moves to limit carbon emissions. If they fail to do so, the WWF's Vision For 2050 warns "generations to come will have to live with the compromises and hardships caused by their inability to act". "We have a small window of time in which we can plant the seeds of change, and that is the next five years," James Leape, from the WWF, said. Sky News - 'Five Years Left To Save The Planet'

But we mustn't resort to evil nuclear energy (its a "red herring") WWF adds.

Meanwhile, Greenpeace is getting ready building an Ark with dire predictions:

"Climate change is real, it's happening now and unless world leaders take urgent, decisive and far-reaching action, the next decades will see human misery on a scale not experienced in modern times," said Greenpeace activist Hilal Atici. "Those leaders have a mandate from the people ... to massively cut greenhouse gas emissions and to do it now." Greenpeace Builds Replica of Noah's Ark

And skepticism over the “consensus” from scientists!

Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven “consensus” on man-made global warming. .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

The list includes Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist, recipient of the Goldschmidt Medal from the US Geochemical Society; Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa, Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa.

And then Czech President Vaclav Klaus on Wednesday called for what I'd like to see a bit more of too, some level-headedness dismissing this "hysteria" enviromentalists are promoting:

"Let's bring the debate to whether the 0.6 (degree Celsius warming over the last century) is much or little, how much Man has contributed to the warming and ... if there is anything at all Man can do about it," Klaus said when presenting his book "Blue, Not a Green Planet." Czech president calls for rational debate on global warming, rejects "current hysteria" - Print Version - International Herald Tribune

[xyzer]

Thanks for correcting my reference rmnunez..but can truth overcome myth in the minds of some? I wonder?

[deepk]

Some of the scientists have predicted by 2020 16% of the worlds land will be under water. The effects of global warming are visible from sattelite images of the Antratic where huge glaciers are simply melting awaya and breaking free from the main ice cap. This could be the start of the End of Humans on earth.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: rez The link that xyzer provided does not work, so what are you referring to? Are you making a claim based on something you did not read?

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Welcome :.

Click on the "Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics" link.


That's what he was shooting for, it's also:

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

[Pooeypants]

Ah, the good old misinformation is put to work again. I'm pretty sure you're trying to say that many leading scientists are in denial, but that's a myth.
How long can you hang on to that fantasy world you live in?

[rmnunez]

Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week. A combination of misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype, and political spin had created the current hysteria and it was time to put a stop to it. "It is time to attack the myth of global warming," he said. Water vapour was responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only 5% of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6%. However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2% of that, hence only 0.12% of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046% respectively. "That ought to be the end of the argument, there and then," he said. "We couldn't do it (change the climate) even if we wanted to because water vapour dominates." Yet the Greens continued to use phrases such as "The planet is groaning under the weight of CO2" and Government policies were about to hit industries such as farming, he warned. "The Greens are really going to go after you because you put out 49% of the country´s emissions. Does anybody ask 49% of what? Does anybody know how small that number is? Global warming debunked - Local News - The Timaru Herald

I'm told this is a reputable meteorologist, but understand his studies are dismissed by the consensus as too generalistic, looking into things like botany and weather patterns, rather than the pure mathematical modelling the IPCC relies on. Also consider he is addressing a group of New Zealand's notoriously conservative farmers.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: rmnunez I'm told this is a reputable meteorologist, but understand his studies are dismissed by the consensus as too generalistic, looking into things like botany and weather patterns, rather than the pure mathematical modelling the IPCC relies on. Also consider he is addressing a group of New Zealand's notoriously conservative farmers.

He's playing the numbers game, which works if you have little knowledge about environmental physics/chemistry. Unfortunately, in the real world CO2 is an important component of the greenhouse gases, this is a good hard fact. But what's important to also point out is that the thermal absorption spectra for each of the gases is different so to simplify it in the context of merely percentages like that (that's if he got them right) is complete folly and misleading.
Not to mention this guy's pretty much perpetuating the myth that human emissions are insignificant compared to natural emissions.

[rmnunez]

There is no climate model or climate textbook that does not discuss the role water vapor plays in the Greenhouse Effect. It is the strongest Greenhouse gas, contributing 66% to 85% to the overall effect when you include clouds, 36% - 66% for vapor alone. It is however, not considered as a climate "forcing" because the amount of H2O in the air varies basically as a function of temperature. If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times), similarily, due to the abundance of sea surface, if you somehow removed water from the air it would quickly be replaced through evaporation. A Few Things Ill Considered: Climate Scientists Hide Water Vapor

A more detailed treatment from "realclimate": RealClimate » Water vapour: feedback or forcing?