Global Warming

[Captain Cardio]

Captain Cardio said: Interesting Argument About Global Warming Video Regardless of whether you believe global warming is happening or not, this is a good impartial video to use to give some perspective.

Anybody have thoughts on this?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Father' of climatology dismisses global warming as 'hooey': 'There is a lot of money to be made in this'...

local

The IPCC has ulterior motives Pooey, political motives.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Captain Cardio Anybody have thoughts on this?

Very well argued, though he could have perhaps dealt a little more in evidence--the study after study.

Grandpa h.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Pooey, I take it you find places like Mount Kilimanjaro's glaciers melting as a herald of Global Warming am I right?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Pooey, I take it you find places like Mount Kilimanjaro's glaciers melting as a herald of Global Warming am I right?

Why? Don't glaciers melt doing the summer times?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio local The IPCC has ulterior motives Pooey, political motives.

Right, if that's what you want to believe, be my guest. I'm just not one for conspiracies...

Hey, at least you posted a balanced article this time.

Not so fast, say scientists: Galen McKinley, an assistant professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences at UW-Madison disagrees with Bryson, whom she notes is a respected researcher and professor with a long history at the university. "There are innumerable studies that show that the shoe fits for global warming, I guess you could say, and the human causation for it," McKinley said. "We understand very well the basic process of the greenhouse effect, which is that we know that the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases the heat trapped by the atmosphere. You put one dollar more in the bank and you have one dollar more there tomorrow. It's a very clear feedback," she said. Carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing over the industrial period, about 200 years, and can be observed very clearly through about 100 monitoring stations worldwide, McKinley said. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing consistently with the amount that humans are putting into the atmosphere, she said. "We know humans are putting it there, we understand the basic mechanism and we know that the temperatures are warming. Many, many, many studies illustrate that both at the global scale and at the regional scale."

Did you stop reading before you reached these parts?

[xyzer]

Come come pooey..Not so fast. You can't dismiss counter argument with this type nonsense...

Because that is the conclusion of the IPCC, it is the conclusion drawn from the assessment of hundreds of independent studies on climate change. It is NOT my personal opinion, it is that of the researchers and experts. It is also the conclusion of all reputable scientific organisations

Vicchio and I have posted plenty of expert counter sources...who are not convinced!
Here is the latest which you will no doubt look at and discard?
High price for load of hot air | The Courier-Mail

From the source..

The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.

Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

Third, there are strong indications from solar studies that Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades.

Lets also address this rationalization..

Because that is the conclusion of the IPCC

You assert certainty to the conclusions of a political organization? IPCC?
The article notes..

As leading economist David Henderson has pointed out, it is extremely dangerous for an unelected and unaccountable body like the IPCC to have a monopoly on climate policy advice to governments. And even more so because, at heart, the IPCC is a political and not a scientific agency.

Here is the latest confirmation of that ..Climate change behind Darfur killing: UN's Ban
The UN gets a new mouthpiece..inexpert in climate but obviously a good politician and the revelations begin to again alarm the people?

[xyzer]

Captain Cardio..An interesting video but IMO it contains pretty well flawed reasoning and assumptions.
.
It assumes warming will continue? Past climate data disputes that. As a matter of fact geologic changes are very slow in human term and we are still warming from an Ice Age? I just posted a revelation that the globe hasn't warmed in almost 10 years? We know there was a cooling period some 30 years back?

It asumes humans are an influencing factor? And of course it then postulates that human activity can be modified to influence global climate change? No evidence of this that I know of? We can't even change the local weather? Natural changes(the sun, continetal drift, volvanic action) are far more likely the culprits!

It doesn't allow for adaptive human technology? The model asumes that all sorts of horrible catastrophic human impacts will occur..According to this guy, they may occur in 10 years? It assumes we are helpless and can't adapt to change? Who is the guy a clone of Al Gore?

It avoids the issue of just what is the optimum global temperature range for us and the other species on the planet? Is it now? Was it 50 years ago? The optimum for dinosaurs ended some 65 million years ago? Tere are all sort of different climate ranges. What is optimum? Is optimum for humans the optimum for plant species?

Above all, there is no certainty and the risk is very slow in human terms. Which transates to more study, time and observation.That's what is needed before we attempt to change what we don't know how to change? Change what we don't know humans are causing?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Come come pooey..Not so fast. You can't dismiss counter argument with this type nonsense...

I'd hardly call the collective conclusion of the majority of scientist as mere nonsense.

Quote by: xyzer Vicchio and I have posted plenty of expert counter sources...who are not convinced!

No you haven't, you've posted rehashed arguments that don't have a leg to stand on once as soon we look at it in detail.

Quote by: xyzer Here is the latest which you will no doubt look at and discard? High price for load of hot air | The Courier-Mail From the source.. The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.

The IPCC doesn't carry out any research, what's he on about? The relationship between temperature and CO2 is not completely linear but nevertheless, the trend is still there. Let's not forget that it was due to El Nino that 1998 was such a record breaker.

Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

This has been explained. Now, how is it that Professor can repeat the same old outdated arguments? I'm not impressed.

Quote by: xyzer You assert certainty to the conclusions of a political organization? IPCC? The article notes..

The IPCC merely collates all the reports and conclusions from independent studies. Even if you don't care for their conclusions then you've still got ALL the National Academies of Science to contend with along with any major scientific organisation.

Quote by: xyzer Here is the latest confirmation of that ..Climate change behind Darfur killing: UN's Ban The UN gets a new mouthpiece..an expert in climate but obviously a good politician and the revelations begin to again alarm the people?

So you're going to go down this route of a conspiracy then?

[xyzer]

Don't put words in my mouth?Pooey

I'd hardly call the collective conclusion of the majority of scientist as mere nonsense.

I didn't call the collective conclusions nonsense. I called your dismissal of the counter arguments nonsense.

The IPCC doesn't carry out any research, what's he on about

Who said they did? It issued conclusions based on studies it chose. Who said the majority of scientists participated? You did..and in fact the majority didn't?

No you haven't, you've posted rehashed arguments that don't have a leg to stand on once as soon we look at it in detail.

As I predicted you twist and dismiss rather than accept other opinions and conclusions?
An example..

The relationship between temperature and CO2 is not completely linear but nevertheless, the trend is still there. Let's not forget that it was due to El Nino that 1998 was such a record breaker.

How do these figure in? What do you mean by this? The author wasn't talking about a specific year, he was talking about the years since 1998?

Frankly I'm begining to realize the depths of your beliefs preclude you from acepting other beliefs or even considering them? That's not the essence of scientific reason, is it? You've posted that you adhere to the scientific method and yet you don't accept other scientists conclusions if they differ from those that are already in your mind? You've repeatedly rejected logical conclusions from data if they differ from those in your rigid mindset. You repeatedly impugn the backgrounds and veracity of prominent climate scientists if their outlook differs from yours?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: Pooeypants Why? Don't glaciers meet doing the summer times?

Why would Glaciers meet? And what does summer have to do with it?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Don't put words in my mouth?Pooey I didn't call the collective conclusions nonsense. I called your dismissal of the counter arguments nonsense.

Any counter arguments that I may have dismissed is on the basis of the conclusions of the IPCCs and all the reputable scientific organisations.

Quote by: xyzer Who said they did? It issued conclusions based on studies it chose. Who said the majority of scientists participated? You did..and in fact the majority didn't?

Are you claiming the IPCC missed out many studies that would support your position? So what do you think the statements issued by the NASs represent? A minority view?

Quote by: xyzer As I predicted you twist and dismiss rather than accept other opinions and conclusions?

Why should I accept stuff that is misleading or false?

Quote by: xyzer An example.. How do these figure in? What do you mean by this? The author wasn't talking about a specific year, he was talking about the years since 1998?

Erm, it's directly related and addresses what he sees as a problem, that we've seen no warming since 1998. Obviously, this needs to be put into perspective otherwise it is a misleading remark. Do I have to draw out a diagram for you?

Quote by: xyzer Frankly I'm begining to realize the depths of your beliefs preclude you from acepting other beliefs or even considering them? That's not the essence of scientific reason, is it? You've posted that you adhere to the scientific method and yet you don't accept other scientists conclusions if they differ from those that are already in your mind? You've repeatedly rejected logical conclusions from data if they differ from those in your rigid mindset. You repeatedly impugn the backgrounds and veracity of prominent climate scientists if their outlook differs from yours?

Excuse me? The sources I post are not merely opinions and anecdotes from the odd Academic here and there.
I think it is you who have rejected the logical conclusions and instead, jump onto the bandwagon of anything that might support your ideas.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Why would Glaciers meet? And what does summer have to do with it?

My apologies, I meant melt. They do melt in the summer don't they? (Not all of it obviously)

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: Pooeypants My apologies, I meant melt. They do melt in the summer don't they? (Not all of it obviously)

Yeah but I was just thinking of the big poster child as it were, Glacier.

What are your thoughts on it, it's lost 90% of it's mass so far.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Yeah but I was just thinking of the big poster child as it were, Glacier. What are your thoughts on it, it's lost 90% of it's mass so far.

I thought it was just 80%, anyho, as far as I know it isn't directly related to GW and nor have I claimed otherwise.

[Mr.Vicchio]

I was just seeing if you were keeping up with the latest news, that' s all.

It's not at all related to GW and has been going since the last 1700's.

[rmnunez]

Bush is denounced for not ratifying the Kyoto accords, does anyone remember why he rejected them? Here's a hint:

China has overtaken the US as the world's biggest producer of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, figures released today show. The surprising announcement will increase anxiety about China's growing role in driving man-made global warming and will pile pressure onto world politicians to agree a new global agreement on climate change that includes the booming Chinese economy. China's emissions had not been expected to overtake those from the US, formerly the world's biggest polluter, for several years, although some reports predicted it could happen as early as next year. China overtakes US as world's biggest CO2 emitter | Climate change | Guardian Unlimited Environment

[Pooeypants]

I do find China's growth very scary (I am a British born Chinese though) as it is creating a huge class rift and they've completely forsaken the environment. Having said that, they are going through an industrial revolution and unlike us, cannot afford to use alternate forms of energy generation yet.

[rmnunez]

China can exploit what we've learned from past practice. The Chinese government has the opportunity to skip industrial practices which have been shown to be highly contaminating. We now are aware of latent effects from pollution that were not even known or considered when western countries underwent their industrialization. Consider the trees cut for telephone poles to install communications networks across whole countries. China could save some trees by using cell phones.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: rmnunez China can exploit what we've learned from past practice. The Chinese government has the opportunity to skip industrial practices which have been shown to be highly contaminating. We now are aware of latent effects from pollution that were not even known or considered when western countries underwent their industrialization. Consider the trees cut for telephone poles to install communications networks across whole countries. China could save some trees by using cell phones.

Although I'd love to discuss this further, I must insist that we take it to a (deservedly) separate thread.