Global Warming

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer For those with the time and inclination to read more on the subject of how the case for global warming is presented..try thisScience and Public Policy Institute - “Consensus”? What “Consensus”?Among Climate Scientists, The Debate Is Not Over It seems there is not consensus and that angle is being abused by the yay sayers?

No, the consensus is very evident, I will again cite the list of organisations that take Global warming seriously. Is there some major scientific group that's missed out? Please do tell.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer I'm chuckling over the site you refeference pooey? The author and his argument fall right into the logical trap? The chart on Holocene Temperature Variations explodes the myth.

How does it?

Quote by: xyzer The temperature variations over the thousands of years have varied dramtically.Some epochs have shown greater warming. Even a thousand years back it was warmer.

No, it doesn't, look at the graph again, especially at the recent proxy box.

Quote by: xyzer The author talks about 'cherry picking' data and then in the geological sense cherry picks the current data?

How does he cherry pick the current data?

Quote by: xyzer By the way I read that 1998 wasn't as warm as 1934?

And I read that some was going to show case a perpetual motion machine.

Quote by: xyzer Don't the charts indicate that well before the influence of we humans there were dramatic variations in the earths temperatures?

This was never an issue, but that's like saying that just because cancer happens naturally, smoking cigs can't increase its risk of occurring.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Al Gore is the face of the Progressive Global Warming Movement. Like it or not Pooey, that's how it is. I His movie might be a Michael Moore type film, but it's also being pushed on Elementary and High school students as facts. By people that swallow the GW theory.

Then people should learn the real science as told by scientists and not a politician OR an economist.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Global warming guru James Hansen, a NASA scientist, received $250,000 from a foundation run by Teresa Heinz Kerry. Hansen endorsed John Kerry for president in 2004. But I wouldn't dream of suggesting Hansen was bought.

Yes, it's obvious that it has nothing to do with the fact that for many years, the White house under the Bush administration has not been too kind to the scientists. I mean, the UCS was formed just for the fun of it! Yeah. Obviously. :rolleyes:

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Arctic climate study reveals impact of industrial soot More insight into "global warming!" I'm loving this stuff this week.

The article cites that it was still human activity that lead to the "local" warming in that area (this time, you can't make excuses either about uncertainty). Kind of ironic that you would actually post it...

[Mr.Vicchio]

Local warming due to SOOT layering the ice. Soot. From the turn of the century era coal burning.

Not C02 from cars.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Local warming due to SOOT layering the ice. Soot. From the turn of the century era coal burning. Not C02 from cars.

Yes, that is correct, I was merely pointing out the fact that it was definitive human activity which caused this melting.
Further more, I have never mentioned the melting Greenland as a critical point for my arguments.

[Mr.Vicchio]

I wasn't saying you had, it's merely an example of information used to support a conclusion it cannot.

[xyzer]

Pooey...come on now?

My beef is that you're making it out as if I am an acolyte of Al Gore when I've stated time and time again that I have not seen his film and nor will I bother

I know your not a fan of Al Gores..you've indicated it several times, Is that supposed to silence me on the subject of the demagogues who hitchhike on IPCC reports and inflates the issue? I don't tailor my posts or opinions to please you ? If you don't like it , I dont care whether you try to rebut them or not. Thats your right, is it not? Just remember, I'm not here to please you?

I tried my reference again and was able to reach it. This time read the whole reference if you are capable of absorbing it.. It mightbe revealing.

I can't believe we are looking at the same graph..Holocene Temp Variations, Do you mean you can't see the graphical temperature variations over all the thousands of years? It shows evidence of warming and cooling? And I can't believe you cannot see that the author of your myth is 'cherry picking' this particular couple of decades of warming out of hundresd of years of varying temperatur cycles?, Is that not cherry picking the present warming cycle as some sort of example of how much climate will warm in the future? Doesn't the graph show that climate was variable even before humans created more C02. The author of that abomination is eating his own words complaining about others cherry picking data?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Pooey...come on now? I know your not a fan of Al Gores..you've indicated it several times, Is that supposed to silence me on the subject of the demagogues who hitchhike on IPCC reports and inflates the issue? I don't tailor my posts or opinions to please you ? If you don't like it , I dont care whether you try to rebut them or not. Thats your right, is it not? Just remember, I'm not here to please you?

It's the fact you mention my name soon after you comment on him which bothers me, as in that context, it seems like I'm in the same line as that guy.

Quote by: xyzer I tried my reference again and was able to reach it. This time read the whole reference if you are capable of absorbing it.. It mightbe revealing.

I was talking about this specific link they had on your source.

Quote by: xyzer I can't believe we are looking at the same graph..Holocene Temp Variations, Do you mean you can't see the graphical temperature variations over all the thousands of years? It shows evidence of warming and cooling?

I can see them just fine, that was never at contestion.

Quote by: xyzer And I can't believe you cannot see that the author of your myth is 'cherry picking' this particular couple of decades of warming out of hundresd of years of varying temperatur cycles?, Is that not cherry picking the present warming cycle as some sort of example of how much climate will warm in the future?

No, that's just absurd. That doesn't even make out to be a logical argument; why would the author show a different period when he's trying to explain that 1998 was not the year that global warming stopped?

Quote by: xyzer Doesn't the graph show that climate was variable even before humans created more C02. The author of that abomination is eating his own words complaining about others cherry picking data?

As I said already, just because cancer occurs naturally doesn't mean that smoking cigs can't increase its risks.

[xyzer]

Here is a rather suprising critique of Newsweeks recent doom and gloom scenario on what humans can do to arrest the warming trend. A critique from within the magazine pointing out the improbability of attempts to curb anthropogenic CO2 creation and that the authors of the article were up to their tails in cornfakes!Samuelson: A Different View of Global Warming - Newsweek Robert Samuelson - MSNBC.com

If you missed NEWSWEEK's story, here's the gist. A "well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change." This "denial machine" has obstructed action against global warming and is still "running at full throttle." The story's thrust: discredit the "denial machine," and the country can start the serious business of fighting global warming. The story was a wonderful read, marred only by its being fundamentally misleading.

Weve read this canard several times on this thread..."deniers and skeptics are funded by energy dollars"?

Consider a 2006 study from the International Energy Agency. With present policies, it projected that carbon-dioxide emissions (a main greenhouse gas) would more than double by 2050; developing countries would account for almost 70 percent of the increase. The IEA then simulated an aggressive, global program to cut emissions based on the best available technologies: more solar, wind and biomass; more-efficient cars, appliances and buildings; more nuclear. Under this admitted fantasy, global emissions in 2050 would still slightly exceed 2003 levels.

One way or another, our assaults against global warming are likely to be symbolic, ineffective or both. But if we succeed in cutting emissions substantially, savings would probably be offset by gains in China and elsewhere. The McKinsey Global Institute projects that from 2003 to 2020, the number of China's vehicles will rise from 26 million to 120 million, average residential floor space will increase 50 percent and energy demand will grow 4.4 percent annually. Even with "best practices" energy efficiency, demand would still grow 2.8 percent a year, McKinsey estimates.

I've said repeatedly..adaptation is the most prudent course!

[Pooeypants]

It seems that you'll jump from topic to topic in your denial efforts; denial of warming, denial of CO2's importance, criticism of the science, denial that even if we did try to combat the change that we would fail.
But the facts are, of the 33% of energy-related CO2 emissions generated by energy use in buildings, 29% of that could be cut by 2020 using existing technologies. [New scientist, 28 July 2007, page 8]
The energy increase will happen in China but that doesn't mean they won't implement energy saving measures, especially if we take the lead.
Furthermore, having an energy efficient home will save you money in the long term, so why wouldn't you want to do that?

[xyzer]

Pooey..Your missing the point! I didn't deny we are in a warming climate phase!
I just pointed out a study by a scientific organization that indicates cutting C02 emissions to change climate would be very tough due to the increasing demands of growing countries like China? Plus even if we did it the way things are going C02 would still grow?
Clear your head of any past opinions and reread the reference..I'll help you with this?

The IEA then simulated an aggressive, global program to cut emissions based on the best available technologies: more solar, wind and biomass; more-efficient cars, appliances and buildings; more nuclear. Under this admitted fantasy, global emissions in 2050 would still slightly exceed 2003 levels.

I know you are a believer in computer simulations so thought this simulation might interest you?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Pooey..Your missing the point! I didn't deny we are in a warming climate phase! I just pointed out a study by a scientific organization that indicates cutting C02 emissions to change climate would be very tough due to the increasing demands of growing countries like China? Plus even if we did it the way things are going C02 would still grow? Clear your head of any past opinions and reread the reference..I'll help you with this? I know you are a believer in computer simulations so thought this simulation might interest you?

In that case, I would refer you to the Stern report, which clearly states that it is in our economic interest to act now. As you quoted in that text, in that simulation, if all the current possible actions were carried out, we would have minimised the amount of CO2 and warming should occur at the lower predicted level.
Are you saying that we should throw in the towel then?

[xyzer]

The first thing I note about the Stern Report is that Stern is an economist? Haven't you repeatedly said that scientist are the only ones to be trusted on climate matters?
The next thing I noticed(and its not the first time) is that the originators of this report initially assume humans can change climate and then go on from there? Thats a pretty tenuous way of trying to influence policy? Quantifying so called costs of no action when the originators don't know whether actions will bring any change...assuming anthropogenic causes and solutions will change something that has been changing naturally over the millenia?

I just read a complaint about temperature data that NASa released that has proved to be flawed. This resulted in the much publicised revelations that 1998 and several other years in the 1990s were the hottest years in the last hundred or so years of US temperature history? Did Media Or NASA Withhold Climate History Data Changes From The Public? | NewsBusters.org You and others have used this upswing as a rationale for the C02 caused spike in temps? Its been the subject of flawed claims and even used in graphs? It turns out that that data was flawed and 1934 and several years in the 1930s were hotter? Oops say the perpetrators of this misleading statistic, we admit the mistake and have re adjusted some of the data..plus the error was only in US temperatures and the US is only a small part of the overall picture? It should be noted that the perpetrators didn't formally announce the goof, rather they kept quiet until someone else found the error and got after them?
Is this part of the certainty that I keep being assured is involved?

And then there is this revelation...
Leaked Document Shows Britain Can’t Meet EU’s Renewable Energy Targets | NewsBusters.org
The UK can't even meet current targets? What does Stern propose?

[Chancellor]

When I was a kid, scientists were talking about the coming ice age. In fact, if one looks back through the 20th century, there have been periods of histrionic fearmongering about ice ages and about global warming.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/spec...FireandIce.pdf

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer The first thing I note about the Stern Report is that Stern is an economist? Haven't you repeatedly said that scientist are the only ones to be trusted on climate matters?

But you were so adamant that Economists were right, so I gave you a report written by one. Are you never satisfied?

Quote by: xyzer The next thing I noticed(and its not the first time) is that the originators of this report initially assume humans can change climate and then go on from there? Thats a pretty tenuous way of trying to influence policy? Quantifying so called costs of no action when the originators don't know whether actions will bring any change...assuming anthropogenic causes and solutions will change something that has been changing naturally over the millenia?

Again, we go back to the analogy of cancer, it happens not naturally but smoking can increase its risk.
In addition, I'd like to point out the fact that moving towards a more energy efficient way of life is inevitable, that is what is required to combat global warming. What exactly is it that you stand to lose by wasting less energy? I honestly cannot fathom...

Quote by: xyzer I just read a complaint about temperature data that NASa released that has proved to be flawed. This resulted in the much publicised revelations that 1998 and several other years in the 1990s were the hottest years in the last hundred or so years of US temperature history? Did Media Or NASA Withhold Climate History Data Changes From The Public? | NewsBusters.org You and others have used this upswing as a rationale for the C02 caused spike in temps? Its been the subject of flawed claims and even used in graphs? It turns out that that data was flawed and 1934 and several years in the 1930s were hotter? Oops say the perpetrators of this misleading statistic, we admit the mistake and have re adjusted some of the data..plus the error was only in US temperatures and the US is only a small part of the overall picture? It should be noted that the perpetrators didn't formally announce the goof, rather they kept quiet until someone else found the error and got after them? Is this part of the certainty that I keep being assured is involved?

Well, conveniently your source's source is currently unreachable. Until I can reach that original material, I will not comment further.

Quote by: xyzer And then there is this revelation... Leaked Document Shows Britain Can’t Meet EU’s Renewable Energy Targets | NewsBusters.org The UK can't even meet current targets? What does Stern propose?

Not much of a revelation really, we've done little to change our ways. People are still unreasonably scared of Nuclear power and others complain about the unsightliness of Wind farms.

[rmnunez]

BBC:

“The public believes the effects of global warming on the climate are not as bad as politicians and scientists claim, a poll has suggested. The Ipsos Mori poll of 2,032 adults - interviewed between 14 and 20 June - found 56% believed scientists were still questioning climate change. There was a feeling the problem was exaggerated to make money, it found. The Royal Society said most climate scientists believed humans were having an ‘unprecedented’ effect on climate.” BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 'Scepticism' over climate claims

How about this need to encourage "low-carbon lifestyles"?

[rmnunez]

Its a bit unclear still, but apparently this "Climate Audit" site was attacked by hackers, some think it may have been due to their publication of a significant error in the assessment of the rankings of what have been the warmest years in the US as identified by GISS. The current warmest year is 1934. This new information can be read at http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1880#more-1880.

I don't think the hockey stick is broken just yet.

RealClimate » 1934 and all that

Graphs showing corrections

GraphOilogy: US Temperature Revision

[xyzer]

Again, we go back to the analogy of cancer, it happens not naturally but smoking can increase its risk.

Cancer does happen naturally! People get lung cancer who have never smoked a ciggie? It is an abnormal cell reproduction type thing.! Admittedly over exposure to carcinogens can result in an increased chance of the lung cells cells going awry?
People can choose to stop smoking without personal costs or even inconvenience, and reduce their chances of cancer. Can humans reduce their energy use without concurrent costs and inconvenience? Add to this the fact that natural causes have varied climate cycles for millions of years and I think we have a problem?

I repeat thes so called solvers of our climate changes ignore the fact that climates major influences are natural and not affected by human behavior. There is all kinds of evidence of that. And evidence that it has been going on since long before humans arrived! They postulate, using computer simulations and correlations, that C02 is the culprit and then jump on that bandwagon..virtually ignoring the simplest, least cost, alternative..adapt using modern technology?