Global Warming

[BorisTheFerret]

Quote by: xyzer Hey Boris.. Who should we give it to, the polar bears? The Ants? Humans are here to extract what they can for their version of survival. I sometimes wonder what the tree huggers want? Literally millions of species have evolved and then faded from the planet as the environment has changed? Do you suppose we as a species can control the environment in any appreciable way? Should we deny our comfort and convenience on a fools chase to change the natural evolution of the planet? Who do you want us to hand it back to? Shouldn't we use our tecnological skills to adapt rather than change that which there is no evidence we can change?

Or how about we just try not to f*ck the planet up for ourselves and every other species? There is plenty of evidence that the planet can be changed by our actions, indeed the overwhelming body of evidence suggests that our actions are the main reason why the planet is currently warming. Far from being a natural phenomenon, the current warming of the planet is unprecedented in its rapidity and is almost without doubt man-made. So yes, let's try and change the planet for the better instead of condemning future generations to an ecological catastrophe.

At the end of the day, we only have one planet and if we f*ck it up we're all screwed. The fact that previous species have died out in the past is NOT an argument to continue on the path to self-destruction. In ignoring the issue of climate change you're basically saying that you're willing to gamble with the lives of this and future generations, in order to have a slightly greater degree of temporary comfort. As such, your argument typifies the unabashed selfishness and shortsightedness of those opposed to reducing emissions.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Lets see now? It couldn't be cosmic particles because one experiment at one period showed there seemed to be a randomness to cloud formation rather than a steady indication? So that rules out that one without peer review? The study was conducted locally and one wonders how accurate the measures of cloud formation were over the vast reaches of our oceans? Who were those guys who made the observations?

No, multiple papers have found the same conclusion. Which is why I quoted a recent article and a different one from which I quoted last October. It is quite clear that you did not read my links and nor are you up to date with scientific research unless it happens to on one of those economic think tank websites that you frequent. The very fact that I had to post the same thing over and over is a testament to your inability to face supported science.

Quote by: xyzer What about the recent volcanic eruption in South America, will it add to the cooling trend we are already experiencing? Thousands of volcanos continually spew out varying amounts of sulphate aeorosols every day?

Please state the size of the eruption and its estimated expelled gases et cetera. Let's bring some facts in here.

Quote by: xyzer What I'm pointing our,sarcastically I must admit , is that no matter what the natural condition is that may affect climate you believers will rationalize it to your own beliefs? You follow the Gore parody of blaming any disaster or aberrative weather condition on global warming. Isn't his latest that the Hurricane in Myamar was the result of warming? This when satellite measurements indicates we are in a cooling trend?

I have never attributed the latest Cyclone as due to global warming.

Quote by: xyzer Answer the question, do we really know? Why with dire predictions of rapid and dangerous warming certain to come do we have cooling? An overcoming of the effect of increases in anthropogenic CO2 increases?

You ask the same question which I've already answered and with your very own source that you linked a few days ago.
I will quote from said article

The study was based on sea-surface temperatures of currents that move heat around the world, and vary from decade to decade. This regional cooling effect may temporarily neutralize the long- term warming phenomenon caused by heat-trapping greenhouse gases building up around the earth, said Richard Wood, a research scientist at the Met Office Hadley Centre, a U.K. provider of environmental and weather-related services. ``Those natural climate variations could be stronger than the global-warming trend over the next 10-year period,'' Wood said in an interview. ``Without knowing that, you might erroneously think there's no global warming going on.''

So, Xyzer, Please read your own cited articles and do not ask the same question repeatedly when it has already been answered. To do so is nothing short of trolling.

[xyzer]

Pooey? You just don't get it do you? You cite an article that indicates ocean current changes MAY seem to be causing some cooling and thus may TEMPORARILY slow the greenhouse warming?(I can add in my own woords) "which YOU BELIEVERS feel is sure to come because of increased human CO2 creation!" You and Gore just can't get away from that can you.
Then you indicate that the we will have to find out just how much aerosol sulphates the Chilean volcano is spewing before we can figure out whether it will change climate? As if we knew how long it's going to erupt? Besides isn't that a tacit admission that an errant volcano can and might be an influencing natural factor?.
Stick to your rigid orthodoxy if you must. Believe each new revelation that the demogogues throw out..e.g. Gore says the Hurricane in Burma was caused by increased global warming? Do you believe that too?

By the way Boris is in your camp. He believes humankind is the cause of the warming trend too. He lives in the same self centered human world of blame ignoring the lack of evidence that is displayed each day by the natural evolution of our planet and solar system. He too seems to think that we humans can influence global climate which has changed without human help over millions of years? Nonsense!

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Pooey? You just don't get it do you? You cite an article that indicates ocean current changes MAY seem to be causing some cooling and thus may TEMPORARILY slow the greenhouse warming?(I can add in my own woords) "which YOU BELIEVERS feel is sure to come because of increased human CO2 creation!" You and Gore just can't get away from that can you.

Yes, the word used is "may" because this science is not 100% accurate, nor is any real science for that matter. I've already explained before about the cautious language used by scientists, but again you've conveniently forgotten this lesson. I didn't cite the article, it was you. You were the one that brought it up because you said you wanted to bring something new/more onto the table. So are you trying to discredit your own source?

Quote by: xyzer Then you indicate that the we will have to find out just how much aerosol sulphates the Chilean volcano is spewing before we can figure out whether it will change climate?

Yes, we need to know the facts before we start jump the gun. In the scientific world, we take measurements first, if possible before we go to the conclusions. Perhaps you're not familiar with this idea?

Quote by: xyzer As if we knew how long it's going to erupt? Besides isn't that a tacit admission that an errant volcano can and might be an influencing natural factor?.

No one has ever claimed that volcanic activity is not an influencing factor. What point are you trying to make? Another false herring.

Quote by: xyzer Stick to your rigid orthodoxy if you must. Believe each new revelation that the demogogues throw out..e.g. Gore says the Hurricane in Burma was caused by increased global warming? Do you believe that too?

I have stated, many, many times, Al Gore is not a climate scientist, what he says has no relevance to me. Stop trolling this point, because I can't make it any clearer about how I have never taken science lessons from Al Gore.

Quote by: xyzer By the way Boris is in your camp. He believes humankind is the cause of the warming trend too. He lives in the same self centered human world of blame ignoring the lack of evidence that is displayed each day by the natural evolution of our planet and solar system. He too seems to think that we humans can influence global climate which has changed without human help over millions of years? Nonsense!

Yes, we can't change climate at all despite the fact that China, for example, the rainfall has been cut by pollution. And no, I don't attribute that to global warming, but it's an example of human activity affecting climate, even if it isn't global, China is still a large landmass.
Also, your claim that humans can't affect global climate simply because its changed in the past is analogous to saying that eating carcinogens can't cause more cancer in humans because we've always had cancer in the past.

Now if you'd like to stop trolling, I'd like to get back to some debate.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Pooey No one has ever claimed that volcanic activity is not an influencing factor. What point are you trying to make? Another false herring.

Beyond that, volcanic activity has been a constant in the global environmental equilibrium since the earth began. There has ALWAYS been volcanic activity and therefore it's always been a part of the atmospheric balance.

The industrial activity of 9 billion humans is the ONLY factor that has changed dramatically in the last two hundred years.


.

[xyzer]

Please someone tell me SPECIFICALLY why has the last 7 years been globally cooler if anthropogenic CO2 has been increasing? I keep getting referred to specific studies which I read and find they don't answer the question? Has there been time for a scientific analysis of why the current cooling trend? Or are we as usual having to rely of the politicians and the press? There is a suggestion that ocean currents may be the cause but we really don't know? Nor do we know how long these natural climate influencers will persist?

Accordingly, when sonart tells me that there has been volcanic activity ever since the earth began, I believe him. But he doesn't tell me how much? When Pooey tells me the Chilean volcano currently erupting isn't spewing enough aerosols to affect climate I believe him. But he doesn't know how long the eruption will continue nor do I?
When some politician in the IPCC tells us we better look out that the temporary cooling period is goint to end in a few years and then it will get even hotter because the greenhouse effect which is continually building,will be unmasked.. Funny a couple of years ago I was reading from these experts that we were doomed and the global climate was getting constantly warmer because of the influence of human energy use?

Beyond that, volcanic activity has been a constant in the global environmental equilibrium since the earth began. There has ALWAYS been volcanic activity and therefore it's always been a part of the atmospheric balance. The industrial activity of 9 billion humans is the ONLY factor that has changed dramatically in the last two hundred years.

Typical ? There aren't 9 billion humans on this earth! The earth is dynamic Sonart! Industrial activity didn't increase in a truly global sense until less than 100 years ago? Haven't there been warmer and colder periods in the earths evolution than there was in the last century?
Are we not warmig naturlly aftter an Ice Age which existed more thatn ten thousand years ago? What is this 'climate balance' that you refer to? What is this atmospheric balance you refer to?

[Thanatos]

Quote by: xyzer Please someone tell me SPECIFICALLY why has the last 7 years been globally cooler if anthropogenic CO2 has been increasing?

I will answer your question with a picture.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

Contemplate this.

Trends in Carbon Dioxide

Your question about volcanoes has been asked and answered. A while ago I posted an article detailing why volcanoes do not work as an explanation due to insufficient volcanic CO2 production.

By observing your pattern I predict that you will now go back to solar activity, and so as a preemptive strike here's the problem with solar activity as an explanation.

Image:Solar-cycle-data.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its an 11 year cycle. Climate isn't. If it changed a whole lot, yes, every climate model predicts that it would either fry us or put us into an ice age and geological evidence shows that when it really is dipping or surging that's what happens. However, that's just not what's happening in modern times.

Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans - climate-change - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist Environment

[xyzer]

Here is a recent press report on the climate change..IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Testing The Waters

Thanatos. You still haven't answered the question?
Lets address your first graph? Who, where and how, was measuring global temperatures done accurately back past the last 30 years or so? I refer to satellites and just recently ocean buoys rather than the proxy data which has been used in the past?
So its nonsense? Plus the last 10 years has shown a definite cooling? How do you account for that? Natural factors or a lessening of human contributions? Actual measurements have overcome the predictions that we have been fed. This last April was the coolest in over 100 years?

Second graph shows an upward trend in CO2 and yet actual measurements show declining global temps? Doesn't that beg the question, why? Are the corn flakes getting harder to walk in?

3d graph? can you or anyone prove to me that the suns brilliance will we unwavering\y shaped as is indicated in the graph? We know that shifting magnetic fields cause sunsspots and irregularities on the suns surface but we still cant predict the intensity or limits to the changing brilliance..can we?

From the reference..

"A common criticism of global climate models . . . has been that they only include factors such as solar radiation, atmospheric aerosols and greenhouse gases, which are affected by changes outside the climate system (while neglecting) internal climate change variability that arises from natural changes from within the system, like El Nino, fluctuations in ocean circulation and anomalies in ocean heat content."

Actual observations trump computer models and as we learn more about the Earth we start to realize how puny and irrelevant man's contribution to climate change really is.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Xyzer Here is a recent press report on the climate change.

Yep, definitely hard to argue with the scientific expertise of an Investor's Business Daily OpEd piece.


.

[Thanatos]

Crossreference just a wee little bit when dealing with suspect sources.

Pull the article that your article is based off.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Global temperatures 'to decrease'

Here we go. The relative scientists predicted it would exceed the record year of 1998, not that the Earth has been cooling since 1998. Who would have thought that Investor's Business Daily might distort the truth?

Look at the first graph I showed you. There's a small spike at 1998 followed by a small dip and then it keeps going in a straight line just like it has been doing for decades.

[xyzer]

Yep, definitely hard to argue with the scientific expertise of an Investor's Business Daily OpEd piece.

Yay verily sonart! And I'm still looking for scientific refutations of the anomalies that Business Daily points out? Or an explanation of why its cooling globally when the IPCC, Gore and other so called experts predicted drastic warming? Somebody has to insert reality and actual evidence into the false prophecies that are thrown around by the press and others who stand to gain from fear.

For example, why is this..Climate Audit - by Steve McIntyre » Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Reaches “Unprecedented” Levels
ignored?

Thanatos..this from your article...

But this year's temperatures would still be way above the average - and we would soon exceed the record year of 1998 because of global warming induced by greenhouse gases.

But this years temperatures have not been above the average for the past quarter century?

[Thanatos]

Quote by: xyzer Yay verily sonart! And I'm still looking for scientific refutations of the anomalies that Business Daily points out? Or an explanation of why its cooling globally when the IPCC, Gore and other so called experts predicted drastic warming? Somebody has to insert reality and actual evidence into the false prophecies that are thrown around by the press and others who stand to gain from fear. For example, why is this..Climate Audit - by Steve McIntyre » Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Reaches “Unprecedented” Levels ignored? Thanatos..this from your article... But this years temperatures have not been above the average for the past quarter century?

Did you even look at the article?

Your data is both irrelevant and made of pure fail by the way.

Stephen McIntyre - SourceWatch

I give up, Xyler. Do a little dance. Jump for joy. Other people may try to get you to read but I will not be one of them.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Thanatos Did you even look at the article?

Nah... Xyzer is constitutionally incapable of looking at the overwhelming evidence we can provide.

The fact that he has the gall to YET AGAIN bring up the long since debunked Steve McIntyre, while ignoring the collective results of every major institution of scientific research in the U.S. and around the world, is just more proof of his state of denial.

.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: Sonart . Nah... Xyzer is constitutionally incapable of looking at the overwhelming evidence we can provide. The fact that he has the gall to YET AGAIN bring up the long since debunked Steve McIntyre, while ignoring the collective results of every major institution of scientific research in the U.S. and around the world, is just more proof of his state of denial. .

Quite the contrary, from what I've seen Xyzer is looking at ALL the evidence out there instead of cherry picking propaganda spoon fed by the opportunists to the gullible environmental wacko types and/or AGW religionists.

Another voice out there is Walter Williams who is not an environmental scientists any more than Al Gore and his ilk are scientists, but who is one who has done his homework:

Environmentalists' Wild Predictions Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let's look at some environmentalist predictions that they would prefer we forget. At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed." In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore's hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book "The Doomsday Book," said Americans were using 50 percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them." In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000." Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "... civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 "... somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct." It's not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association, there's a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply. Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity? When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming? Here are a few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined. Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University Environmentalist's Wild Predictions

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Foxfyre Quite the contrary, from what I've seen Xyzer is looking at ALL the evidence out there instead of cherry picking propaganda spoon fed by the opportunists to the gullible environmental wacko types and/or AGW religionists.

Complete nonsense, because if he were looking at all the evidence, he would have concluded long ago that anthropogenic global warming is a fact, because the overwhelming majority of the evidence says so.

That's what Xyzer simply ignores the information we've posted and continues to post old, long ago debunked nonsense from a small coven of mostly non-scientist deniers.

Quote by: Foxfyre Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University

Oh goodie... yet another conservative economist weighing in on science.

And yet, oddly enough, here's what the real scientists at George Mason University have to say...

--"With the global warming debate heating up in the news lately, researchers at George Mason University and the independent Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies (COLA) recently conducted a comprehensive, and somewhat controversial, study that showed global warming estimates for the next century might be higher than we think.

It predicts higher estimates of global warming – 4 to 5° C as opposed to the model consensus range of 2 to 4° C – may be more likely."-- June, 2006

.

[xyzer]

Typical juvenile logic? Attack the messenger! My ancient sources are better than your recent sources?

Complete nonsense, because if he were looking at all the evidence, he would have concluded long ago that anthropogenic global warming is a fact, because the overwhelming majority of the evidence says so. That's what Xyzer simply ignores the information we've posted and continues to post old, long ago debunked nonsense from a small coven of mostly non-scientist deniers.

How about you ignoring the current measured facts and adhering to the doom and gloom scenario reported by the IPCC more than 10 years ago?
NASAs satellite record of the last few years is ignored and hyperbole is brought out? Messengers who bring updated, contrary evidence are discarded forthwith if they dont agree with the dogma?

No ones ignored valid data you have posted nor the the tripe you have posted Sonart. It's you who doggedly ignore the latest facts which dispute the IPCC conclusions of near a decade back? Are you living in a rigid cocoon that cant be dented by facts? Sounds like it? Are you serious in posting this?...

he would have concluded long ago that anthropogenic global warming is a fact,

Are you suggesting that science is closed before all the factsd are in? Are you suggesting that scientific hypotheses are rigid and un changing as new facts and data are revealed? Wow!

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: Sonart . Complete nonsense, because if he were looking at all the evidence, he would have concluded long ago that anthropogenic global warming is a fact, because the overwhelming majority of the evidence says so. That's what Xyzer simply ignores the information we've posted and continues to post old, long ago debunked nonsense from a small coven of mostly non-scientist deniers. Oh goodie... yet another conservative economist weighing in on science. And yet, oddly enough, here's what the real scientists at George Mason University have to say... --"With the global warming debate heating up in the news lately, researchers at George Mason University and the independent Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies (COLA) recently conducted a comprehensive, and somewhat controversial, study that showed global warming estimates for the next century might be higher than we think. It predicts higher estimates of global warming – 4 to 5° C as opposed to the model consensus range of 2 to 4° C – may be more likely."-- June, 2006 .

I don't believe those are climate scientists. They are mathemeticians, statisticians. And now two long years later after their analysis was published, I am guessing any of them, assuming they have professional integrity, would agree that nobody's models are holding up under close scrutiny or scientific analysis.

In fact from what I've read, the models can't predict what we know the climate to be now using known data that is available. So how reliable can we trust any projections to be?

Which was Walter Williams point when he listed all the scientific brilliance forecasting this gloom and doom scenario or that scary trend etc. etc. etc. all of which have proved to be baseless.

His point, which you seem to have missed, is why are so many so eager to jump on this newest doomsday scenario when so much of the scientific evidence coming out shows it to be just another scientific scam whether intentional or not.

[Sonart]

.

Foxfyre, you can't debate if you simply make guesses about everything.

Quote by: Foxfyre I don't believe those are climate scientists.

From my source...

"...researchers at George Mason University and the independent Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies (COLA) recently conducted a comprehensive study..."

I'd daresay the folks at COLA are definitely climate scientists.

Besides, why do you care? You've already ignored the tons of evidence I've presented from "Climate Scientiests" at the American Meteorological Society, the National Ocieanic and Atmospheric Administration, the American Geophysical Union, the U.S. Academy of Sciences, etc. etc. etc. Why would it matter here, unless you're bringing it up simply to argue.

Here's George Mason University on Feb. 1, 2008

--"George Mason University on Tuesday hosted a teach-in on global warming, at which school officials pledged to do their part to mitigate carbon emission and instructed students that humanity is responsible for warming the earth."--

Quote by: Foxfyre In fact from what I've read, the models can't predict what we know the climate to be now using known data that is available. So how reliable can we trust any projections to be?

I don't know what you've read, Foxfyre, but the climate models ALREADY HAVE predicted what we now know about climate change. If the models have errored, as the George Mason study indicated, it's that the models didn't take into account the feedback loops that are ACCELERATING the warming, making it happen FASTER THAN PREDICTED!

Quote by: Foxfyre Which was Walter Williams point when he listed all the scientific brilliance forecasting this gloom and doom scenario or that scary trend etc. etc. etc. all of which have proved to be baseless.

Baseless??? What the hell are you talking about? Global warming is happening... now... faster than predicted. For all it's apparent leveling off, the last decade is still the warmest decade in recorded history. What's baseless about that?

Quote by: Foxfyre His point, which you seem to have missed, is why are so many so eager to jump on this newest doomsday scenario when so much of the scientific evidence coming out shows it to be just another scientific scam whether intentional or not.

His point is simply dead wrong, exactly because so much MORE scientific evidence shows that it is NOT a scam.

Quote by: Xyzer Typical juvenile logic? Attack the messenger! My ancient sources are better than your recent sources?

As opposed to what, Xyzer? Simply ignoring the messengers as you do? We've provided OVERWHELMING evidence and research that declares anthropogenic global warming to be a reality, and you simply ignore it.

And your messenger is a joke.

Juvenile??? That's the equivilent of putting your hands over your ears and yelling bleah, bleah, bleah so you can't hear what you don't want to hear. Please, spare us your "I know you are but what am I" responses, ok?

.