a question for those who don't believe in global climate change

[jfuh]

Rofl, the old "Corporate Card" gets tossed out there.

Historical Climatic Records are set in stone, and owned by no one, it has nothing to do with Exxon Mobile or any other oil company.

When people play the emotional "Mother Earth is Speaking to us" line I gag. Mother Earth isn't speaking to us, Socialist power grabbers with an agenda are pushing a radical theory, to position themselves to have power over our lives, and people of the mind set that Government is the end all solution to all mans ills are backing the global warming agenda because it advances their beliefs.

Science says one thing, Politics another.

That's right, Science says one thing and that is AGW is as real as it gets.
Politics says there is no scientific consensus on the matter even though the contrary is true.


Historical climactic records, do not show whether the current warming is either natural nor un-natural. All they do show is that there is a clear relationship between temperatures and the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Which you deny because greenhouse gases bear too small a concentration to matter.

 

[Nemo]

The politics of the global warming debate is short-sighted; it doesn’t see beyond the next election. For the powers that be, viz. the "establishment", the true test of science is not empirical evidence but political correctness. As to the latter, one can be confident that, if need suit purpose, our political leaders would fund a study to show that the moon is made of blue cheese.

 

[Renae]

That's right, Science says one thing and that is AGW is as real as it gets.
Politics says there is no scientific consensus on the matter even though the contrary is true.
.

Actually Jfuh, you are of the breed that ignores science for politics.

There are a number of scientist that do agree with you. This is true.

There ARE scientists that believe unless we take drastic measures, the world will enter into an over cycling heating which will endanger all life.


There are ARE scientist that disagree with the THEORY that man is behind the warming seen over the last 100 years.

Consensus implies little or no dissent, there is plenty of dissent.

 

[dixon76710]

Historical climactic records, do not show whether the current warming is either natural nor un-natural. All they do show is that there is a clear relationship between temperatures and the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Which you deny because greenhouse gases bear too small a concentration to matter.

And what would that relationship be? I see the relationship before man made CO2 increases entered the picture and see a very close correlation between Temperature and CO2. I dont see it after our CO2 addition.
Did somebody deny the relationship between temperatures and the concentration of green house gases? Another pretend debate within your own mind?

 

[Nemo]

The effects of global warming are everywhere about us; and yet we literally cannot see the forest for the trees. Still, sometimes it is not the big picture, but rather in the little things that we learn the truth. A little mentioned aspect of global warming is the dramatic decrease in Antarctic krill; which is significant both for its role in regulating carbon emissions into the atmosphere and because it is at the base of the ocean food chain - not to mention a substantial commercial harvest. Krill feed on phytoplankton beneath the sea ice, and it is the melting sea ice due to rising temperature that has caused the decrease in krill populations. This decrease, in turn, will dramatically increase of amount of carbon emissions, exacerbating global warming and its effects. It is a vicious cycle; and one that will have profound consequences.

 

[Renae]

Interstingly, if you read that graph, Temps spike C02 tags along, then Temps collapse.

Over and over and over again.


Only foolish man, so arrogant in his belief that he is all importnat, would believe that his actions are so great as to effect the very cycle of Earths climate.


I predict our grandkids will be freezing their butts off, and this chart is my evidence of that belief, my great great grandkids will eb living on an icecube.

 

[Nemo]

Most people are egocentric - they are only concerned about things that affect them personally. Most will come to grips with the effects of global warming at the grocery store when they are fighting in the isles for the food on the shelves. Others will be concerned about it when they see their beachfront property under water.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Interstingly, if you read that graph, Temps spike C02 tags along, then Temps collapse.

Over and over and over again.


Only foolish man, so arrogant in his belief that he is all importnat, would believe that his actions are so great as to effect the very cycle of Earths climate.


I predict our grandkids will be freezing their butts off, and this chart is my evidence of that belief, my great great grandkids will eb living on an icecube.

I think you are misinformed as to the science on this.

Yes, in terms of paleo-climate, as reconstructed from proxies and ice cores over the last 600,000 years, technically CO2 increases lagged the onset of warming. From that, it seems you are concluding that climatic warming causes increased CO2 PPM, and then jumping to the conclusion that increased CO2 PPM does not cause climatic warming.

The problem with your argument is that you are not taking account any positive feedbacks in climate. Historically, before human intervention, changes in CO2 lagged temperature rises – this is a virtually universally accepted fact. But the CO2 rising does enhance the effect of rising temperature - a positive feedback. The warmer it is, the more CO2 released into the atmosphere, which makes it get warmer still - a basic positive feedback system.

When we increase CO2 artificially we are simulating that positive feedback, and it has just the same effect - ie it gets warmer. The fact that the climate record shows a strong correlation between temperature and CO2 certainly seems to tell us that the balancing effects don't add up to enough to prevent the changes, because if they did, then the climate wouldn't have oscillated like it did.

Otherwise, other factors like solar forcing may have been the initial catalyst for the onset of warming in the paleo-climate reconstructions. However, it was simply the initial catalyst. Once the warming triggered the release of sequestered carbon, that increased CO2 PPM served to amplify warming in the climate, which only increased other positive feedbacks, which greatly increased warming.

For example, a common positive feedback those of us who live in temperate regions see on a micro-scale is snow melt. All things being equal, the rate of snow melt in your yard or driveway is slower when your yard or driveway is completely covered with snow than it is once melting has exposed even a small amount of ground. This is because snow reflects far more radiant heat than bare ground does. Thus, as more bare ground is exposed, higher amounts of radiant heat is absorbed, which amplifies the rate of melt.

Now, if I took an area of my yard and thinned the snow myself and exposed some bare ground before the radiant heat exposed it on its own, I would then be artificially introducing that positive feedback, and thus accelerating the rate of melting and the warming of my yard due to my human activity.

For further elaboration see:

Global temperature change

James Hansen*, , , Makiko Sato*, , Reto Ruedy*, , Ken Lo*, , David W. Lea¶, and Martin Medina-Elizade¶
*National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Columbia University Earth Institute, and Sigma Space Partners, Inc., 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025; and ¶Department of Earth Science, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/3...ourcetype=HWCIT

 

[Renae]

James Hansen the same guy that 30 years ago was certian of global cooling... and the same guy that has no formal education in the field of Climate or weather?


Please I know what the other side of the issue has to say, and I say it's bunk, and I'm just following the science, and the money on this.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

James Hansen the same guy that 30 years ago was certian of global cooling... and the same guy that has no formal education in the field of Climate or weather?


Please I know what the other side of the issue has to say, and I say it's bunk, and I'm just following the science, and the money on this.

Obviously your not following the science. James Hansen never claimed that we were entering into a new Ice Age or anything of the sort. As to his credentials:

• B.A., Physics and Mathematics, 1963, University of Iowa
• M.S., Astronomy, 1965, University of Iowa
• Ph.D., Physics, 1967, University of Iowa

He is a geo-physicist. Climatology is a branch of geophysics. If you actually look at his peer reviewed publications, you will find the he is one of the most qualified scientists on God's green earth as it relates to this field.

Pubs.GISS: Publications by James E. Hansen

 

[dixon76710]

I suspect the effect are similiar, if not identical to those experienced by the planet 140,000 years ago. Are you suggesting that we can prevent the peaks in temperature that the earth has been experiencing for millions of years?

The effects of global warming are everywhere about us; and yet we literally cannot see the forest for the trees. Still, sometimes it is not the big picture, but rather in the little things that we learn the truth. A little mentioned aspect of global warming is the dramatic decrease in Antarctic krill; which is significant both for its role in regulating carbon emissions into the atmosphere and because it is at the base of the ocean food chain - not to mention a substantial commercial harvest. Krill feed on phytoplankton beneath the sea ice, and it is the melting sea ice due to rising temperature that has caused the decrease in krill populations. This decrease, in turn, will dramatically increase of amount of carbon emissions, exacerbating global warming and its effects. It is a vicious cycle; and one that will have profound consequences.

 

[jfuh]

Actually Jfuh, you are of the breed that ignores science for politics.

There are a number of scientist that do agree with you. This is true.

There ARE scientists that believe unless we take drastic measures, the world will enter into an over cycling heating which will endanger all life.


There are ARE scientist that disagree with the THEORY that man is behind the warming seen over the last 100 years.

Consensus implies little or no dissent, there is plenty of dissent.

There you go again, playing that same routine over and over again. I've made it perfectly clear to you. For all intensive purposes scientific theory is essentially fact.
example, walking off a cliff thinking gravity is only a theory and you'd challenge that theory.
Also it's a fallacious statement to say that "because it's warmed naturally in the past the current warming is also natural".
Finally, there have been precisely 0 peer reviewed literature that contradict the scientific consensus of AGW. To date you've not listed a single publication to counter this claim.

 

[jfuh]

And what would that relationship be? I see the relationship before man made CO2 increases entered the picture and see a very close correlation between Temperature and CO2. I dont see it after our CO2 addition.
Did somebody deny the relationship between temperatures and the concentration of green house gases? Another pretend debate within your own mind?

Well thus far you have been denying this exact relationship.
Tell me just what don't you pretend to see?

 

[GottaHurt]

I have a question for anyone who doesn't believe in global climate change or who believes that it isn't man-made.

What sort of evidence would it take to convince you that humanity is responsible for the severity of the current climate change?

If Hillary gets elected, because then I know that hell has frozen over.

 

[Nemo]

It is doubtful that anything can be done. What now will stop the ice from melting? - and the effects of just a few degree’s change in the ocean currents that regulate the earth’s climate? The consequences will be catastrophic; and it will be late to counsel then, or pray, when it has come upon us. Even now, there are those that still refuse to recognize what is plain for all to see. Indeed, one would think that man had but small brains for being the cause of his own distruction!

“When will man know what birds know?”
- Carl Sandburg.

 

[Renae]

Obviously your not following the science. James Hansen never claimed that we were entering into a new Ice Age or anything of the sort. As to his credentials:

• B.A., Physics and Mathematics, 1963, University of Iowa
• M.S., Astronomy, 1965, University of Iowa
• Ph.D., Physics, 1967, University of Iowa

He is a geo-physicist. Climatology is a branch of geophysics. If you actually look at his peer reviewed publications, you will find the he is one of the most qualified scientists on God's green earth as it relates to this field.

Pubs.GISS: Publications by James E. Hansen

OH RALLLY?


It helps to understand the people you listen to, and who they are...

On July 9, 1971, the Post published a story headlined "U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming." It told of a prediction by NASA and Columbia University scientist S.I. Rasool. The culprit: man's use of fossil fuels.

The Post reported that Rasool, writing in Science, argued that in "the next 50 years" fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun's rays that the Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees.

Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, Rasool claimed, "could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."

Aiding Rasool's research, the Post reported, was a "computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen," who was, according to his resume, a Columbia University research associate at the time.

So what about those greenhouse gases that man pumps into the skies? Weren't they worried about them causing a greenhouse effect that would heat the planet, as Hansen, Al Gore and a host of others so fervently believe today?

"They found no need to worry about the carbon dioxide fuel-burning puts in the atmosphere," the Post said in the story, which was spotted last week by Washington resident John Lockwood, who was doing research at the Library of Congress and alerted the Washington Times to his finding.

Hansen has some explaining to do. The public deserves to know how he was converted from an apparent believer in a coming ice age who had no worries about greenhouse gas emissions to a global warming fear monger.

This is a man, as Lockwood noted in his message to the Times' John McCaslin, who has called those skeptical of his global warming theory "court jesters." We wonder: What choice words did he have for those who were skeptical of the ice age theory in 1971?

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=275267681833290

 

[dixon76710]

Oooo KAY! If it is plain to see that the peaks in temperature cannot be avoided, whats your point?

It is doubtful that anything can be done. What now will stop the ice from melting? - and the effects of just a few degree’s change in the ocean currents that regulate the earth’s climate? The consequences will be catastrophic; and it will be late to counsel then, or pray, when it has come upon us. Even now, there are those that still refuse to recognize what is plain for all to see. Indeed, one would think that man had but small brains for being the cause of his own distruction!

“When will man know what birds know?”
- Carl Sandburg.

 

[dixon76710]

Well thus far you have been denying this exact

That was another of your delusions.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

OH RALLLY?


It helps to understand the people you listen to, and who they are...

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=275267681833290

Do you not believe that the state of science could have very well advanced since 1971?

In 1971, prior to any of the clean air acts of any industrialized nations, Global Dimming was beginning to be a significant concern. Scientists at the time were not totally wrong, we now understand the phenomena that resulted in a cooling trend in the 70s. It is referred to as "Global Dimming". Essentially, prior to the Clean Air Act in the United States, and various other acts like it in other industrialized nations, so much particulate pollution was being dumped into the atmosphere that the amount of light that reached the earth's surface was reduced by about 5% or so.

This is even reflected in Glacier Core samples. Basically, every year from the start of the industrial revolution to the mid 1970s, there were ever increasing concentrations of aerosols being dumped into the atmosphere. As most nations (other than China) have adopted fairly stringent pollution controls over the last 30 years, the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere has declined significantly.

A good explanation of Global Dimming is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

Global Dimming actually is pretty important to the Global Warming issue. The reason why is that prior to pollution controls, Global Dimming actually in the short term has had masking effect on Anthropogenic Global Warming.

If I could ask you a question that may seem off topic. Do you believe the science behind the theory of evolution is settled?

 

[Renae]

Do you not believe that the state of science could have very well advanced since 1971?

In 1971, prior to any of the clean air acts of any industrialized nations, Global Dimming was beginning to be a significant concern. Scientists at the time were not totally wrong, we now understand the phenomena that resulted in a cooling trend in the 70s. It is referred to as "Global Dimming". Essentially, prior to the Clean Air Act in the United States, and various other acts like it in other industrialized nations, so much particulate pollution was being dumped into the atmosphere that the amount of light that reached the earth's surface was reduced by about 5% or so.

This is even reflected in Glacier Core samples. Basically, every year from the start of the industrial revolution to the mid 1970s, there were ever increasing concentrations of aerosols being dumped into the atmosphere. As most nations (other than China) have adopted fairly stringent pollution controls over the last 30 years, the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere has declined significantly.

A good explanation of Global Dimming is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

Global Dimming actually is pretty important to the Global Warming issue. The reason why is that prior to pollution controls, Global Dimming actually in the short term has had masking effect on Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Doesn't matter how far it came, I was making a simple point about James Hansen being easily swayed to the alarmist POV. Which you claimed he never held... and in fact he did.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Doesn't matter how far it came, I was making a simple point about James Hansen being easily swayed to the alarmist POV. Which you claimed he never held... and in fact he did.

I was unaware that was his position originally. However, he was not entirely wrong at the time. Global Dimming is an observed phenomena, and has had a mitigating effect on Anthropogenic Global Warming. Thus, in reality, Hansen was at the forefront of that science as well.

So, do you believe that macro-evolution is settled science?

 

[dixon76710]

OH RALLLY?


It helps to understand the people you listen to, and who they are...

Today in Investor's Business Daily stock analysis and business news

Yeah, Hansen is the one who claimed the Bush administration was trying to silence him, except Hansen had given 1400 interviews to the media. Hes the one who said 1998 was the hottest year and then that 2005 was probably the hottest year on record. He was wrong on both accounts.

 

[Renae]

I was unaware that was his position originally. However, he was not entirely wrong at the time. Global Dimming is an observed phenomena, and has had a mitigating effect on Anthropogenic Global Warming. Thus, in reality, Hansen was at the forefront of that science as well.

So, do you believe that macro-evolution is settled science?

I believe that man's impact is far less then being touted, look my job, for 10 YEARS of my life was Meteorology for the US Navy, I learned how... limited our overall understanding of the weather really is.

Computer models, even the most accurate for 3-5 day forecasts are inherently flawed and have known biases, and are being constantly updated. Telling me a computer model predicts X will happen with the Climate 100 years from now is silly.

Global climate as we understand it historically fluctuates between hotter then now, and colder then now. It's going to do that no matter WHAT we do.

My other big issue with global warming as a man made effect is the dis-ingenious natre it's treated as by those claiming it's happening. If AGW is such a threat, why do they continue to spew C02 through egregious behavior yet tell us to change ours?

Why if AGW is such a "real Threat" and so "settled" are they so against others researching and debating it. Sound science fears not challenges, it welcomes such.

And the drastic nature of their solutions demands we make 110% damned sure they are 110% damn right before we undertake such measures...

WHICH by the way, ignore some of the biggest up and comming C02 producers.. China and India.

America has lowered it's C02 output over the last 10 years.. without signing a global governing Kyoto Treaty and is slammed, Over half the EU countries to sign that document INCREASED their C02 output, yet they get a pass..

All is not well with the AGW crowd, and when you stop to read all the available facts... it's clear.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Yeah, Hansen is the one who claimed the Bush administration was trying to silence him, except Hansen had given 1400 interviews to the media. Hes the one who said 1998 was the hottest year and then that 2005 was probably the hottest year on record. He was wrong on both accounts.

No, he was not wrong at all. There was a correction in the United States instrumental record that placed 1998 as the second warmest year on record for the continental United States. However, depending on the methods of measurement, 1998 or 2005 is the warmest year on record worldwide.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I believe that man's impact is far less then being touted, look my job, for 10 YEARS of my life was Meteorology for the US Navy, I learned how... limited our overall understanding of the weather really is.

Then you should know that Meteorology and Climatology are completely different fields of science.

Global climate as we understand it historically fluctuates between hotter then now, and colder then now. It's going to do that no matter WHAT we do.

Yes, past climate has been warmer and cooler depending on the position of the continents, volcanic activity, and orbital variations than it is now. However, your argument is like saying that since a forest fire can start on its own, man cannot start a forest fire, or if one is started by man, we can just ignore it because they happen anyway.

My other big issue with global warming as a man made effect is the dis-ingenious natre it's treated as by those claiming it's happening. If AGW is such a threat, why do they continue to spew C02 through egregious behavior yet tell us to change ours?

So by that logic, since Senator Vitter preaches morality yet sleeps with prostitutes, its ok to sleep with prostitutes. Or, since Senator Craig solicits bathroom sex from other men, its ok to do so. Thats a horrible argument from a morality perspective. What is right is right regardless of how hypocritical the messenger may be. Sure, Al Gore is something of a hypocrite, but many scientists and environmentalists have changed their lifestyles in order to set an example.

Why if AGW is such a "real Threat" and so "settled" are they so against others researching and debating it. Sound science fears not challenges, it welcomes such.

No one is against anyone researching it. Thats the problem, the handful of deniers out there write their OP/Eds, but they never seem actually contribute anything to the scientific discourse on this issue. I would love to see one of them actually challenge Anthropogenic Global Warming by publishing a peer reviewed study or article that actually does challenge it. If the science behind this is so weak, then why don't they do so. I am sure that Exxon would love to fund such research.

And the drastic nature of their solutions demands we make 110% damned sure they are 110% damn right before we undertake such measures...

WHICH by the way, ignore some of the biggest up and comming C02 producers.. China and India.

Why should we expect nations with a per-capita CO2 emissions that is a fraction of ours curb their emissions if we do not take significant steps to curb ours.

Would you conserve water if the two golf courses up the road didn't?

America has lowered it's C02 output over the last 10 years.. without signing a global governing Kyoto Treaty and is slammed, Over half the EU countries to sign that document INCREASED their C02 output, yet they get a pass..

All is not well with the AGW crowd, and when you stop to read all the available facts... it's clear.

I am sorry, but your misinformed. C02 emissions in the United States have risen 16.3% from 1990 to 2005.

Green Wombat: Report: U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Up 16 Percent Since 1990

Look, I started out a skeptic on this issue, but if someone actually looks at the science behind this issue objectively, they will find its pretty solid. I would love to be wrong. I mean, I like driving my truck as much as anyone, but if the science is there, its there.