- Joined
- Dec 22, 2012
- Messages
- 66,567
- Reaction score
- 22,189
- Location
- Portlandia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Do you mean like a priest devotes his life to the church, to preach the dogma?All I can tell you is that the guys who have devoted their entire lives to this subject are telling me that CO2 is causing acidification.
No, there is considerable doubt that 1) Predictions of future climate are correct and 2) Anything that can be done by man that is financially or politically fesible will have any effect on the climate.
All action along that line will be a boondoggle and a waste of resources.
The average global temperature stopped rising 17 years ago and the rise still hasn't resumed. Whether the warming trend eventually continues at some point (your guess is as good as anyone's on that) isn't as important as the fact that the climate models people are relying on to make predictions about future climate completely failed to predict this pause in warming.
By the way, the remark about the deep oceans warming is probably not correct.
The climate goes in cycles, period. There is no man-made global warming, it's nothing but environmental crazy tree-huggers who want to have their say.
Do you mean like a priest devotes his life to the church, to preach the dogma?
Yet scientists disagree with you.
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ill stick with the NAS, rather than you and Sean Hannity, thank you.
I think there was quite a bit of information. Sorry it wasn't enough data for you.
Check here if you want corroborating data.
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
How do you know this stuff?
Science?
Then why don't you listen to the scientists who are telling you you ate wrong about denying AGW?
Because science tells us CO2 has always been an important driver of climate.
http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2(GCA).pdf
They can't get published if they don't chant the dogma. Besides, it does not disagree with what I said.
Yes, the acidity increases with CO2. Are you too blind to see that if a 0.01 pH increase is due to CO2, and a 0.1 pH increase by other forces, that the statement is still true?
Why not quote this part?
Even though there are other experts who point out there is more controlling the environment than just CO2.
OK...
Science tells us that CO2 has always been a reactive effect of climate that is the effect, not the cause of temperature rise and fall. CO2 is always lowest when the Ice ages begin to warm. Are you asserting that CO2 being low causes warming?
CO2 is always at its peak in any interglacial when the cooling begins. Are you asserting that CO2 being high causes cooling.
The paper you posted concluded with the following:
<snip>
A growing number of cool, putatively non-glacial peri- ods have been identified in the Phanerozoic. A pervasive pattern with these events is their brevity, typically <3 my and often <1 my. These cool periods are marked by either low-to-moderate levels of CO2 (<1000 ppm) or no CO2 coverage. Crucially, none of the cool periods are associated with CO2 levels exceeding 1000 ppm.
Many factors are important in controlling the average surface temperature of the Earth, including solar luminos- ity, albedo, distribution of continents and vegetation, orbi- tal parameters, and other greenhouse gases. The message of this study is not that atmospheric CO2 is always the dom- inant forcing (see Section 3.7 for an early Paleogene exam- ple).
Instead, given the variety of factors that can influence global temperatures, it is striking that such a consistent pattern between CO2 and temperature emerges for many intervals of the Phanerozoic. This correspondence suggests that CO2 can explain in part the patterns of globally aver- aged temperatures during the Phanerozoic.
<snip>
Your source opposes your view point. Too bad. Real science undermines your notion of what the party line science has led you to believe.
Additionally, neither the Phanerozoic levels of CO2 exceeded the 7000 ppm level nor the "low to moderate" levels at about 1000 ppm were not the trigger for runaway global warming. In truth, they produced temperatures far lower than those on Venus which is the prediction of dire consequence wheeled out by the AGW Diehards whenever they get the chance. Also, those levels were both produced and reduced by nature. Man did not exist and therefore had no affect on this.
I have to hand it to you,though, this is real, live scientific data. That's probably why it does not support your case.
Ok, then we can use the entire span of time that has passed since the IPCC published the predictions of the climate models. I mean we can hardly go back any further than that in terms of comparing real world data to the models.
Here you go.
No matter which way you cut it the models are worthless.
Again, the important point is not that there is a warming trend, a fact that hardly anyone disputes. It's the reliability of the models that is called into question.
This is so obviously a political organization, why do you bother with it?
Their work is divided into three discreet parts according to them from your link:
<snip>
he Working Group (WG) Reports and Synthesis Report will be completed in 2013/2014:
WG I: The Physical Science Basis
23-26 September 2013, Stockholm, Sweden
WG II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
25-29 March 2014, Yokohama, Japan
WG III: Mitigation of Climate Change
7-11 April 2014, Berlin, Germany (tbc)
<snip>
When 2/3 of their process is political and the science part is just the grist for the mill, this would reveal their agenda to all bit those who share their agenda. Their agenda is continuously evolving as is their raw data. They collect the data needed to support their agenda even if they need to change it after it has been published.
I will charitably assume that their agenda is a mystery to you.
chalice of AGW ? ever the melodramatic Lord of Planar seems to just get the facts wrong again. Instead of working on your euphemisms you work on your facts. No Lord, a lot of cons are still stuck on Republican Lie #1: its a hoax. You should poll your fellow cons (see the Forbes "editorial" lowdown posted). Some like you seemed to have moved on to Republican Lie # 2: Its real but natural. And the latest republican hero Spencer is already starting with the next Republican Lie #3. Its real and man made but wont be as bad as predicted. (sadly I hoped he was right but since his work was so easily discredited I feel its okay to call that Lie #3)Why do you think conservatives disagree with that?
How many times must we remind you warmers. Those of us who do not drink from that chalice of AGW water aren't claiming that warming isn't occurring.
Again... We do not claim warming has not been occurring! We do not disagree that the oceans have been rising in sea level. We do not disagree that the Arctic ice is retreating..
ah, the simplistic question designed to prove years of research from thousands of scientists is all wrong. But I wish you would use your 'brain power' to fact check your own posts instead of casting juvenile aspersions. See how how Lord slips in “warming faster than the atmosphere” into his question as if its a fact. (he does that a lot) Other than you Lord, who says that? (he wont answer)What is causing the deep ocean to warm faster than the atmosphere when CO2 has no direct effect on it?
er uh low, your current post disproves your first post. The lying forbes 'editorial' says there has been no warming (or at least you claimed it did) for 17 years. Your new climate hero believes in global warming. He also believes in man made global warming. He just says it wont be as bad as predicted. So can we agree that your first 'editorial' was lying?
Oh this is from Spencer in his 2010 book:
“A careful examination of the satellite data suggests that manmade warming due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide could be less than 1ºC – possibly much less.”
Again, the important point was that the models failed to foresee this pause in warming and can't explain it. It follows that they can't be relied on to tell us what will come next.
A climate sensitivity of less than 1 degree would mean that all efforts to reduce global warming would be a waste of time, money, and effort.
If you read the abstract, it plainly states that CO2 is an important climate driver.
You whine about how I don't post links, then when I post one, you actually interpret it to be the exact opposite of what it says.
In case you haven't noticed,BTW, my viewpoint is the established scientific one. Yours is the one that derives science from Blogs, Monckton, and the Heartland Institute.
Anyhoo Lord, I’ll explain why the deep oceans are warming. CO2 traps heat. Energy that would have dissipated into space stays in the atmosphere. (am I going too fast?). The oceans are giant thermal batteries. As the atmosphere warms up, the oceans absorb the heat. Its just another part of the climate models actual climate scientists use. But based on your never ending “falsehoods” about the volt, I know your agenda is to obfuscate the facts.
what do you think the American Academy for the Advancement of Science is?
in 2006 the organization published as statement on climate change and has consistently published statements since that time that reinforce this.
er uh low, your current post disproves your first post. The lying forbes 'editorial' says there has been no warming (or at least you claimed it did) for 17 years. Your new climate hero believes in global warming. He also believes in man made global warming. He just says it wont be as bad as predicted. So can we agree that your first 'editorial' was lying?
Oh this is from Spencer in his 2010 book:
“A careful examination of the satellite data suggests that manmade warming due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide could be less than 1ºC – possibly much less.”
"As Arnold Schwarzenegger said about the diversity of views of climate scientists, if your child is ill and 98 out of 100 doctors call for life-saving surgery and 2 say it is not necessary, your decision is obvious."
RealClimate: Review of Spencer’s ‘Great Global Warming Blunder’
Yet scientists disagree with you.
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ill stick with the NAS, rather than you and Sean Hannity, thank you.
I find it fascinating that in order to believe the scientific reality, you have to like the solution first.
First things first. Identify the problem. Then fix it. Don't look at the fixes and then get scared and pretend the problem doesn't exist.
You say that I misinterpret what the author of the paper said, but this is exactly what he said from his conclusion:
"The message of this study is not that atmospheric CO2 is always the dom- inant forcing (see Section 3.7 for an early Paleogene exam- ple)."
He cannot be more direct than that in opposing the basis of your belief.
If it IS NOT always the dominating forcing, then you must prove that in this case of the current climate change, you must PROVE that it is.
It clearly is not, so the job of finding that proof will be as elusive for you as it has been for the entire group of AGW Diehards that are still supporting this.
Apparently, only about 36% of scientists agree with you. Funny how that number keeps cropping up, isn't it?
In the canard about the 97% of scientists endorsing this tripe that can't be proven which is reached only by discarding the 66% who do not endorse it, we find the level of agreement with the AGW diehards is only in the mid 30% range.
Now we have another study that again finds the Diehards in the mid 30% range. Funny how the lack of proof is wearing away the support.
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes
<snip>
It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.
<snip>
Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.
The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.
<snip>
How does it feel to be a flat Earther?
"EACH of us took turns over the past 43 years running the Environmental Protection Agency. We served Republican presidents, but we have a message that transcends political affiliation: the United States must move now on substantive steps to curb climate change, at home and internationally. "
(attention cons, read this next part very slowly. read it as many times as necessary)
There is no longer any credible scientific debate about the basic facts: our world continues to warm, with the last decade the hottest in modern records, and the deep ocean warming faster than the earth’s atmosphere. Sea level is rising. Arctic Sea ice is melting years faster than projected.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/opinion/a-republican-case-for-climate-action.html?_r=0
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?