Global cooling a crock, as oceans continue warming.

[ptif219]

It's like the third image down. You didn't even try did you?

so post it instead of playing games

 

[ptif219]

I go more by what I can see than what I read, and if what I saw was much worse back then than what it is today. Rent the movie and get back to me.

ricksfolly

Without Gore the lies would not be public and taught wrongly in schools

 

[Deuce]

Without Gore the lies would not be public and taught wrongly in schools

Global warming research goes back before Gore was even born. It's really weird how conservatives ascribe the whole thing to a guy who isn't a scientist.

 

[marywollstonecraft]

Global warming research goes back before Gore was even born. It's really weird how conservatives ascribe the whole thing to a guy who isn't a scientist.

what I find really interesting is the politicization of the issue. the reason that europe moved ahead on this is because climate change was not a political football, and so the sceptics were not able to exploit the ignorance of one set of voters.

 

[ptif219]

Global warming research goes back before Gore was even born. It's really weird how conservatives ascribe the whole thing to a guy who isn't a scientist.

Would GW be where it is today without the Gore publicity. In a word NO

 

[Deuce]

Would GW be where it is today without the Gore publicity. In a word NO

I'm not interested in publicity I'm interested in science.

 

[ptif219]

I'm not interested in publicity I'm interested in science.

Would the science be as public as it is now without Gore? I notice you avoid my point

 

[Deuce]

Would the science be as public as it is now without Gore? I notice you avoid my point

In the scientific community? Yes.
In the general public? No, but why is that important? Reality does not care who does or does not believe in it. You can't make the earth cooler by wishing it so.

What, exactly, IS your point? That we should take scientific direction from people who don't understand the science?

 

[ptif219]

In the scientific community? Yes.
In the general public? No, but why is that important? Reality does not care who does or does not believe in it. You can't make the earth cooler by wishing it so.

What, exactly, IS your point? That we should take scientific direction from people who don't understand the science?

Without Gore no politics and green BS. Gore made the lies real and now we are paying for it with taxes and Gore laughs all the way to the bank

 

[marywollstonecraft]

In the scientific community? Yes.
In the general public? No, but why is that important? Reality does not care who does or does not believe in it. You can't make the earth cooler by wishing it so.

What, exactly, IS your point? That we should take scientific direction from people who don't understand the science?

maybe in America.

it was already an issue that people were discussing elsewhere.

 

[marywollstonecraft]

Without Gore no politics and green BS. Gore made the lies real and now we are paying for it with taxes and Gore laughs all the way to the bank

you really need to update your knowledge on this issue.

you may not be aware, but before inconvenient truth was even thought f people in many parts of the world were worried about AGW, and it is, and has been, affecting many communities.

many scientists in a range of disciplines have been seeing impacts - and had been for years before Gore;s film was released.

It may have made Americans more aware - but many people (including myself) never saw it, wouldn't cross the road to see it, and are very much concerned about the issue - in some cases because of what we are seeing.

 

[ptif219]

you really need to update your knowledge on this issue.

you may not be aware, but before inconvenient truth was even thought f people in many parts of the world were worried about AGW, and it is, and has been, affecting many communities.

many scientists in a range of disciplines have been seeing impacts - and had been for years before Gore;s film was released.

It may have made Americans more aware - but many people (including myself) never saw it, wouldn't cross the road to see it, and are very much concerned about the issue - in some cases because of what we are seeing.

I see temp records broke from the late 1800's and early 1900's before all the oil use. That tells me it is nature that controls climate change not man.

When you ask how much temp will change if mans pollution is gone you get a run around and spin.

Global Warming is the anti pollution crowd changing their name.

When the lies have to use scare tactics and Chicken Little style tactics it shows me the truth and facts are lacking

 

[Deuce]

I see temp records broke from the late 1800's and early 1900's before all the oil use. That tells me it is nature that controls climate change not man.

When you ask how much temp will change if mans pollution is gone you get a run around and spin.

Global Warming is the anti pollution crowd changing their name.

When the lies have to use scare tactics and Chicken Little style tactics it shows me the truth and facts are lacking

I gave you that answer many pages back. It was about ~.2C of additional warming if we flatlined at the year 2000's CO2 levels.
Just because temperature changed without man doesn't mean man can't effect temperature. We've caused acid rain, ozone depletion, dangerous levels of orbital clutter, smog so thick you need a mask to go outside, why is causing .7C degrees in temperature change so hard for you to believe? To steal a line from James Woolsey, former CIA Director: People got lung cancer before cigarettes were invented.

Doesn't make smoking safe.

 

[ptif219]

I gave you that answer many pages back. It was about ~.2C of additional warming if we flatlined at the year 2000's CO2 levels.
Just because temperature changed without man doesn't mean man can't effect temperature. We've caused acid rain, ozone depletion, dangerous levels of orbital clutter, smog so thick you need a mask to go outside, why is causing .7C degrees in temperature change so hard for you to believe? To steal a line from James Woolsey, former CIA Director: People got lung cancer before cigarettes were invented.

Doesn't make smoking safe.

You spin and justify you do not answer

 

[Deuce]

You spin and justify you do not answer

.2C isn't an answer?


From the IPCC's 4th report.

Of course, we already know what you're going to say.

 

[ptif219]

.2C isn't an answer?


From the IPCC's 4th report.

Of course, we already know what you're going to say.

Another words it is very small the impact from man and this warming would happen anyway.

Careful what you quote the IPCC are being told to stay away from the press. What are they trying to hide now?

Climate Panel Urges ‘Distance’ From Reporters - Green Blog - NYTimes.com

 

[Deuce]

Another words it is very small the impact from man and this warming would happen anyway.

Careful what you quote the IPCC are being told to stay away from the press. What are they trying to hide now?

Climate Panel Urges ‘Distance’ From Reporters - Green Blog - NYTimes.com

.2C if we stop CO2 at the 2000 levels. As much as 4C if we continue on our current trend with increasing outputs. That's a pretty huge difference. On a global scale, 4C is actually a pretty large change.

As for your link to a blog post, it's just more spin and deceptions from the skeptics. They aren't saying "don't talk to the press." They're saying "We have an official communication channel now, so if you talk to the press don't present yourself as speaking on behalf of the IPCC about IPCC plans or activities."

Pretty huge difference, but what do you expect from the skeptical liars? They twist the meaning of the actual email to mean something else, and believers like you don't bother to go actually check the source.

 

[ptif219]

.2C if we stop CO2 at the 2000 levels. As much as 4C if we continue on our current trend with increasing outputs. That's a pretty huge difference. On a global scale, 4C is actually a pretty large change.

As for your link to a blog post, it's just more spin and deceptions from the skeptics. They aren't saying "don't talk to the press." They're saying "We have an official communication channel now, so if you talk to the press don't present yourself as speaking on behalf of the IPCC about IPCC plans or activities."

Pretty huge difference, but what do you expect from the skeptical liars? They twist the meaning of the actual email to mean something else, and believers like you don't bother to go actually check the source.

Nice try but .2 of 1 is a small part now you want to spin and go another direction.

GW has caused according to your sources 1 degree increase you just said .2 is man. that means without man it would still have increased .8.

This means Global warming is not caused by man

 

[Deuce]

Nice try but .2 of 1 is a small part now you want to spin and go another direction.

GW has caused according to your sources 1 degree increase you just said .2 is man. that means without man it would still have increased .8.

This means Global warming is not caused by man

What? No, that's not what I said. .2 additional warming would occur if we stopped CO2 emissions right now. That's in addition to the ~1 degree we've already added. (.7 if I remember right?)

Here, I'll start over:

What we've caused so far:
~.7C
If we stopped now, what we'd end up with: (edit: Although technically it wouldn't be "stopping" now, it would be balancing our CO2 to exactly what nature absorbs, if that's even possible)
~1.0 C

If we continue our current trend of increasing CO2 output:
Up to 4C.

Clear enough for you?
By the way, 4C is not small. It's actually pretty huge. And problematic for many reasons, especially considering how FAST we're warming. A slow increase is easier to deal with than a fast one.

 

[ptif219]

What? No, that's not what I said. .2 additional warming would occur if we stopped CO2 emissions right now. That's in addition to the ~1 degree we've already added. (.7 if I remember right?)

Here, I'll start over:

What we've caused so far:
~.7C
If we stopped now, what we'd end up with: (edit: Although technically it wouldn't be "stopping" now, it would be balancing our CO2 to exactly what nature absorbs, if that's even possible)
~1.0 C

If we continue our current trend of increasing CO2 output:
Up to 4C.

Clear enough for you?
By the way, 4C is not small. It's actually pretty huge. And problematic for many reasons, especially considering how FAST we're warming. A slow increase is easier to deal with than a fast one.

Nice spin then you are not answering my question but twisting what I said. As always only what you say matters.

 

[Deuce]

Nice spin then you are not answering my question but twisting what I said. As always only what you say matters.

Are you nuts? I'm not twisting what you said, I'm clarifying what I said. I'm sorry if that bothers you.

 

[ptif219]

Are you nuts? I'm not twisting what you said, I'm clarifying what I said. I'm sorry if that bothers you.

You ignore what others say and only say what you want. You did not answer what happens if all man pollution is gone. Instead you rant about 2000 levels

 

[Deuce]

You ignore what others say and only say what you want. You did not answer what happens if all man pollution is gone. Instead you rant about 2000 levels

...because that is what would happen if we shut off all our oil consumption. No more polluting. Isn't that what you were asking?

If you're talking about magically taking all of mankind's pollution from all of history out of the atmosphere, that's impossible, so why bother?

 

[ptif219]

...because that is what would happen if we shut off all our oil consumption. No more polluting. Isn't that what you were asking?

If you're talking about magically taking all of mankind's pollution from all of history out of the atmosphere, that's impossible, so why bother?

If that happened how much would temp change?

 

[Deuce]

If that happened how much would temp change?

I don't know. I'm not aware of any computer models that predict the effects of divine intervention. Human activity has added about .7 degrees C to the global average temperature so far. I suspect the earth would return to close to the same temperature it was around 1850, but there are factors that affect temperatures beyond pollution, so it probably wouldn't be exactly the same, just close. But that's really just a guess, like I said, nobody has done an in-depth analysis of impossible scenarios and I'm not qualified to make that calculation myself.