Climate Change -- conspiracy theory or is it time we all drive a Prius?
Quote: 24BingoBecause that time it wasn't the scientific community at large, and this time it is.
Are you part of the "scientific community"? Just wondering.
*sticks fingers in ears*. I'm not listening! I'm not listening!
And humans have the capability to adapt. They may pay an arm and a leg to do so, but they can adapt.
On a separate note, I love bacon. Every day I wake up in the morning and fry a pound of bacon. I went to my doctor who refered me to a cardiologist because my cholesterol was way too high. He ordered some blood tests and they came back with some very strange results. He told me that my case was interesting and haven't seen anything like it before, so with my permission he talked about me at a conference and took a poll of the 100 attendees.
In the poll, 3 cardiologists thought I should just continue eating bacon stating that my body would adapt to the new cholesterol levels, creating new ways to process the salt and chemicals and everything else. One doctor recommended drinking in order to clean out my system. 36 other doctors said that I should probably lay off the bacon and take an expensive drug to reduce my cholesterol levels with some undesirable side effects. The rest had no opinion as they were not cardiologists and didn't feel qualified to make an opinion.
What should I do? I do love bacon, but I read a story about some cardiologists getting kickbacks from big pharma to increase the rates of prescriptions when none might be necessary.
The answer is always "more bacon"
-1 debate point.
+5 life points if you actually eat a pound a day (you'll probably need them lol)
Quote: boymimbowroberson is right. Global warming will never destroy the planet. Neither will all-out nuclear war, or a large atmosphere. The only thing that will destroy the planet is when the sun enters its red giant phase in 5 billion years.
We have to do something--time for a tax on sunlight?
Quote: AZDuffmanWe have to do something--time for a tax on sunlight?
Why not, they want to tax cows for farting.
Quote: boymimboOne doctor recommended drinking in order to clean out my system.
A lot of people out there would love this doctor. LOL!
Taxes and policies are in effect to control behaviours. We actually do have control on the content of our atmosphere. Most of the world banned CFCS and placed a heavy policy on polluters and the result is a better ozone layer which in turn is decreasing the rate of skin cancer increases throughout the world, which saves billions of dollars in treatment. The Montreal protocols in effect turned refridgeration to a better technology and more environmentally friendly chemicals (with costs of $235 billion but with economic benefits estimated at $460 billion) and effect prevent 21 million skin cancers and 130 million cataracts (over 60+ years). The phase-out of CFCs was far less dire than the corporations predicted and consumers were able to switch over their refridgerants fairly painlessly because corporations solved the technology gaps as there was money to be made. Dupont did not go out of business.
With regards to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, it's a very similar argument with CFCs except the long term effects of increased greenhouse gases are more nebulous. Alot of people feel that the CO2 ship has sailed and that humankind is now in reaction mode. The developing world is not going to miss out on burning fossil fuels because the rest of the world certainly did not. Solar energy is not very efficient and is still costly. Wind energy has its problems due to bird kills. Geothermal energy is still in its infancy. So if the predictions are right, we're screwed anyway.
Quote: boymimboNo, not a tax on sunlight. Sunlight is directly responsible for our success on this planet. Well, that, and the exact right composiiton of the atmosphere to make our planet livable.
sar·casm [sahr-kaz-uhm] noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.
"It's driving us towards the next ice age!"
"It's causing global warming!"
"It's causing more frequent and severe hurricanes!" -During Katrina. After Katrian, we entered a low period where we had very few hurricanes.
"It's causing cLiMatE chanGE!" -They had to switch to climate change because the global temp appeared to drop by .75 to 1 degree C. And because of masive snow storms during the same year.
"It's causing more tornadoes!" Actually, we hit kind of low period for a while. A hot spring and summer tends to keep the storms capped. -Yes, I'm a strom chaser.
However, this year has been largely toooo cold.
I'm sorry the press took you in forty years ago. But they're doing it again now, now more subtly, by convincing you you're the smart, and they've made you so proud of yourself you can't be bothered to check.
Quote: 24BingoYou're describing the baubles thrown out for the magpies. They are irresponsible, and they are dying of their own irresponsibility now that any fool can check their sources relatively easily. You claim to be looking for yourself, but you're clearly looking with a confirmation bias, because everything you've said in this thread either is demonstrably, sometimes trivially, wrong in its own right or is meant to lead to a conclusion that's demonstrably wrong. You cannot change the fact that the science behind the cooling scare was not at all comparable to that behind the warming scare, even if it's often exaggerated. You cannot produce - or I doubt you can, and you haven't - an attack on the consensus that provides an honest answer to the literature, rather than just attacking it on a human level. Only these same magpies can you distract from the more justified claims with the weaker ones (tornadoes, hurricanes). Only these same magpies can you distract with a desperate popular attempt to get the very same's attention back from weak arguments like "it's snowing!" You cannot change the fact that it is still global warming, even if that phrase is approached with caution now when addressed to certain audiences.
I'm sorry the press took you in forty years ago. But they're doing it again now, now more subtly, by convincing you you're the smart, and they've made you so proud of yourself you can't be bothered to check.
"Those that cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" George Santayana
24Bingo I have provided several links so now I would like you to provide a simple answer to back up your position. How much has the earth warmed in the past 10 years and does that fit the climate models of 10 years ago? Provide a link to your answer.
Quote: kenarman
"Those that cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" George Santayana
Those who can remember the past (or do know history) are doomed to go crazy watching the first group make the same mistakes as they are not able to stop it."--unknown
Quote: kenarman24Bingo I have provided several links so now I would like you to provide a simple answer to back up your position. How much has the earth warmed in the past 10 years and does that fit the climate models of 10 years ago? Provide a link to your answer.
He thinks 'global cooling' is ED to 'global warming'.
What is actually happening however is one reason that models have gone awry (and when I say awry, I mean that the globe has not warmed at the mid-range of the IPCC predictions but at the lower range). Water vapor in the stratosphere has DECREASED, starting in 2000 which is counterintuitive to the models -- something about warmer oceans that prevents water vapor from reaching the stratosphere. Climatologists believe that this is a temporary condition and will correct shortly. And while the atmosphere has been getting hotter, relative humidity has actually fallen slightly, reducing the overall greenhouse gas effect. This is the article posted in Science magazine in 2010.
It is this water vapor effect that explains why the temperature gains over the last 10-15 years are not as much as expected. Still, climatologists (in my opinion, rightly so) consider water vapour to be a feedback, not a forcing, mechanism meaning that a change in atmopsheric water vapour is due to the change in temperature and not the other way around. Still, there exists a not-so-well known mechanism where a link between water vapour and CO2 concentrations in the stratosphere appear to be broken. Indeed, most climatologists agree that the exaggerated warmings seen in the polar regions is due to a much higher concentration of water vapor than expected.
So, here you go, something for you deniers to hang your hat on.
Quote: boymimboWater vapor is the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, but it isn't mentioned. It has double the greenhouse "power" of CO2.
Time for a tax on water vapor! All those people making tea, boiling for pasta, they are the culprit!"
sar·casm [sahr-kaz-uhm] noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.
Quote: boymimboWater vapor is the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, but it isn't mentioned. It has double the greenhouse "power" of CO2. The cycle of water vapour in the atmosphere is not particularly well understood. The widespread belief was that water vapor increases with CO2 concentrations and that the more water vapour you have, the more warming you have. Because of the relatively low amount of time that water vapour is in the atmosphere (a few days) compared to CO2 (a few decades), water vapor is ignored except in relation with carbon dioxide.
What is actually happening however is one reason that models have gone awry (and when I say awry, I mean that the globe has not warmed at the mid-range of the IPCC predictions but at the lower range). Water vapor in the stratosphere has DECREASED, starting in 2000 which is counterintuitive to the models -- something about warmer oceans that prevents water vapor from reaching the stratosphere. Climatologists believe that this is a temporary condition and will correct shortly. And while the atmosphere has been getting hotter, relative humidity has actually fallen slightly, reducing the overall greenhouse gas effect. This is the article posted in Science magazine in 2010.
It is this water vapor effect that explains why the temperature gains over the last 10-15 years are not as much as expected. Still, climatologists (in my opinion, rightly so) consider water vapour to be a feedback, not a forcing, mechanism meaning that a change in atmopsheric water vapour is due to the change in temperature and not the other way around. Still, there exists a not-so-well known mechanism where a link between water vapour and CO2 concentrations in the stratosphere appear to be broken. Indeed, most climatologists agree that the exaggerated warmings seen in the polar regions is due to a much higher concentration of water vapor than expected.
So, here you go, something for you deniers to hang your hat on.
Thanks for the explanation boymimbo I appreciate the level of your debate on this subject and the number of links you have provided.
The problem your explanation creates for me is that others have a different reason. You may well be right but your theory on the water vapour is totally different from some climatologists on why the temperature increase is less. The theory they put forward is that the oceans have taken up the heat at a greater rate than predicted offsetting the lower air temperature increase and that the overall warming of the planet is on track with the models because of this lLINK
The link is to 'the guardian' but that article has multiple links in it to the actual science.
You might ask what does it matter both support AGW. My point is that the different opinions show that the science is not settled and the stifling of debate by some is simply poor science while we try and understand our atmosphere. This was also the point of the resignations discussed earlier in the thread. These scientist didn't say that all the previous science was wrong only that, as in all good science, debate should be open and opposing views and results accepted and used to strengthen the model not used to ostracize those with different views.
where do I send the fine? Do they take
food stamps?
Over the past ten years, how much has the global temp. increased? Can you provide two sources that agree? Also, how many standard deviations above the mean is the recent increase in temp.? (The actual temp increase, not the number of new high temps/low temps.)
Quote: boymimboI suspect that EvenBob and his dog fart simultaneously on many occasions. Now, we call that double taxation.
We try to hide it, the Fart Police around here
are brutal.
Quote: kenarmanThanks for the explanation boymimbo I appreciate the level of your debate on this subject and the number of links you have provided.
My point is that the different opinions show that the science is not settled and the stifling of debate by some is simply poor science while we try and understand our atmosphere. This was also the point of the resignations discussed earlier in the thread. These scientist didn't say that all the previous science was wrong only that, as in all good science, debate should be open and opposing views and results accepted and used to strengthen the model not used to ostracize those with different views.
I'm trying to figure out which debates are being stifled. There is "smart" debate which states facts backed by articles which advances theory and is backed up with data and facts. These merits are debated within the scientific community. The theory is debunked, accepted, or honed. I'm happy to talk about opposing views if they are backed up by facts.
Then there is "dumb" debates where one side will put forth a consipiracy theory while the other side points at a single particular storm and state "climate change, see?". There are extremes on both ends [aka dogs and owners farting together], which to me is just noise that takes away from the actual debate and decent science which is going on (yes, for pay). And when you take all views into consideration, the truth is usually on the bell curve smack dab in the middle.
Predictive science is difficult. Look at meteorology. Weather forecasts are still usually good for only 3 days out and become a mystery after that. The earth is a complicated place with all kinds of different interactions. The most advanced computer models are only good at predicting your local weather three days in advance.
Climatology is much different because they deal with regional and global trends over time. They don't look at the few days of cooler temperatures over Michigan. It gets mixed with monthly figures and regional data to get a smoother trend. That's why two people can look at the same graph, use different endpoints, and come up with drastically different results. Unfortunately, that isn't the correct way to do trending.
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/nasa-telescope-spots-co2-fizzing-away-soda-pop-comet-6C10722285
I also have to add that most of meteor showers came from comets do should the prediction hold, we will pass through this tail of CO2, ice and methane every year. My estimate based on the orbit diagram is January 14 to 16. You might want to keep that in mind as it may increase CO2 in the atmosphere at a yearly rate that is higher than any man made CO2.
Quote: KeyserMethane fluctuations come from everywhere, not just mankind.
Dammit, leave me and my dog out of this.
We had chili last night..
I remember in Jr High when some of the guys
would set their farts on fire with a Bic lighter.
Who knew they were ahead of their time in
preventing GW.
(One sec on those links, but I'll say briefly the idea the Earth is cooling now comes from ignoring El Niño and similar well-known cyclical effects.)
Quote: kenarmanThis report from the Meteorlogical Office of the United Kingdom has come to the conclusion that global waming has been on pause for 16 years. Wonder who the deniers have been during this time period.GLOBAL WARMING STOPPED
Quote: kenarmanIf you don't like my first link to the report Michael than how about the my link below for 'The Guardian' is that a reputable enough paper for you. If you want to bother googling you can find a link on the report for your own favoritie paper. If you scroll down the link to the 2 graphs you will find that the report says that the expecting amount of warming (using their own average of the range) by 2020 has dropped from .8 degrees to .5 degrees. That is a significant change from the 'sky is falling' projections of a few years ago and of many still today. The bottom line is we are far from being smart enough yet to forecast the changes or predict what the effect of any single item is. You allude to the so called fact CO2 and temperature increase are increasing in proportion to each other. That decreasing increase rate must mean that we have reduced our CO2 output.
We know so little still about how our planet operates that we can not be that confident of any current theory. If you look up the latest research on forests, done on the Amazon jungle, it is now showing that almost all the of the O2 produced during the day is absorbed back in the night. The real net gain is from the microbes in the ocean at the delta. So much for the theory that trees provide our oxygen.
Michael I don't dispute that the planet is warming but it has been for thousand of years. The Mediteranean has risen a couple of meters since the time of Christ did humans cause that? Maybe, but not by burning fossil fuels.
GRAPHS
Michael had responded adequately to these both before the latter. It's not about "liking" or "disliking" the paper - both distort the data similarly, since controversy sells as well as fear. The way it's distorted, as I already summed up, is cherrypicking, and ignoring the El Niño cycle.
Quote: kenarmanWell we skeptics have at least 1 Noble prize winner on our side but I guess he is probably not a 'real scientist'. His position exactly mirrors my own. If you have read my post you will not find I have denied that the planet is warming or that CO2 is increasing. My point has always been that we don't know enough to say how these are linked to have an undeniable cause and effect relationship proven. The warming of the planet will increase CO2 levels on it's own as the oceans hold less CO2 at higher temperatures. But as Ivar has noted the pressure to not conform has become enourmous.
Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize winner in physics, isn't a thought leader, per se, in the climate skeptics scene -- but the mere fact that he has come out as being a skeptic and has a Nobel Prize makes him important. His big beef is that climate change orthodoxy has become a "new religion" for scientists, and that the data isn't nearly as compelling as it should be to get this kind of conformity.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ten-most-important-climate-change-skeptics-2009-7?op=1#ixzz2a7ArEeJZ
Quote: kenarmanYes Mr. Giaever is 84 and therefore must be irrelevant now, similar to another older and deader sceintist Albert Einstein. Here is a link to an interview with him from the 1994 Nobel Laureates meetings so you can see what a raving lunatic he is, mind you the interiew is almost 10 years ago so it is pretty much meaningless too. INTERVIEW
Near the end of the interview he even has 'SOME ADVICE FOR STUDENTS'. I am sure that advice will taken to heart by some of our student posters.
Ad verecundiam. It doesn't matter what he says about the people doing the research when he doesn't have anything substantial to say about the research itself.
Quote: kenarmanRelevant letter in the Wall Street Journal ARTICLE signed by 16 prominent scientists. Sub-title of article "There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy." I won't bother with the headline because it is more likely to take away from rational discussion.
[snip]
Whoops so much for the idea that the dissension has disappeared. As per boymimbo's - discussion?
Most of these people are from other fields, and those that aren't are well-known kooks. But like Giaever's diatribe, a letter like this could never serve as an argument without something backing it up.
Quote: kenarmanInteresting graphs going back several ice ages. Looks like we are exactly on schedule or possibly falling a little behind.GRAPHS
Do you realize how much damage we could do and it would be practically invisible on that scale? It reminds me of that short story where civilization is destroyed by a meteor and the Martians just marvel at how little damage it seemed to have caused to the landscape.
And this comment bears special attention:
Quote: kenarmanYou might ask what does it matter both support AGW. My point is that the different opinions show that the science is not settled and the stifling of debate by some is simply poor science while we try and understand our atmosphere.
The science is never settled. The issue is that this one question appears to be settled, so no, if they both support AGW, it does not reopen the door. You can't say "this is unclear, so what's clear, must also be unclear!"
(In any case, both factor in in this case.)
And no one has shown a stifling of debate beyond the usual drumming out of cranks; that is to say, no one who claims persecution has demonstrated a reason to doubt. They're reflexive iconoclasts with a persecution complex, nothing more.
Anyway:
Quote: kenarman24Bingo I have provided several links so now I would like you to provide a simple answer to back up your position. How much has the earth warmed in the past 10 years and does that fit the climate models of 10 years ago? Provide a link to your answer.
Last year, surface temperature, was .75° C above baseline, the year 2002, .78 °C - however, most of the years in between have been warmer, whereas most of the years before were colder. Whether this agrees with the climate models ten years ago doesn't have a simple answer. It disagrees with some of them, upward as well as downward, but not by too much.
Quote: wrobersonI was just reading a news report saying Comet ISON is belching methane and CO2. About 2.2 million pounds per day. The government has known about this for over a month before they released it to the public. As I mentioned a few days ago, Earth is going to be passing through the tail in January, so expect a spike in CO2 in the atmosphere. Not the man made, kind, but CO2 that's been around since the Big Bang...
Wow, 2.2 million pounds. An average American uses about 17.3 metric tonnes CO2 per year. That's 12 TRILLION pounds for the USA alone. So yeah 2.2 million pounds is a drop in a bucket.
Nice try.
Quote: KeyserRight now, there's a great deal of confusion as to how CO2 even affects the climate, if at all. The bigger player is methane. It's more persistent and is potentially more damaging. Methane fluctuations come from everywhere, not just mankind.
No, there's only confusion if you listen to a few people. If you actually pay attention to the science, it's pretty clear that CO2 influences the climate.
http://iceagenow.info/2013/08/unprecedented-july-cold-arctic-sees-shortest-summer-record/
Quote: treetopbuddyYou just don't get EvenBob.....colder temps mean the planet is warming. .
As far south as Brazil they've had temps so cold
it ruined millions in crops. Global cooling is far
worse than warming, the GW alarmists better
hope its not getting colder, we're screwed if it is.
Quote: EvenBobAs far south as Brazil they've had temps so cold
it ruined millions in crops. Global cooling is far
worse than warming, the GW alarmists better
hope its getting colder, we're screwed if it is.
Planet warms.... longer growing seasons....that's probably wrong. I'm sure a GW egghead has addressed this idea in a thread that is approaching Atlas Shrugged in length.
Meanwhile, Australia had the warmest summer on record. Also, it's the hottest summer on record in Ireland. And the arctic ice coverage is about 1.5 standard deviations below average as of this date.
So, yeah, take that, skeptics.
Don't tell that to the Warmers.Quote: EvenBobAs far south as Brazil they've had temps so cold
it ruined millions in crops.
911 truth supporters = Truthers
Birth certificate conspiracy = Birthers
Global warming "scientists" = Warmers
Well, the graph accompanying this report shows an abnormally short summer in the Arctic:Quote: boymimboSo, yeah, take that, skeptics.
"North Pole Sees Unprecedented July Cold – Arctic Sees Shortest Summer On Record — ‘Normally the high Arctic has about 90 days above freezing. This year there was less than half that’
By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotAugust 3, 2013 8:04 AM
“Normally the high Arctic has about 90 days above freezing. This year there was less than half that,” says Steven Goddard website.
Graph courtesy of Centre for Ocean and Ice, Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut
“The Arctic ice extent is showing a remarkable recovery from the great oscillations of 2012,” says Guimaraes. “Compare with the previous years listed there, you’ll see that 2004 is the year that is closest to 2013 in terms of average temps during the summer.”
(You can compare by looking at the Archives (Arkiv) on the left side of the page.)
Related Links:
Flashback: NASA finally admits it Arctic cyclone in August ‘broke up’ and ‘wreaked havoc’ on sea ice — Reuters reports Arctic storm played ‘key role’ in ice reduction
Flashback: Don’t Panic! Arctic Ice Hits ‘Record’ Low!? Climate Depot Explains Arctic melting hype
CO2 Nears 400 ppm – Relax! It’s Not Global Warming ‘End Times’ —Climate Depot Special Report: Renowned Climatologist: ‘You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide’ --http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/03/unprecedented-july-cold-arctic-sees-shortest-summer-on-record-normally-the-high-arctic-has-about-90-days-above-freezing-this-year-there-was-less-than-half-that/"
Quote: boymimboI wasn't aware the summer in the Arctic ended on August 3rd.
Since this is a make believe subject.....summer can end whenever....
That is precisely the point, as the headline makes clear: "Arctic Sees Shortest Summer On Record — ‘Normally the high Arctic has about 90 days above freezing. This year there was less than half that' " And the accompany graphs fully back that up, thanks to the Danes.Quote: boymimboI wasn't aware the summer in the Arctic ended on August 3rd.
Right, except the graph isn't finished yet, because it ain't over yet.
For example, the graph was published on August 1st, and the three days since that have all been above freezing. As well, it's an exagerration. The maximum temperature at 80 degrees latitute is usually only a maxmium of about 1.5 degrees above zero, so a late warming would mean that a large number of days that are usually above freezing were below freezing. if you look at the entire graph, you can see that indeed, it's been about one degree celcius below average since the beginning of about May. Right now, the graph has caught up. The average temperature and the temperature match.
And interesting enough, it's not the Danish institute that is defining "summer". It's the website that wants to perpetrate a myth.
So yeah, the Danes didn't say "summer was over". A non-scientist did. Three days after the story was published, by their own definition, it's still above freezing, and probably will be for another 15 days or so.
Quote: treetopbuddyYou just don't get EvenBob.....colder temps mean the planet is warming. It's kinda like when you hit the 4 betting a green chip on the craps table. You really didn't win 25 you lost 2.50. Poor analogy....I don't care. Probably not analogous.
As far as gambling and climate change, both would be subject to variance. But variance is a lying bitch. ( Except for system players.)
Quote: treetopbuddyIf you believe man is causing global warming then do your part. Sell your shit and make your way to an equatorial region and live like an animal. Good luck you've long lost your survival skills.
Things must of gotten worse since the thread started.
Climate Change -- conspiracy theory or is it time we all drive a Prius?
Climate Change --conspiracy theory or sell your shit and make your way to an equatorial region and live like an animal. Good luck you've long lost your survival skills.
Quote: treetopbuddyYou just don't get EvenBob.....colder temps mean the planet is warming. It's kinda like when you hit the 4 betting a green chip on the craps table. You really didn't win 25 you lost 2.50. Poor analogy....I don't care. Probably not analogous.
It's actually a decent analogy. (Well, if you had the numbers right it would be - betting a green chip, typically the win would be $49 but the "real loss" 33¢.) EvenBob et al. - everyone who points out things like short summers or "downslopes" with arbitrary endpoints - are the equivalent of the people at the blackjack table who are making that side bet, pointing out everyone's wins and potential wins while ignoring the losses, and berating everyone who can't see the "real money." Complete with, of course, the John Patrick-like screams of math being a conspiracy.
