• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
ArmoredDragon said:
As a PS (post-script) I don't think we'll ever end up in a situation like Venus..
Click to expand...

So? Not many people think we will. There is at least one paper form a prominent scientist suggesting it’s possible, but as far as I can tell the predominate opinion is that while there are still oceans to moderate temperatures the Carbon locked up in rocks will stay there and without that Carbon in the atmosphere we won’t end up like Venus.
ArmoredDragon said:
Take a greenhouse, and see just how hot you can actually make that thing. Eventually it will hit a point of equilibrium whereas it won't take in thermal energy faster than it expels it. Unless of course you amplified the sun's energy to increase the rate at which energy is added to the system, like say moving it closer..
Click to expand...

Or decrease the rate at which energy can escape the system, which is exactly what greenhouse gasses do. If you reduce the energy escaping to zero the temperature will climb indefinitely regardless of what the Sun does. Clearly zero energy exiting isn’t physically possible, even in the case of Venus (which actually receives about the same amount of energy from the Sun as the earth does) you eventually reach an equilibrium the only question is when.
 
Last edited:
Public service announcement:

Don't leave your baby in a sealed car during a heat-wave.
Or your dog.

(Cats are ok.)
 
batvette said:
Please, I beg of you, successfully refute this statement:

If the consensus of Climate Change Research reversed, and it were asserted the earth was not in danger from AGW, the majority of funding toward Climate Change would quickly end and the researchers would have to find a new line of work.

Show me a field of research where it's been so well funded due to fear and gloom and doom stories- and if the scare ended so does the money.
Click to expand...
Before the science was settled, there would have been a lot more money from oil companies showing that there wasn't a problem.

Altering a paradigm is what most professional scientists dream of doing - and showing that AGW was not a problem would be Nobel-prize territory. A Young Turk successfully overthrowing the consensus would have their career made.

Even when the science had been settled, there was still a lot of money to be made by muddying the waters and taking money from oil companies - before you accuse me of conspiracy theories, there is strong evidence.

Fred Singer is the most well known example but there are others.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/01/exxon-mobil-climate-change-sceptics-funding


The world's largest oil company is continuing [in 2009] to fund lobby groups that question the reality of global warming, despite a public pledge to cut support for such climate change denial, a new analysis shows.

Company records show that ExxonMobil handed over hundreds of thousands of pounds to such lobby groups in 2008. These include the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) in Dallas, Texas, which received $75,000 (£45,500), and the Heritage Foundation in Washington DC, which received $50,000
Click to expand...

This is after Exxon had publicly accepted the fact of AGW.
 
A question for whomever is moderating this thread:

Is the clean-up finished? Because it seems posts were removed rather arbitrarily, leaving a lot of vacuous crap appear unanswered.
 
That's an understatement -

Try again to point the patently ill informed to basic levels of climate science

There is NO reason any honest inquirer cannot obtain a sound basis in science to understand AGW. It's not a complex concept.

The consequences are complex, the underlying science is not and has been established for well over a century.

Background/history
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/12/online-video-lectures-on-climate-change/
 
lomiller said:
If we were talking decade scale effects you may have a valid point, but ice cores have more than sufficient resolution to evaluate century scale changes, and there is nothing like the current warming anywhere in them. O-D events show very rapid cooling in some places, but the warming from these events is more gradual.
Click to expand...

Strange quoting myself, but this was rather timely.

Tamino investigates similar claims that we wouldn’t be able to see temperature spikes in the paleo-climate record. It turns out that even a relatively small spike remains visible.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/smearing-climate-data/
 
Originally Posted by ArmoredDragon
Never say that. It happens all the time that we have piles and piles of evidence that people take for granted, but meanwhile there are silent dissenters who we all dismiss as kooks, only to make a discovery one day that they were actually right all along. Most of the time, those guys are just kooks. But you really never know. You can't consider yourself to be much of a scientist or even a skeptic if you can't accept that something you hold dear to yourself as being true might actually be wrong.
Click to expand...

The usual pattern of the ill informed....expect a Hail Mary.
Overturns do not happen all the time ...they are rare and we operate on incomplete understanding constantly.

Not everything is understood about aerodynamic theory yet you hop on a plane.

You can be skeptical when you are informed about a subject enough to make that call....you aren't...see the links above and get started and then come back when you can have an informed discussion. :rolleyes:
 
They....???!!!
They are the most pre-eminent climatologists on the planet. They are DOING the science, writing the papers....they are not subscribing to the the theory they are the authors of the science you are trying to understand.

That Gavin and other working climate scientist on that site take the time to put it into laymen's language is a boon to all of us....and widely recognized worldwide.
 
Last edited:
aleCcowaN said:
What method do you propose to prove who is right, pixel42 or you? Do something to go from innuendo to truth. Can you?
Click to expand...
No innuendo involved. I made a statement which you can either agree with or dispute. You have done neither.

As to truthiness take your pick; I'll continue with my comment based on human nature as I've seen it and posters here. Truth? Good luck with that.
 
AlBell said:
http://townhall.com/columnists/davi...nment-the-alarmists-are-still-losing-n1557387

You don't appear to be winning.
Click to expand...

No, in fact everyone is losing. The facts are unstoppable, as is the warming. By the time that even the lobbying money can't make politicians deny reality it will be to late to do anything but half-arsed mitigation.

The deniers will crawl back under their rocks, some will say they never denied anything, and that the blame is on the scientists for not being convincing enough.

At the end of the day millions will die, more millions will starve, and even more millions will be displaced. We are the lucky ones, because we live in countries that will be able to handle the consequences. Most won't be so lucky.

To me personally is left the satisfaction of at least working in search of mitigation solutions, and the small satisfaction that comes from the "I told you so".
 
Barking Spyder said:


I have visited there and they obviously are subscribing to the man made GW theory. There's a lot to take in so it's going to take a while.
Click to expand...

yeah the same way like observatory websites are obviously subscribing to general relativity and electromagnetism etc.
 
Originally Posted by ArmoredDragon
For the most part, you are spot on. Except there are two key areas where they intertwine:

- The environmentalist movement is the biggest driving force against nuclear energy.
- Nuclear power goes a long ways towards reducing the carbon footprint that climate scientists are concerned with.
Irrelevant because most of your so-called alarmists support, or at least comfortable with nuclear power.
Click to expand...

Since you brought him up earlier, Al Gore’s position on nuclear is that he’s fine with it but thinks it’s to expensive to be a viable replacement for fossil fuels.

My own is that the nuclear technology available now or in the next few decades won’t scale up to anywhere near the levels required to replace fossil fuels and it requires too much direct government intervention to provide capital, underwriting, R&D, etc. I’d still like to see nuclear triple or quadruple worldwide and I’m one of the least pro-nuclear people in this thread.
Click to expand...

Including me which is why I posted the "new nuke" news and actually this entire science subsection is highly pro nuclear and highly critical of greenies that are as ill informed over nuclear and the scale of needed power generation as many "drive bys" are about AGW as seen right here.

Sound information is out there about both from the mainstream science community but you have to be willing to do the work,
Dr. Barry Brook has a wonderful site

http://bravenewclimate.com/about/

There are as many lies promulgated by anti-nuke advocates as by the fossil fuel shills masquerading as "skeptics".
 
AlBell said:
No innuendo involved. I made a statement which you can either agree with or dispute. You have done neither.

As to truthiness take your pick; I'll continue with my comment based on human nature as I've seen it and posters here. Truth? Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

It looks like you didn't read both posts. You asserted the contrary of what Pixel42 said about the opinions and feelings of people participating in this thread. Then, here we are, you only had to ask us which one was right. I say it wasn't you.

The truth is you didn't make "a statement which you can either agree with or dispute", and I don't have to agree or dispute about it because the statement is about my opinion which Pixel42 anticipated rightly and you, dead wrong.
 
Originally Posted by r-j
But the subject was an unbiased site about climate and climate change.
Click to expand...

of course unbiased i R-J view means he agrees with it ....otherwise he might have said science sites....since he appears to think that there is an "opinion" about the resulting science.

In particular realclimate is run by working climate scientists that serve the public by reducing sometimes esoteric climate papers to information comprehensible to the layman.
It's not opinion...it's not biased, it's peer reviewed science with all that implies.

There are a few others as well mostly university based on specific topics.

Background/history
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/...cts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html
 
r-j: Give your evidence for the echoing of "unscientific alarm"

r-j said:
Speaking of Randi
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/806-i-am-not-qdenyingq-anything.html.
He ran into the hyperstupid hysteria of alarmists quickly
...
those comments sounds a lot like the echo chamber of unscientific alarm that resounds here.
Click to expand...
Wow - you really cannot inderstand English, r-j :jaw-dropp!
Neither of your quotes are from your fantasy of alarmists existing who are "hyperstupid" or hysterical.

Thay are calm and intelligent comments that Randi was seeming to side with the actually "hyperstupid" and hysterical (:rolleyes:) climate change deniers.

The last sentence is insanely bad.
You need to understand that the posters here are talking about the scientific evidence about climate change. Calling rational discussion about the scientific evidence "unscientific alarm" just makes you look like the ignorant trolls that sometimes pop up here and in other places.

However just in case you have a rational reason for this sentence:
r-j,
You have asserted that the posters here are echoing unscientific alarm.
Please present your evidence for this.
The answer should be a list of the posts containing this "unscientific alarm" and the evidence that these claims are unscientific and alarmist.
A vaild answer is that you have no basis for the assertion :eek: !
First asked: 5 April 2013.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom