Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
So...like these so-called DeNiErs are like Conspiracy Theorists and such? Or...are they like the Christian Fundies who insist the earth is 6000 years old...'cause the Bible says it's so?

I don't fit those categories. I'm just waiting for the proof that the Global Warming we've experienced is man-made. I don't think that is so much to ask. Meanwhile, I'm not going to ask anyone to change their lives or do without until I know for certain - and that's only the right thing to do.

we know already for certain. as certain as it gets in science.

and yes its like those fundies that claim the world is only 6000 years old. they deny reality, deny the evidence.

and indeed most of them are conspiracy theorists. they often claim all those scientists are lying, and as they provide consistent data around the world, they must have conspired.

you sound like you came a few years late to the denial party.
the evidence has been presented. there is no reasonable doubt anymore. GW we see is indeed AGW.

nothing else can account for the warming expect for the increased greenhouse effect do to our CO2 emissions.
 
The tactics of a brainwash uses three strategies

1. Create an enemy (global warming)(The world is going to end)
2. Provide a solution (a savior)(Al Gore et al)
3. Prepare the audience for the deniers (big Oil) (Big corporations)(Conservatives)
Nice shoehorning. Do you have a point, though? Are you unaware of the actual evidence for AGW, or are you merely in denial?
 
Or we have some leaders with some cojones to get on with moving to a carbon neutral civilization regardless of whinging from the fossil fuel interests as Sweden is getting on with.

Sweden Prepares to Lead EU on Climate

Kalmar


The Swedish city of Kalmar is replacing most of its fossil fuel-fired furnaces with “cogeneration” plants, which burn sawdust and timber waste from the surrounding wooded region.
Sweden's low-carbon transformation is on display in the coastal, industrial city of Kalmar.

The city of 60,000 is replacing most of its oil, gas, and electric furnaces for district heat with "cogeneration" plants, which burn sawdust and timber waste from the surrounding wooded region. Publicly owned cars and buses have switched to burning either biogas made from waste wood and chicken manure, or an 85 percent ethanol blend from Brazil.

Kalmar has become a model for what all of Sweden hopes to achieve. The Nordic country plans to be carbon neutral - releasing zero net carbon emissions - by mid-century, according to Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren.
"If you can see the resources you have, you can really make the opportunities," Carlgren said during an event at the Swedish embassy in Washington, D.C., on Monday. "It's not written in the resources. You have to see it in your mind."

Sweden is positioning itself to become a regional leader in fighting climate change as it takes over the presidency of the European Union in July. Sweden will lead the EU when international climate negotiators meet in Copenhagen in December to discuss a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol.

"Clearly it is the presidency speaking for the EU," Carlgren said. "Therefore, we will really try to represent the EU in the climate process."

The European Union agreed on its latest climate policy in December. By 2020, member states must cut greenhouse gases at least 20 percent below 1990 levels (or 30 percent if other industrialized countries make comparable commitments), increase renewable energy to 20 percent of total energy production, and reduce energy consumption 20 percent by embracing greater energy efficiency.

Sweden has long implemented one of the most progressive energy policies in Europe. The national government enacted one of the world's first carbon taxes in 1990. Ministers announced further ambitions last week through a plan that would increase renewable energy production to 50 percent by 2020, transition the Swedish vehicle fleet to fossil fuel independence by 2030, and reach complete carbon neutrality by 2050.

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6039
 
the evidence has been presented. it convinced the scientific community, it convinced all top universities around the world, it convinced all majr scientific institutions.

It doesn't matter. Scientific truth is not founded on consensus.
 
Unequivocal' evidence that global warming is man-made

Disturbing IPCC climate change report reinforces the value of data held by the Museum.

A report from a panel of global scientists has offered the strongest evidence yet that climate change is a direct result of human behaviour.

More than 600 scientists worldwide contributed to the Fifth Assessment Report published last month by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which comes under the auspices of the United Nations.

The panel will further report on the biological consequences of global temperature rise, change in weather patterns and the rising temperature of oceans early next year.

Museum climate change research group
Scientists throughout the Museum continue to research the effects of climate change on the natural world in projects involving specimens as wide ranging as orchids, corals, salmon and trout, fossil shark teeth, seaweed, midges and butterflies.

In addition, an informal group of Museum scientists meet regularly to discuss climate change in general and to identify samples and specimens stored in the Museum collection that could be valuable to future climate change research.

Museum invertebrates researcher Dr Kenneth Johnson, who specialises in corals, said that even though we can't physically measure the past climate, specimens such as fossils and shells act as proxies, or representatives of a time and place.

Giant clams act like sections of tree trunk by holding information on seasonal changes in their shells.
Data trapped by shells
'Shells contain elements trapped within them that can be extracted and used as indicators as to what was happening at a certain time in our past.

'When we then compare that information with modern specimens, it shows us, for example, that as the seawater temperature increases, so do levels of magnesium.

'We have a 50-year-old giant clam that, rather like the rings of a tree trunk, is particularly good at revealing seasonality and how things responded to climate change.'

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/...ce-that-global-warming-is-man-made124358.html

Would you care to provide cross substantiated evidence that it's not human induced?
Would you like the tracked isotopes?

No one here cares a wit what you believe...just that you don't disseminated nonsense as you have been.
 
Summary of lines of evidence of AGW

The proof that man-made CO2 is causing global warming is like the chain of evidence in a court case. CO2 keeps the Earth warmer than it would be without it. Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, mainly by burning fossil fuels. And there is empirical evidence that the rising temperatures are being caused by the increased CO2.

The Earth is wrapped in an invisible blanket

It is the Earth’s atmosphere that makes most life possible. To understand this, we can look at the moon. On the surface, the moon’s temperature during daytime can reach 100°C (212°F). At night, it can plunge to minus 173°C, or -279.4°F. In comparison, the coldest temperature on Earth was recorded in Antarctica: −89.2°C (−128.6°F). According to the WMO, the hottest was 56.7°C (134°F), measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley).

Man could not survive in the temperatures on the moon, even if there was air to breathe. Humans, plants and animals can’t tolerate the extremes of temperature on Earth unless they evolve special ways to deal with the heat or the cold. Nearly all life on Earth lives in areas that are more hospitable, where temperatures are far less extreme.

Yet the Earth and the moon are virtually the same distance from the sun, so why do we experience much less heat and cold than the moon? The answer is because of our atmosphere. The moon doesn’t have one, so it is exposed to the full strength of energy coming from the sun. At night, temperatures plunge because there is no atmosphere to keep the heat in, as there is on Earth.

The laws of physics tell us that without the atmosphere, the Earth would be approximately 33°C (59.4°F) cooler than it actually is.

This would make most of the surface uninhabitable for humans. Agriculture as we know it would be more or less impossible if the average temperature was −18 °C. In other words, it would be freezing cold even at the height of summer.

The reason that the Earth is warm enough to sustain life is because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These gases act like a blanket, keeping the Earth warm by preventing some of the sun’s energy being re-radiated into space. The effect is exactly the same as wrapping yourself in a blanket – it reduces heat loss from your body and keeps you warm.

If we add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the effect is like wrapping yourself in a thicker blanket: even less heat is lost. So how can we tell what effect CO2 is having on temperatures, and if the increase in atmospheric CO2 is really making the planet warmer?

One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

once you have digested that then you can follow the isotope evidence and perhaps learn what actually drives climate change...

Human Caused Global Warming
How do we know this global warming is human caused, or man made? Is global warming real, or a hoax? Consider the facts: the climate has left the natural cycle path; multiple lines of evidence and studies from different fields all point to the human fingerprint on current climate change; the convergence of these evidence lines include ice mass loss, pattern changes, ocean acidification, plant and species migration, isotopic signature of CO2, changes in atmospheric composition, and many others. The only identifiable cause is human influence and increased greenhouse gas emissions. Science has simply not found any other cause factor that can account for the amount of current increased radiative forcing and associated warming.
Human Caused Global Warming
The Changing Climate Path

How do we know humans cause global warming?

Many are still asking is this global warming human caused? The idea that global warming is natural is not an absurd question. In the natural cycle, global warming is natural. The better question is, 'is this global warming natural'? There are multiple lines of evidence that point us to the origin of our current warming:

Greenhouse gases trap infrared heat energy.
The isotopic signature clearly shows that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is from fossil fuels.
We are no longer in the natural cycle. We have largely departed from the natural course of climate and there is no natural mechanism that explains it.
The models and the observations match.
There is simply no other mechanism that can explain the significantly altered climate path and the changes in the radiative forcing other than human causes.
To understand why 'this current' global warming is human caused and not natural cycle, one needs to get an idea of what the natural cycle is and what are the basic mechanisms that cause climate change in the natural cycle. The absolute essentials that you need to understand are the drivers:

Greenhouse Gases
Milankovitch Cycles
To get a more detailed understanding of the mechanisms, you need to learn a little about:

Radiative Forcing
Natural Variability
Climate Feedbacks
Climate Models
Weather vs. Climate

more
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/human-caused
 
It doesn't matter. Scientific truth is not founded on consensus.

No. Scientific consensus is derived from the current best understanding of scientific truth.

So, it kinda does matter that almost all of the scientists accept AGW.
 
Last edited:
ack get rid of the "truth" nonsense :boggled:. Theory and evidence are the domain of science...don't adopt his crap.

Sorry, I was just using his words. You are right. I'll strive to do better next time.
 
My buddy Al Gore? Please show me anywhere on this whole forum where I have referred to him? Otherwise, save the straw for something useful, like mulching your garden to protect it against rising temperatures.
.
.
Fair enough Lion .... I should have said it differently

"Al Gore is the savior of the Planet" according to his Gospel Movie "An Inconvenient Truth" ... thus I assumed he was "buddy" to all who follow his evangelists at the IPCC
 
.
.
Fair enough Lion .... I should have said it differently

"Al Gore is the savior of the Planet" according to his Gospel Movie "An Inconvenient Truth" ... thus I assumed he was "buddy" to all who follow his evangelists at the IPCC

Al Gore isn't a scientist. That he made a movie about a subject he feels important is neither here nor there when it comes to climate science, or the fact of AGW. It is amusing watching deniers frantically attempt to sling crap at Gore, though, as if it would somehow make AGW go away.
 
I fly helicopters in the arctic , just finished the Polar Bear tourist season in Churchill .... and guess what .... the ice has frozen over earlier than ever and the bears are out on the solid ice hunting seals

So you are versed enough in polar regions to answer this, my question:

This is the outgoing longwave radiation for yesterday, December 21st (click on for a larger version)



Look carefully the region between 75N and 90N and appreciate how about a half of it -a tiny little bit less than a half- radiated more than 180 W/m2, with regions where the figure was even above 220 W/m2.

Now look carefully at the region between 75S and 90S and appreciate how about a half of it -a not so tiny bit less than a half- radiated more that 180W/m2 with no region radiating more than 220.

Got the facts?

As yesterday was the longest day in the year -in the hemisphere that matters the most regarding the planet's energy budget- would you care to explain to me and others why did the Antarctic region radiate about the same -a bit less indeed- than its Arctic counterpart provided yesterday was a 24-hour night in the Arctic and a 24-hour day -with the sun up to 38.5° above the horizon at midday- in the Antarctic region? Where does all that heat in the North come from?

Before making any wrong speculation, take a look to the anomalies in OLR for yesterday (again, click on the image for a larger version and to see how I'm roasting here now):



so, as you can surely appreciate, the Antarctic is in "business as normal" while the Arctic is radiating way above the normal. Again, why is that so? I assure you in the end this will relate with those funny, rioting, nice polar bears you cared to mention.

I hope other eager newcomers like Jules, Arnold et al will also dive in to reply these questions. If not -in a few days- I'll invite the normal crowd to reply.

I'm gonna think other interesting questions for some other nice visitors who are eager to engage in debate, no matter who -the feistier(livelier), the merrier-.
 
.

When evidence is presented by competent scientists that the warming trend plateaued in 1998 and began a downward trend

Why are the Global Warmists so upset ?????

You would think they should be happy to hear such news.
 
.

When evidence is presented by competent scientists that the warming trend plateaued in 1998 and began a downward trend

Why are the Global Warmists so upset ?????

You would think they should be happy to hear such news.

"Global Warmists" most likely are upset about the lies perpetrated by the deniers you call "competent scientists".

You wanna answer aleCcowaN's question above? I, too, am terribly interested in your response.
 
.
.
Fair enough Lion .... I should have said it differently

"Al Gore is the savior of the Planet" according to his Gospel Movie "An Inconvenient Truth" ... thus I assumed he was "buddy" to all who follow his evangelists at the IPCC

What an extraordinary example of a strawman. Extraordinary because normally sophists fabricate strawmen to debilitate the opponent's proposition by debilitating the proponents themselves, and you haven't even shown a position nor propositions but just a state of animus! Are you sure what was in your head was properly set in words within the thread?

I will be waiting for your replies about the thread's topic, that is, science.
 
.

When evidence is presented by competent scientists that the warming trend plateaued in 1998 and began a downward trend

Why are the Global Warmists so upset ?????

You would think they should be happy to hear such news.

Did you read any of macdoc's posts and links? If you did, why are you repeating what are clear lies?
 
.

When evidence is presented by competent scientists that the warming trend plateaued in 1998 and began a downward trend

Why are the Global Warmists so upset ?????

You would think they should be happy to hear such news.

As I would tell the last mormoroniC yahudA witnesseD that escaped the trapdoor in front of my step, because that is the plain lie YOU decided to believe in.

Unlike the existence of salvation and other ethereal promises, your bad assertion is clearly contrary to the evidence.
 
.

When evidence is presented by competent scientists that the warming trend plateaued in 1998 and began a downward trend

Why are the Global Warmists so upset ?????

You would think they should be happy to hear such news.

what warming trend exactly do you mean? SAT plateaued, but the OHC for example did not.

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

especially not 0-2000m

denier often take the SAT to show that global warming paused or ended, when it does not show this.
sure from the media in the past one could have got the imression that global warming is only measured with SAT (surface Air Temperature) but actually alot more comes into it. especially considering that 90% of the excess heat from AGW is going into the oceans.
i often hear from denier then that just now we start to point that oit, but actually if you look at the scientific literature and the IPCC reports instead of only the media, you actually see thats not true eiher.

we know global warming did not really paus or stop. all that changed is where the heat spreads in the climate system. but when we look at the signal from AGW, it is further rising, not plateaued or declining at all.
 
In my opinion, what this thread has experienced in recent days is another turn of the screw in the denialist rhetorical campaign to keep this perception the way it is:

picture.php


The denialist technique is to sprout the debate anywhere the topic is discussed, even with fairly idiotic assertions -like those ones we are used to have here so frequently-, it doesn't matter, as the "Taliban" doesn't seek personal glory or gain but to have a permanent state of debate just to maintain the gap as it's described in the figure. That's one of the main reasons we have periodic disembarkation into this thread.

Take this into account and periodically remind it to the general public that may be reading these posts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom