Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[Haig]

really?

after 10 minutes still nothing about climate..... so i stopped it.

do you have any science instead of YT?

Sure, really

And YT science is used in the highest places The Polar Vortex Explained in 2 Minutes

So, according to the White House Global warming means more freezing.
Shouldn’t we wish for Global cooling then?

 

[uke2se]

No one really is disagreeing with global warming in theory. Its all the political activism and 90Billion spent on green energy people have a problem with.

This is factually incorrect. You just have to read a few pages of this thread to see how incorrect it is.

Oh and the majority of the global warming activists are just as misinformed as the skeptics.

Nope. Equally incorrect. For one, the word "skeptics" is used incorrectly, as it does not apply to AGW deniers. Secondly, AGW deniers are either deluded or liars. That does not apply to the people you call "global warming activists" - which are in reality simply people accepting science.

The people making this scientific issue into a political one are the deniers.

ETA: Then again, if you are asking us to discount the cranks and that you are willing to guarantee that everyone suddenly accepts what the scientists are saying, and that we can move on to mitigation and adaptation, I'm all for that. You are basically declaring the AGW denial movement dead.

 

[Belz...]

I know what your intended point is, Belz. I'm just telling you how the argument is viewed among climate deniers: as an opportunity to show that you're not playing by your own established rules.

If they don't understand simple arguments and illustrations better than that, it's no wonder they don't understand scientific evidence and literature, or something as complex as climate.

 

[Haig]

This is factually incorrect. You just have to read a few pages of this thread to see how incorrect it is.



Nope. Equally incorrect. For one, the word "skeptics" is used incorrectly, as it does not apply to AGW deniers. Secondly, AGW deniers are either deluded or liars. That does not apply to the people you call "global warming activists" - which are in reality simply people accepting science.

The people making this scientific issue into a political one are the deniers.

ETA: Then again, if you are asking us to discount the cranks and that you are willing to guarantee that everyone suddenly accepts what the scientists are saying, and that we can move on to mitigation and adaptation, I'm all for that. You are basically declaring the AGW denial movement dead.

You forgot to add this

But at its root, the first cause is CO₂ … the most powerful element in the known universe, even more powerful than Kryptonite, it causes everything.

 

[Belz...]

I think the global warming activists are a little out of touch with reality.

Global warming has become political, right now the White house is declaring that the cold spell is due to global warming.

Politicians use global warming to push green energy and loans to Solyndra. Obviously there is evidence that the planet is warming and CO2 is factually a global warming agent.

But you miss the point entirely. No one really is disagreeing with global warming in theory. Its all the political activism and 90Billion spent on green energy people have a problem with.

Oh and the majority of the global warming activists are just as misinformed as the skeptics.

What a load of falsehood.

Yes, it's political, and yes, that's unfortunate. But deniers don't deny AGW because of its political ramifications: they don't understand the evidence or the workings behind the theory, and display kindergarten-level logic. In a lot of cases it's anti-intellectualism, ideology, religion or politics that motivates them (that last one negates your point entirely,) and no amount of rational discourse will convince them.

 

[uke2se]

You forgot to add this

No, I didn't forget it, but thank you for demonstrating one of the points of my post: that there are people willing to deny basic physics like the greenhouse effect.

 

[Belz...]

You forgot to add this

Say, when are you planning on addressing my three requests ?

 

[uke2se]

The people on this thread really don't mean anything in the real world. If the people in this thread are the real activists than its clear you are creating a straw man.

The people on this thread represent the "debate". On the one had, we have people putting forward science to support the argument that AGW is happening. On the other hand, we have people putting forward blogs, youtube videos and other assorted junk to support the argument that AGW isn't happening. As such, you were clearly mistaken when you said that nobody denied that the climate is changing and that anthropogenic factors play a major part.

Al Gore is a climate change activist and he has made many deliberately wrong political statements.

Al Gore is a politician, and he has made many correct statements about climate change as per the science that was current when he made the statements.

Here is Chris Murphy on global warming - he warns that we are all going to die in 100 years when the oceans rise. Yeah that's not political.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8D_-cIBZls

Another argumentum ad youtubum? I shouldn't really expect anything else from an AGW denier.

Eat it

Mature.

 

[macdoc]

Elf Grinder 3000

I think the global warming activists are a little out of touch with reality.

reality is its getting warmer and we're responsible - the out of touch ones are those that
a) deny it
b) are doing nothing about it or don't want to

The rest of the planet is getting on with coping with and preventing it from getting worse.

Global warming has become political, right now the White house is declaring that the cold spell is due to global warming.

It's underlying cause is a warm Arctic ocean....if you were informed ont he science you would understand the White House is mostly correct - the Arctic climate is destablized - extremes are expected.

Politicians use global warming to push green energy and loans to Solyndra.

This is a science forum - take the politics and peddle it elsewhere

Obviously there is evidence that the planet is warming and CO2 is factually a global warming agent.

well that's refreshing ...you and the head of Exxon...

but he sees it as a serious problem - do you?

But you miss the point entirely. No one really is disagreeing with global warming in theory. Its all the political activism and 90Billion spent on green energy people have a problem with.

Loads of people are misinformed about AGW as is obvious here....some honestly some with other agendas driven by the denier machine

Oh and the majority of the global warming activists are just as misinformed as the skeptics.

Well you would not be in a position to judge that from the evidence of your posts so far. That you don't understand that an extreme cold snap can be a result of climate change is evidence enough of your lack of understanding.

You are in a science forum not some political blog.

 

[macdoc]

Yeah going to plus 4 in Toronto on the weekend - just about warm enough for the motorcycle.

 

[Elf Grinder 3000]

So, you get called on your BS and you immediately start flinging personal attacks?

Everyone agrees global warming is "happening" and that CO2 factually increases temperature.

But "happening" is not a very meaningful word in the debate.

An estimate of how much the temperature will increase over the next 50 years is more meaningful. There are lots of models and theories, if you are arguing that these models are factual you are not telling the truth.

Politicians are using this to scare people, Chris Murphy in the video I posted claimed that he was scared that Global Warming would result in the end of the world as we know it.

The entire global warming argument is not whether it is "happening" because CO2 and other gases are factually global warming agents its simply the amount of warming and the effects.

Mass human extinction as Chris Murphy claims and I factually posted is an example of the "activists" using Global Warming for their political agenda.

You haven't really demonstrated anything because "happening" doesn't really mean a whole lot.

 

[uke2se]

Everyone agrees global warming is "happening" and that CO2 factually increases temperature.

You are still wrong. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the claim. It's not going to get any more right.

But "happening" is not a very meaningful word in the debate.

An estimate of how much the temperature will increase over the next 50 years is more meaningful. There are lots of models and theories, if you are arguing that these models are factual you are not telling the truth.

I'm arguing that you are wrong. As for the models, they are the best we've got, and they have proven themselves reliable in the past. Confidence is not 100%, but it's very good.

Politicians are using this to scare people, Chris Murphy in the video I posted claimed that he was scared that Global Warming would result in the end of the world as we know it.

As they should, and as he should be. This is a scary issue. It might well lead to the end of human civilization (hundreds of years from now) if we don't take action. It's not going to be the end of the world, but it won't be good for human beings, or any of the macro fauna.

The entire global warming argument is not whether it is "happening" because CO2 and other gases are factually global warming agents its simply the amount of warming and the effects.

Yes it is. As far as it's an argument to begin with.

Mass human extinction as Chris Murphy claims and I factually posted is an example of the "activists" using Global Warming for their political agenda.

He's not wrong. He is giving you the worst case scenario for what might come to pass in the distant future.

You haven't really demonstrated anything because "happening" doesn't really mean a whole lot.

It does when the discussion is whether something is happening or not, which it demonstrably is here.

Please keep up with the discussion before making inane assertions in the future. Saves from cluttering the thread with more stupidity.

 

[macdoc]

An estimate of how much the temperature will increase over the next 50 years is more meaningful. There are lots of models and theories, if you are arguing that these models are factual you are not telling the truth.

It's not in the least bit more useful which once more demonstrates your lack of understanding of the nature of the impact of AGW.
A global temperature increase will mean nothing to most people just as the .8C draws a blank look.

If you say ...a substantial increase in extreme weather events...THAT has meaning. Can you quantify that ??? ...no ....you can only say that these events will be more likely and point to the reality that they already ARE more frequent even with a .8 C rise.

You have not demonstrated the least bit of understanding to be able to participate intelligently in an international science forum.

I don't know or care who Chris Murphy is....you might I don't and if he's not a climate scientest then why are your pandering his nonsense here.

 

[macdoc]

the end of the world as we know it.

is the reason that Sweden is committed to and well on it's way to carbon neutral by 2050 in a vibrant competitive economy.
They understand that failure to keep the temperature rise within the boundaries of the Holocene range presents a serious threat.

Even Exxon recognises "serious threat".....took them long enough to openly acknowledge even the reality of AGW.
An unstable climate has serious consequences especially for agriculture and coastal regions and is already being coped with.

American farmers and ranchers are facing increasing risks to their livelihoods as a result of climate change, according to a recent report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

“Climate change poses unprecedented challenges to U.S. agriculture because of the sensitivity of agricultural productivity and costs to changing climate conditions,” the report said.
According to the report, increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere resulting from human activity are raising average global temperatures, which in turn can alter weather patterns and cause both prolonged droughts and severe downpours and increase stress on both crops and animals.

The USDA anticipates that these factors will have a negative impact on agricultural productivity in the near future if adaptive farming measures are not taken, and if greenhouse gas emissions are not curbed.

You can repeat those negative impacts across sector after sector and that includes acidification of the oceans, the 900 lb gorilla lurking.
Likely you've never even heard of the Monaco Declaration.

 

[Trakar]

Attributing the same exact effect to two equal and opposite causes is a very strange state of affairs that requires a very good explanation to support it.

The fact of Goddard's assertion, does not support the validity of Goddard's assertion. I asked you what facts led you to believe that Goddard's assertion was "valid."

If there is one, great. But I find it difficult to believe that the Earth is in this "sweet spot" sort of stasis in which both an increase in temperature and a decrease in temperature not only leads to catastrophic weather events but the same catastrophic weather events. It strains credulity.

Then you have not actually investigated, yet alone tried to actually understand the phenomena at hand? What led you to disbelieve the mainstream science with regard to AGW?

 

[Trakar]

You guys need to do your own digging into how eletro-magnetic changes/events on the sun change and affect All the planets in the solar system including the earth's weather and climate.

No, if you are proposing this as the reason for the global warming effect then you must both explain the mechanism of how your proposed system forces a warmer climate, and secondarily, but just as important you need peer-reviewed physics which demonstrates how this proposal impacts the established radiation transfer physics understandings to nullify almost 200 years of accumulated understandings in this field upon which an awful lot of very effective civilian and military technology is based.

 

[Reality Check]

So the Sun defines the climate

Not for the last 35 years: Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions

You read what you wrote, Haig: "solar physicist Habibullo Abdussamatov". So we have a solar physicist with no expertise in climate science trying to write a paper on climate science!

You link to a web site called the "THE HOCKEY SCHTICK" rather than the scientific paper. The hockey stick is not shtick: What evidence is there for the hockey stick? Any web site that cites Christopher Monckton as if this economist was a credible climate scientist immediately looks dubious.
Unfortunately this makes Habibullo Abdussamatov's paper look even more dubious.

 

[Reality Check]

You guys need to do your own digging into how eletro-magnetic changes/events on the sun change and affect All the planets in the solar system including the earth's weather and climate.

Sorry, Haig, but it is your assertion that solar activity can change the climate so it is up to you to provide actual evidence.

Not the vague, unpublished methodology of
Piers Corbyn who has no published climate science papers.

That Sudden Stratospheric Warming (SSW) are one such effect is an unsupported assertion and that SWW drives changes to the jet stream and so climate is just wrong. Changes to the jet stream cause changes in weather. Climate extends over decades of time.

Let's not forget this, Haig, clouds being blown around are weather not climate !
Decadal or longer changes in clouds is climate.

 

[Reality Check]

Interesting post on WUWT ...

Upwelling Solar, Upwelling Longwave

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/07/upwelling-solar-upwelling-longwave/

A nice post where it starts by stating what the actual climate science is (the consensus) but then it goes downhill into the authors personal opinion. And the author is Willis Eschenbach:

Willis Eschenbach, blogger with a certificate in massage and a B.A. in Psychology.Has worked recently as an Accounts/IT Senior Manager with South Pacific Oil. A profile can be found at desmogblog.com/willis-eschenbach. Has produced no peer-reviewed papers on climate science according to the criteria set by Skeptical Science- although see Willis Eschenbach comment [at the bottom].

 

[Reality Check]

Seems the IPCC need to re-think the Sun and it's effect on climate during the coming deep solar grand minima.

Seems that you do not know that the IPCC has no impact on the thinking about the Sun and it's effect on climate during the coming deep solar grand minima, Haig. That is done by climate scientists.
The IPCC basically collates the existing scientific literature. The scientific literature says: A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming.