Are Warmers a Doomsday Cult?

[Old Rocks]

First of all, it's NOT "the whole of the scientific community".

Really? Care to point out a Scientific Society, a National Academy of Science, or even a major University that states that AGW is not a fact? Even in Outer Slobovia?

The more honest among them admit that the theories involve some pretty far-reaching assumptions about climatic processes not fully understood.

Totally untrue. The scientists state that AGW is a fact because of the known effects of GHGs. As far as the climatic processes are concerned, you are correct. We don't yet know how rapid the effect will be, what kind of and how soon the feedbackst, particularly from the Artic, will kick in, and what kind of effects the warming will have on worldwide weather patterns, although I beleive the last 11 months have given us a foretaste of that.

Second, if your assertion were true, why "Climategate"?

Because of a spin put on natural human bitching at those that were bitching at them. Most of what was said about the so called 'climategate' was lies.

Why fudge numbers; why suppress data that fails to support the desired conclusion? Why try to keep other data that does not support the desired conclusion out of sight, and out of publication in peer-reviewed journals?

The people you are claiming did these things were totally exonerated by their peers.

Do you deny this deliberate and malicious perversion of science for political ends? WELL, DO YOU?? So much for credibility.

Of course I do. Them there damned glaciers and icecaps are just melting to irritate you wingnuts.

After that demonstration of "integrity" I wouldn't believe a damn thing "scientists" like that said, if they had God and a mile high-mountain of data to back them up. Damn liars! Of coursed, academia is so packed with liberals and out-and-out commies and other far-left loons, that nothing that comes out of it, however ridiculous, or how big a lie, surprises me at all. And the foremost, best-know political advocate for this loony cult of Chicken Littles: Al "I invented the internet" Gore, Prince of Liars, who has told so many whoppers that he could not recognize the truth, if it bit him in the arse!

LOL.So you resent anybody that has the gumption to actually study a subject.

This would be ludicrous, if the political objective of it were not to put us all back with the Third World; having failed to bring these losers up to civilized standards, liberals now want us to abandon our system, and join them in misery. To hell with the Third World; let 'em starve! Give me one reason why I should care a fig what happens to them.

Of course, you have no reason to care whatsoever about your fellow man, or your children, or anything but yourself. You are a very good 'Conservative'

So those whose careers depend on their acceptance by the academic Left parrot the views the academic Left likes? I am so shocked! *sarcasm*.

On the second point, maybe you could tell us why AGW accounts for the FACT that around 900-1200 , the Vikings found Greenland actually WAS green. Where were the Greenland glaciers then? Oh, that's right, those came LATER. Ever thought of a NATURAL climate cycle? Whoops, can't have that, doesn't fit the "new religion"! Heresy! Out with it (and any other data we don't like)! Never let facts get in the way of a good lie; that's the Marxist way, right?

Climategate "lies"? Oh, really? So no one suppressed data that didn't fit? No one tried to prevent opposing view from being published? "The evil conservatives fabricated the whole thing"? Yeah, right! Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy, too, or does the Church of Trotsky not require that?

Exonerated by their peers? See, that's the problem; that's like trying the Nazis in a Nazi court under Nazi law, with a Nazi judge and jury (Hell, Eichmann would have been "exonerated" by that standard; so would Goering!). If that's too harsh, try this one: that's like letting the fox, the weasel, and the chicken hawk decide who raided the henhouse. "Henhouse? WHAT henhouse? I didn't see you, you didn't see me, and we didn't see a thing, judge!"

"So you resent anybody who has the gumption to actually study a subject?" No, I resent anyone willing to pervert that study for political ends and a predetermined conclusion.

"Of course you have no reason to care whatsoever about your fellow man, or your children, or anything but yourself...".

As a matter of fact, after a lifetime of caring and giving, my generosity and compassion has been exhausted (and abused) with no discernible result. Here's a quarter, call Al Gore. HIS "carbon footprint" is five times the size of mine, but hey, he "cares".

LOL. Where were the glaciers of Greenland during the MWP? About where they are now. It is doubtful that Greenland then was any warmer than Greenland is now. Not only that, by most studies, the overall warming was about 0.2 C, where today, the overall warming is 0.7 C. Not only that, the present warming involves the whole of the Arctic, and is far stronger for much of it than the MWP was.

Medieval Warm Period: rhetoric vs science

One of the most often cited arguments of those skeptical of global warming is that the Medieval Warm Period (800-1200 AD) was as warm as or warmer than today. Using this as proof to say that we cannot be causing current warming is a faulty notion based upon rhetoric rather than science. So what are the holes in this line of thinking?

Firstly, evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period was in fact warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea ice and land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific. All in all, when the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that the overall warmth was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming. Since that early century warming, temperatures have risen well-beyond those achieved during the Medieval Warm Period across most of the Globe. This has been confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions. Further evidence (Figure 1) suggests that even in the Northern Hemisphere where the Medieval Warm Period was the most visible, temperatures are now beyond those experienced during Medieval times.

Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Of course, you have no reason to care whatsoever about your fellow man, or your children, or anything but yourself. You are a very good 'Conservative'

So those whose careers depend on their acceptance by the academic Left parrot the views the academic Left likes? I am so shocked! *sarcasm*.

On the second point, maybe you could tell us why AGW accounts for the FACT that around 900-1200 , the Vikings found Greenland actually WAS green. Where were the Greenland glaciers then? Oh, that's right, those came LATER. Ever thought of a NATURAL climate cycle? Whoops, can't have that, doesn't fit the "new religion"! Heresy! Out with it (and any other data we don't like)! Never let facts get in the way of a good lie; that's the Marxist way, right?

Climategate "lies"? Oh, really? So no one suppressed data that didn't fit? No one tried to prevent opposing view from being published? "The evil conservatives fabricated the whole thing"? Yeah, right! Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy, too, or does the Church of Trotsky not require that?

Exonerated by their peers? See, that's the problem; that's like trying the Nazis in a Nazi court under Nazi law, with a Nazi judge and jury (Hell, Eichmann would have been "exonerated" by that standard; so would Goering!). If that's too harsh, try this one: that's like letting the fox, the weasel, and the chicken hawk decide who raided the henhouse. "Henhouse? WHAT henhouse? I didn't see you, you didn't see me, and we didn't see a thing, judge!"

"So you resent anybody who has the gumption to actually study a subject?" No, I resent anyone willing to pervert that study for political ends and a predetermined conclusion.

"Of course you have no reason to care whatsoever about your fellow man, or your children, or anything but yourself...".

As a matter of fact, after a lifetime of caring and giving, my generosity and compassion has been exhausted (and abused) with no discernible result. Here's a quarter, call Al Gore. HIS "carbon footprint" is five times the size of mine, but hey, he "cares".

LOL. Where were the glaciers of Greenland during the MWP? About where they are now. It is doubtful that Greenland then was any warmer than Greenland is now. Not only that, by most studies, the overall warming was about 0.2 C, where today, the overall warming is 0.7 C. Not only that, the present warming involves the whole of the Arctic, and is far stronger for much of it than the MWP was.

Medieval Warm Period: rhetoric vs science

One of the most often cited arguments of those skeptical of global warming is that the Medieval Warm Period (800-1200 AD) was as warm as or warmer than today. Using this as proof to say that we cannot be causing current warming is a faulty notion based upon rhetoric rather than science. So what are the holes in this line of thinking?

Firstly, evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period was in fact warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea ice and land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific. All in all, when the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that the overall warmth was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming. Since that early century warming, temperatures have risen well-beyond those achieved during the Medieval Warm Period across most of the Globe. This has been confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions. Further evidence (Figure 1) suggests that even in the Northern Hemisphere where the Medieval Warm Period was the most visible, temperatures are now beyond those experienced during Medieval times.

Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.

When the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that you're just making it up as you go

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Of course, you have no reason to care whatsoever about your fellow man, or your children, or anything but yourself. You are a very good 'Conservative'

So those whose careers depend on their acceptance by the academic Left parrot the views the academic Left likes? I am so shocked! *sarcasm*.

On the second point, maybe you could tell us why AGW accounts for the FACT that around 900-1200 , the Vikings found Greenland actually WAS green. Where were the Greenland glaciers then? Oh, that's right, those came LATER. Ever thought of a NATURAL climate cycle? Whoops, can't have that, doesn't fit the "new religion"! Heresy! Out with it (and any other data we don't like)! Never let facts get in the way of a good lie; that's the Marxist way, right?

Climategate "lies"? Oh, really? So no one suppressed data that didn't fit? No one tried to prevent opposing view from being published? "The evil conservatives fabricated the whole thing"? Yeah, right! Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy, too, or does the Church of Trotsky not require that?

Exonerated by their peers? See, that's the problem; that's like trying the Nazis in a Nazi court under Nazi law, with a Nazi judge and jury (Hell, Eichmann would have been "exonerated" by that standard; so would Goering!). If that's too harsh, try this one: that's like letting the fox, the weasel, and the chicken hawk decide who raided the henhouse. "Henhouse? WHAT henhouse? I didn't see you, you didn't see me, and we didn't see a thing, judge!"

"So you resent anybody who has the gumption to actually study a subject?" No, I resent anyone willing to pervert that study for political ends and a predetermined conclusion.

"Of course you have no reason to care whatsoever about your fellow man, or your children, or anything but yourself...".

As a matter of fact, after a lifetime of caring and giving, my generosity and compassion has been exhausted (and abused) with no discernible result. Here's a quarter, call Al Gore. HIS "carbon footprint" is five times the size of mine, but hey, he "cares".

LOL. Where were the glaciers of Greenland during the MWP? About where they are now. It is doubtful that Greenland then was any warmer than Greenland is now. Not only that, by most studies, the overall warming was about 0.2 C, where today, the overall warming is 0.7 C. Not only that, the present warming involves the whole of the Arctic, and is far stronger for much of it than the MWP was.

Medieval Warm Period: rhetoric vs science

One of the most often cited arguments of those skeptical of global warming is that the Medieval Warm Period (800-1200 AD) was as warm as or warmer than today. Using this as proof to say that we cannot be causing current warming is a faulty notion based upon rhetoric rather than science. So what are the holes in this line of thinking?

Firstly, evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period was in fact warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea ice and land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific. All in all, when the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that the overall warmth was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming. Since that early century warming, temperatures have risen well-beyond those achieved during the Medieval Warm Period across most of the Globe. This has been confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions. Further evidence (Figure 1) suggests that even in the Northern Hemisphere where the Medieval Warm Period was the most visible, temperatures are now beyond those experienced during Medieval times.

Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.

Warmers will only admit that the Medieval Warm Period was Medieval, they're denying the settled science that it was both warm and a period.

 

[RWatt]

I believe these reconstructions cover the MWP. It just wasn't that much warmer, if it even was, than today:

Although today really isn't that important at all. What matters is the warming we are about to undertake. Any one of the continued emission scenarios* will take temperatures far beyond the MWP:

*except maybe the constant CO2 level since 2000 scenario, but that isn't going to happen anyway.

 

[oracle]

The Warmers, the people who believe in ManMade Global Warming, keep predicting the end of the World

There's no laboratory that ever shows how a 60PPM increase does any of the things they claim it does; it's an article of Faith. The "Science" must be "believed"

Instead of proof, they have "Consensus" from other people who get paid to Believe.

Warmers are a Doomsday Cult

I don't think they are a cult per se. However, I do believe that they don't know how to distinguish what's man made, from climate shift. On the other hand, detractors tend to sound like raving lunatics as well. The problem I think, is that there too many people that will listen to the "RAPTURE" speech rather than seek for themselves. Either that or they believe that computers are for porn and blogs only.

 

[oracle]

Warmers, Truthers and Birthers are all idiots

Warmers, Truthers and Birthers and Deniers are all idiots!!!!!!!!!! Here, I fixed it for ya.

Good 'ol dudball, so much to say with such little context...keep them blinders on!

Yeah, and weed is from the earth, so it's good for you....HIPPIE!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In a laboratory setting we can

replicate conditions approximating the beginning of life on Earth,

we can replicate conditions a few nanosecond after the Big Bang,

we can filter out all particles larger than .2um,

but we can't ever add 200PPM of CO2 to show how Global Warming works?

 

[ScienceRocks]

In a laboratory setting we can

replicate conditions approximating the beginning of life on Earth,

we can replicate conditions a few nanosecond after the Big Bang,

we can filter out all particles larger than .2um,

but we can't ever add 200PPM of CO2 to show how Global Warming works?

I would love to see them replicate in a lab the same as you as they add 60, 100, 200, 300, 600 ppm of co2 in the closes setting of earth possible. I know that co2 is a green house gas at 400,000 ppm and has made venus a utter hell, but lets see what it can do at that level and within earth's atmosphere. If a huge warming occurs at those levels I will become a solid believer in global warming. The greens, warmers would of won no questions asked.

I really would be interested in seeing it as a person that is interested to know the truth.

 

[RWatt]

In a laboratory setting we can

replicate conditions approximating the beginning of life on Earth,

we can replicate conditions a few nanosecond after the Big Bang,

we can filter out all particles larger than .2um,

but we can't ever add 200PPM of CO2 to show how Global Warming works?

I would love to see them replicate in a lab the same as you as they add 60, 100, 200, 300, 600 ppm of co2 in the closes setting of earth possible.

This is what climate models are! Climate models get a lot closer to the setting of the Earth than any imaginable lab setup could. That's because the atmosphere cannot be physically scaled down for experimentation.

You can scale down individual parts, and scientists have done that to understand those individual parts. But trying to scale down the whole thing is virtually impossible as different stuff in the atmosphere behaves differently when scaled.

For example one serious problem with downscaling a 10 mile column of atmosphere into the height of say a 50 meter tall room is how to represent the lapse rate - the fall of temperature with height in the actual atmosphere. In the actual atmosphere it's about a 6.5C drop in temperature per kilometer. How to represent that simple case in our 50 meter tall lab? Do we scale it down to 6.5C per meter or something? Even if we could do that, we would be fixing lapse rate and therefore assuming it wouldn't change as part of the experiment. In the real world the lapse rate arises naturally from understood physics.

Another serious problem is how to represent the CO2. 200ppm CO2 in a 50 meter column holds a lot less CO2 molecules than 200ppm CO2 throughout a 10 mile high column of atmosphere. To get a 50 meter column to contain the same number of CO2 molecules as a 10 mile high column of 200ppm CO2, the 50 meter column would have to contain over 60,000ppm CO2. Now what do we do for water vapor?

It's going nowhere fast. The more we try to make the lab resemble the atmosphere scaled down, the less it represents the atmosphere anymore.

It's like those disaster movies that make a flood smash small model houses instead of real ones, because they don't have real ones to smash. No matter how good the model houses are it's always obvious they are models because the water doesn't behave the same at small scales as at large scales no matter what they do, the physics doesn't scale.

In the case of climate, scientists have had to simulate these kind of experiments on computers. In a computer you can have a 10 mile column of atmosphere and even better you can have the lapse rate emerge from basic physics as it does in the actual atmosphere. You can also have CO2 at levels in the actual atmosphere. The downside is you need to collect data on how individual processes in the atmosphere work, but that's a far easier task - one which can be achieved through experiments.

Coincidentally the movie industry figured out computer simulations were the way forward too.