Did Obama Tell You Folks It Snowed While He Was In Alaska? No!

[flacaltenn]

Do you know why Republicans insist climate change is a myth? Anyone? It's hilarious.

Don't know about Repubs RDean -- and I don't call it myth -- but it IS one of the largest propaganda campaigns in my lifetime. And one of the largest distortions of science ranking right up there with the advent of nuclear science which was initially hijacked for weaponry.

The original hysterical claims made are now all busted -- just 20 or 30 years since James Hansen juiced the press with forecasts of 0.5degC/decade and talked about the oceans boiling.

I buy that man plays a part -- but the rest of hype is sheer showmanship. Claims for what the science says -- versus what it ACTUALLY says are allowed to slide. What I DON'T believe is that the Earth is not so fragile that a mere 2 deg temperature spike will send it into an irreversible death spiral that no longer depends on man's emissions.. Or that CO2 has the superpowers that some folks in climate science attribute to it.. Above and BEYOND what the solid basic science says that CO2 can do.

Lots of reasons.. You should read a bit more and laugh hilariously a lot less.....

Way to distort the consequences.

I guess I understand why you don't like the concept. You don't understand the consequences- you just make up scary scenarios and strawmen in your mind.

Whoooaa -- skipping right to the consequences eh?

I'm not the one making ANY of the scary propaganda claims --- am I?
First you'd have to look at the revisions to the scary predictions that have plummeting like the stock market. What USED to be 10 or 12degF by 2100 is now more like 3 to 6degF.. And even that is dubious since the MEASURED rate of warming is closer to 2.8 per century. Assuming CO2 emissions keep growing at the current rate.

All of the hypothetical positive feedbacks and runaway instability never manifested in the previous FOUR ice ages, and we are not measuring them 40 years into this circus.

As Al Gore famously bellowed (with neck veins popping) about the Iraq War ---- "THEY PLAYED ON YOUR FEARS".. Which is pretty much what he and others did to garner attention for their political energy and eco policy agendas with Global Warming. UN loves it as a social justice vehicle for wealth transfer. Everybody's got an angle on this propaganda mission..

 

[flacaltenn]

Do you know why Republicans insist climate change is a myth? Anyone? It's hilarious.

Don't know about Repubs RDean -- and I don't call it myth -- but it IS one of the largest propaganda campaigns in my lifetime. And one of the largest distortions of science ranking right up there with the advent of nuclear science which was initially hijacked for weaponry.

The original hysterical claims made are now all busted -- just 20 or 30 years since James Hansen juiced the press with forecasts of 0.5degC/decade and talked about the oceans boiling.

I buy that man plays a part -- but the rest of hype is sheer showmanship. Claims for what the science says -- versus what it ACTUALLY says are allowed to slide. What I DON'T believe is that the Earth is not so fragile that a mere 2 deg temperature spike will send it into an irreversible death spiral that no longer depends on man's emissions.. Or that CO2 has the superpowers that some folks in climate science attribute to it.. Above and BEYOND what the solid basic science says that CO2 can do.

Lots of reasons.. You should read a bit more and laugh hilariously a lot less.....

Way to distort the consequences.

I guess I understand why you don't like the concept. You don't understand the consequences- you just make up scary scenarios and strawmen in your mind.

Or maybe I misread your response. You ARE AWARE that your beloved theory says that man emissions of CO2 is just the "trigger event" for cataclysmic runaway warming are you not? That's where they attributed superpowers to what physics and chemistry say that CO2 as a GHouse gas can ACTUALLY do..

That's why all last year they were counting days til mankind was doomed to the fate of breaking the planet we live on. Shit you not --- literally the top of the news on radio was "mankind only has 154 days left to save the planet" ..

Which coincidentally -- was the date for the next climate conference. And I assume -- if all the beggars and whiners in the 3rd world -- don't convince the 1st world to act --- that we will pass the "trigger" and journey thru the tunnel of doom..

One year to save the planet from climate change disaster, Ed Davey warns
Agreeing global deal to cut carbon emissions next year is only way to protect "way of life we take for granted", energy secretary says, ahead of UN climate change summit in Lima

One year to save the planet from climate change disaster, Ed Davey warns

I couldn't POSSIBLY exaggerate the hysteria and silly rhetoric of your fantasy crisis..

 

[threegoofs]

Do you know why Republicans insist climate change is a myth? Anyone? It's hilarious.

Don't know about Repubs RDean -- and I don't call it myth -- but it IS one of the largest propaganda campaigns in my lifetime. And one of the largest distortions of science ranking right up there with the advent of nuclear science which was initially hijacked for weaponry.

The original hysterical claims made are now all busted -- just 20 or 30 years since James Hansen juiced the press with forecasts of 0.5degC/decade and talked about the oceans boiling.

I buy that man plays a part -- but the rest of hype is sheer showmanship. Claims for what the science says -- versus what it ACTUALLY says are allowed to slide. What I DON'T believe is that the Earth is not so fragile that a mere 2 deg temperature spike will send it into an irreversible death spiral that no longer depends on man's emissions.. Or that CO2 has the superpowers that some folks in climate science attribute to it.. Above and BEYOND what the solid basic science says that CO2 can do.

Lots of reasons.. You should read a bit more and laugh hilariously a lot less.....

Way to distort the consequences.

I guess I understand why you don't like the concept. You don't understand the consequences- you just make up scary scenarios and strawmen in your mind.

Or maybe I misread your response. You ARE AWARE that your beloved theory says that man emissions of CO2 is just the "trigger event" for cataclysmic runaway warming are you not? That's where they attributed superpowers to what physics and chemistry say that CO2 as a GHouse gas can ACTUALLY do..

That's why all last year they were counting days til mankind was doomed to the fate of breaking the planet we live on. Shit you not --- literally the top of the news on radio was "mankind only has 154 days left to save the planet" ..

Which coincidentally -- was the date for the next climate conference. And I assume -- if all the beggars and whiners in the 3rd world -- don't convince the 1st world to act --- that we will pass the "trigger" and journey thru the tunnel of doom..

One year to save the planet from climate change disaster, Ed Davey warns
Agreeing global deal to cut carbon emissions next year is only way to protect "way of life we take for granted", energy secretary says, ahead of UN climate change summit in Lima

One year to save the planet from climate change disaster, Ed Davey warns

I couldn't POSSIBLY exaggerate the hysteria and silly rhetoric of your fantasy crisis..

You live an active fantasy life.

Maybe you should focus on the science, and what they say, not British tabloid articles.

www.ipcc.ch I recommend you read WG2.

 

[flacaltenn]

Hell -- very few folks gonna read that shit.. I already have read most of the non-political parts of the RECENT UN crapfests..

How about what folks were getting TOLD about Global Warming. To help you out here. I picked my favorite example of hysteria from thinkprogress -- c'mon --- admit you're a regular there.. REMEMBER they are correctly quoting the projections for back in 2009....

An introduction to global warming impacts: Hell and High Water

Two of the best recent analyses of what we are headed towards can be found here:

M.I.T. joins climate realists, doubles its projection of global warming by 2100 to 5.1°C

Hadley Center: “Catastrophic” 5-7°C warming by 2100 on current emissions path

As Dr. Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice for the Met Office’s Hadley Centre explains on their website (here):
Contrast that with a world where no action is taken to curb global warming. Then, temperatures are likely to rise by 5.5 °C and could rise as high as 7 °C above pre-industrial values by the end of the century.
That likely rise corresponds to roughly 9°F globally and typically 40% higher than that over inland mid-latitudes (i.e. much of this country) — or well over 10°F.

[Note: The MIT rise is compared to 1980-1999 levels see study here). So you can add at least 0.5 C and 1.0°F for comparison with pre-industrial temperatures.]

Indeed, some of the best research on this has come from the Hadley Center, since it has one of the few models that incorporates many of the major carbon cycle feedbacks. In a 2003 Geophysical Research Letters (subs. req’d) paper, “Strong carbon cycle feedbacks in a climate model with interactive CO2 and sulphate aerosols,” the Hadley Center, the U.K.’s official center for climate change research, finds that the world would hit 1000 ppm in 2100 even in a scenario that, absent those feedbacks, we would only have hit 700 ppm in 2100. I would note that the Hadley Center, though more inclusive of carbon cycle feedbacks than most other models, still does not model most of the feedbacks above or any feedbacks from the melting of the tundra even though it is probably the most serious of those amplifying feedbacks.
So we must stabilize at 450 ppm or below — or risk what can only be called humanity’s self-destruction. Since the cost is maybe 0.11% of GDP per year — or probably a bit higher than that if we shoot for 350 ppm — the choice would seem clear. Now if only the scientific community and environmentalists and progressives could start articulating this reality cogently.

I blew up the part about the magic multipliers applied to the actual warming powers of CO2 that I just don't buy.
And the reference to the "TRIGGER" that is part of your VALUED theory,. Not mine.

Same way the UN is counting days to the inevitable -- irreversible demise of life as we know it..

And you try to tell me there IS NOW and ALWAYS HAS BEEN a CONSENSUS on all of this?? That's hysterical...

 

[threegoofs]

Hell -- very few folks gonna read that shit.. I already have read most of the non-political parts of the RECENT UN crapfests..

How about what folks were getting TOLD about Global Warming. To help you out here. I picked my favorite example of hysteria from thinkprogress -- c'mon --- admit you're a regular there.. REMEMBER they are correctly quoting the projections for back in 2009....

An introduction to global warming impacts: Hell and High Water

Two of the best recent analyses of what we are headed towards can be found here:

M.I.T. joins climate realists, doubles its projection of global warming by 2100 to 5.1°C

Hadley Center: “Catastrophic” 5-7°C warming by 2100 on current emissions path

As Dr. Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice for the Met Office’s Hadley Centre explains on their website (here):
Contrast that with a world where no action is taken to curb global warming. Then, temperatures are likely to rise by 5.5 °C and could rise as high as 7 °C above pre-industrial values by the end of the century.
That likely rise corresponds to roughly 9°F globally and typically 40% higher than that over inland mid-latitudes (i.e. much of this country) — or well over 10°F.

[Note: The MIT rise is compared to 1980-1999 levels see study here). So you can add at least 0.5 C and 1.0°F for comparison with pre-industrial temperatures.]

Indeed, some of the best research on this has come from the Hadley Center, since it has one of the few models that incorporates many of the major carbon cycle feedbacks. In a 2003 Geophysical Research Letters (subs. req’d) paper, “Strong carbon cycle feedbacks in a climate model with interactive CO2 and sulphate aerosols,” the Hadley Center, the U.K.’s official center for climate change research, finds that the world would hit 1000 ppm in 2100 even in a scenario that, absent those feedbacks, we would only have hit 700 ppm in 2100. I would note that the Hadley Center, though more inclusive of carbon cycle feedbacks than most other models, still does not model most of the feedbacks above or any feedbacks from the melting of the tundra even though it is probably the most serious of those amplifying feedbacks.
So we must stabilize at 450 ppm or below — or risk what can only be called humanity’s self-destruction. Since the cost is maybe 0.11% of GDP per year — or probably a bit higher than that if we shoot for 350 ppm — the choice would seem clear. Now if only the scientific community and environmentalists and progressives could start articulating this reality cogently.

I blew up the part about the magic multipliers applied to the actual warming powers of CO2 that I just don't buy.
And the reference to the "TRIGGER" that is part of your VALUED theory,. Not mine.

Same way the UN is counting days to the inevitable -- irreversible demise of life as we know it..

And you try to tell me there IS NOW and ALWAYS HAS BEEN a CONSENSUS on all of this?? That's hysterical...

Again. Pop culture references.

I know science is hard to read. But lazy and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

 

[jc456]

You

Epic Fail....

You post magical numbers of .. OMG!!!! water vapor enhancement... yet it is not seen in the empirical evidence. We are actually finding a NEGATIVE forcing in CO2 rise.. Quite the opposite of the IPCC garbage..

View attachment 49658

WE will now see less than 1 deg C per doubling by empirical physical evidence. And by doing the calculations CO2 has only caused 0.459 Deg F of warming (0.23 Deg C) which is far less than expected and water vapor has not acted as an enhancement but a detractor from what we should see from CO2 ALONE..

You apparently dont get the concept of indirect forcing. Its actually quite large.And most of that forcing is due to water vapor.

The other thing you dont seem to understand (not a real surprise, natch) is that the full effect of the warming has not been realized yet - equilibrium will take a few decades.

Maybe when you hit freshman year science class you'll understand more.

again, you have no idea what you're discussing here. you fail. Sorry charlie you're just tuna of the sea.

In other words, YOU don't understand my response and can only bluff your way through.

I see the concepts of lag and equilibrium are foreign to you. Maybe if you ask a scientist, or an average high school physics class attendee, you might learn something.

So, still peewee hermaning . Funny. Your lack of any answers shows your weakness. Cut and paste mumbo jumbo. It's all you got.

You really have nothing, do you? The funny thing is, it's obvious that you know that, but you still keep going.

more PeeWee Herman come backs 'i know you are but what am i" Funny stuff, but copying my posts as yours is PeeWeeisms. And again, what is the expected temperature increase for doubling CO2 from 280 to 560 PPM? Still waiting. Dude you don't want to answer say that, but don't PeeWee to deaf on here. It ain't becoming.

 

[jc456]

Hell -- very few folks gonna read that shit.. I already have read most of the non-political parts of the RECENT UN crapfests..

How about what folks were getting TOLD about Global Warming. To help you out here. I picked my favorite example of hysteria from thinkprogress -- c'mon --- admit you're a regular there.. REMEMBER they are correctly quoting the projections for back in 2009....

An introduction to global warming impacts: Hell and High Water

Two of the best recent analyses of what we are headed towards can be found here:

M.I.T. joins climate realists, doubles its projection of global warming by 2100 to 5.1°C

Hadley Center: “Catastrophic” 5-7°C warming by 2100 on current emissions path

As Dr. Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice for the Met Office’s Hadley Centre explains on their website (here):
Contrast that with a world where no action is taken to curb global warming. Then, temperatures are likely to rise by 5.5 °C and could rise as high as 7 °C above pre-industrial values by the end of the century.
That likely rise corresponds to roughly 9°F globally and typically 40% higher than that over inland mid-latitudes (i.e. much of this country) — or well over 10°F.

[Note: The MIT rise is compared to 1980-1999 levels see study here). So you can add at least 0.5 C and 1.0°F for comparison with pre-industrial temperatures.]

Indeed, some of the best research on this has come from the Hadley Center, since it has one of the few models that incorporates many of the major carbon cycle feedbacks. In a 2003 Geophysical Research Letters (subs. req’d) paper, “Strong carbon cycle feedbacks in a climate model with interactive CO2 and sulphate aerosols,” the Hadley Center, the U.K.’s official center for climate change research, finds that the world would hit 1000 ppm in 2100 even in a scenario that, absent those feedbacks, we would only have hit 700 ppm in 2100. I would note that the Hadley Center, though more inclusive of carbon cycle feedbacks than most other models, still does not model most of the feedbacks above or any feedbacks from the melting of the tundra even though it is probably the most serious of those amplifying feedbacks.
So we must stabilize at 450 ppm or below — or risk what can only be called humanity’s self-destruction. Since the cost is maybe 0.11% of GDP per year — or probably a bit higher than that if we shoot for 350 ppm — the choice would seem clear. Now if only the scientific community and environmentalists and progressives could start articulating this reality cogently.

I blew up the part about the magic multipliers applied to the actual warming powers of CO2 that I just don't buy.
And the reference to the "TRIGGER" that is part of your VALUED theory,. Not mine.

Same way the UN is counting days to the inevitable -- irreversible demise of life as we know it..

And you try to tell me there IS NOW and ALWAYS HAS BEEN a CONSENSUS on all of this?? That's hysterical...

Again. Pop culture references.

I know science is hard to read. But lazy and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

But when the fiction is poorly written, it isn't worth revisiting over and over to satisfy you. Again, you have any scientific proof the power of CO2 or just the IPCC report? you know it wasn't written by scientists right?

 

[threegoofs]

You

You apparently dont get the concept of indirect forcing. Its actually quite large.And most of that forcing is due to water vapor.

The other thing you dont seem to understand (not a real surprise, natch) is that the full effect of the warming has not been realized yet - equilibrium will take a few decades.

Maybe when you hit freshman year science class you'll understand more.

again, you have no idea what you're discussing here. you fail. Sorry charlie you're just tuna of the sea.

In other words, YOU don't understand my response and can only bluff your way through.

I see the concepts of lag and equilibrium are foreign to you. Maybe if you ask a scientist, or an average high school physics class attendee, you might learn something.

So, still peewee hermaning . Funny. Your lack of any answers shows your weakness. Cut and paste mumbo jumbo. It's all you got.

You really have nothing, do you? The funny thing is, it's obvious that you know that, but you still keep going.

more PeeWee Herman come backs 'i know you are but what am i" Funny stuff, but copying my posts as yours is PeeWeeisms. And again, what is the expected temperature increase for doubling CO2 from 280 to 560 PPM? Still waiting. Dude you don't want to answer say that, but don't PeeWee to deaf on here. It ain't becoming.

Now back to doing your homework.

Let me lay out what happens next: I refuse to do your homework, you make up some story and miss half the actual story, I point it out, you tell me I'm wrong with no actual supporting reference besides denier blogs or newspaper articles, I point this out, you whine about it, and then ask me the same question again. Rinse and repeat.

I guess I can tell you again... the warming potential of the CO2 we have already put into the atmosphere has not been completed yet. If we stopped emitting CO2 today, we would continue to warm for decades - perhaps even a century.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n1/full/nclimate2060.html

Here's an explanation for lay folks, my guess is you wont grasp it because you'll be too busy stamping your feet, but others may.

Princeton University - Even if emissions stop, carbon dioxide could warm Earth for centuries

 

[threegoofs]

Hell -- very few folks gonna read that shit.. I already have read most of the non-political parts of the RECENT UN crapfests..

How about what folks were getting TOLD about Global Warming. To help you out here. I picked my favorite example of hysteria from thinkprogress -- c'mon --- admit you're a regular there.. REMEMBER they are correctly quoting the projections for back in 2009....

An introduction to global warming impacts: Hell and High Water

Two of the best recent analyses of what we are headed towards can be found here:

M.I.T. joins climate realists, doubles its projection of global warming by 2100 to 5.1°C

Hadley Center: “Catastrophic” 5-7°C warming by 2100 on current emissions path

As Dr. Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice for the Met Office’s Hadley Centre explains on their website (here):
Contrast that with a world where no action is taken to curb global warming. Then, temperatures are likely to rise by 5.5 °C and could rise as high as 7 °C above pre-industrial values by the end of the century.
That likely rise corresponds to roughly 9°F globally and typically 40% higher than that over inland mid-latitudes (i.e. much of this country) — or well over 10°F.

[Note: The MIT rise is compared to 1980-1999 levels see study here). So you can add at least 0.5 C and 1.0°F for comparison with pre-industrial temperatures.]

Indeed, some of the best research on this has come from the Hadley Center, since it has one of the few models that incorporates many of the major carbon cycle feedbacks. In a 2003 Geophysical Research Letters (subs. req’d) paper, “Strong carbon cycle feedbacks in a climate model with interactive CO2 and sulphate aerosols,” the Hadley Center, the U.K.’s official center for climate change research, finds that the world would hit 1000 ppm in 2100 even in a scenario that, absent those feedbacks, we would only have hit 700 ppm in 2100. I would note that the Hadley Center, though more inclusive of carbon cycle feedbacks than most other models, still does not model most of the feedbacks above or any feedbacks from the melting of the tundra even though it is probably the most serious of those amplifying feedbacks.
So we must stabilize at 450 ppm or below — or risk what can only be called humanity’s self-destruction. Since the cost is maybe 0.11% of GDP per year — or probably a bit higher than that if we shoot for 350 ppm — the choice would seem clear. Now if only the scientific community and environmentalists and progressives could start articulating this reality cogently.

I blew up the part about the magic multipliers applied to the actual warming powers of CO2 that I just don't buy.
And the reference to the "TRIGGER" that is part of your VALUED theory,. Not mine.

Same way the UN is counting days to the inevitable -- irreversible demise of life as we know it..

And you try to tell me there IS NOW and ALWAYS HAS BEEN a CONSENSUS on all of this?? That's hysterical...

Again. Pop culture references.

I know science is hard to read. But lazy and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

But when the fiction is poorly written, it isn't worth revisiting over and over to satisfy you. Again, you have any scientific proof the power of CO2 or just the IPCC report? you know it wasn't written by scientists right?

Yes. It was written by socialist commies who want to take all your stuff away. Most just happen to have PhDs and University faculty appointments at departments of science around the world.

Why dont you join another forum thats more your speed, dude?

 

[jc456]

You

again, you have no idea what you're discussing here. you fail. Sorry charlie you're just tuna of the sea.

In other words, YOU don't understand my response and can only bluff your way through.

I see the concepts of lag and equilibrium are foreign to you. Maybe if you ask a scientist, or an average high school physics class attendee, you might learn something.

So, still peewee hermaning . Funny. Your lack of any answers shows your weakness. Cut and paste mumbo jumbo. It's all you got.

You really have nothing, do you? The funny thing is, it's obvious that you know that, but you still keep going.

more PeeWee Herman come backs 'i know you are but what am i" Funny stuff, but copying my posts as yours is PeeWeeisms. And again, what is the expected temperature increase for doubling CO2 from 280 to 560 PPM? Still waiting. Dude you don't want to answer say that, but don't PeeWee to deaf on here. It ain't becoming.

Now back to doing your homework.

Let me lay out what happens next: I refuse to do your homework, you make up some story and miss half the actual story, I point it out, you tell me I'm wrong with no actual supporting reference besides denier blogs or newspaper articles, I point this out, you whine about it, and then ask me the same question again. Rinse and repeat.

I guess I can tell you again... the warming potential of the CO2 we have already put into the atmosphere has not been completed yet. If we stopped emitting CO2 today, we would continue to warm for decades - perhaps even a century.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n1/full/nclimate2060.html

Here's an explanation for lay folks, my guess is you wont grasp it because you'll be too busy stamping your feet, but others may.

Princeton University - Even if emissions stop, carbon dioxide could warm Earth for centuries

so you don't know, thanks, I didn't think you did.

 

[rdean]

Over 90% of scientists say one thing, and Republicans, who think science is a faith say something else. Hmmmm, who to believe? Those that actually put in the work to become scientists or those who cut and paste from right wingernutbagging blogs?

But still, the question wasn't answered. Why do Republicans believe climate change is a scam? Anyone?

 

[jc456]

Over 90% of scientists say one thing, and Republicans, who think science is a faith say something else. Hmmmm, who to believe? Those that actually put in the work to become scientists or those who cut and paste from right wingernutbagging blogs?

But still, the question wasn't answered. Why do Republicans believe climate change is a scam? Anyone?

just curious, do you have a specific area of the globe that has actually experienced climate change outside the normal spring, summer, fall, winter thing? Please, I'm all eyes.

 

[threegoofs]

Over 90% of scientists say one thing, and Republicans, who think science is a faith say something else. Hmmmm, who to believe? Those that actually put in the work to become scientists or those who cut and paste from right wingernutbagging blogs?

But still, the question wasn't answered. Why do Republicans believe climate change is a scam? Anyone?

just curious, do you have a specific area of the globe that has actually experienced climate change outside the normal spring, summer, fall, winter thing? Please, I'm all eyes.

You keep posting instead of reading.

www.ipcc.ch

I recommend WG1 to enlighten your ignorance on this specific issue.

 

[rdean]

Over 90% of scientists say one thing, and Republicans, who think science is a faith say something else. Hmmmm, who to believe? Those that actually put in the work to become scientists or those who cut and paste from right wingernutbagging blogs?

But still, the question wasn't answered. Why do Republicans believe climate change is a scam? Anyone?

just curious, do you have a specific area of the globe that has actually experienced climate change outside the normal spring, summer, fall, winter thing? Please, I'm all eyes.

You keep posting instead of reading.

www.ipcc.ch

I recommend WG1 to enlighten your ignorance on this specific issue.

Curious, a scientific organization:

• Media Centre
• Multimedia
• Outreach
• IPCC Announcements
• Social Media

That says: AR5 puts greater emphasis on assessing the socio-economic aspects of climate change and its implications for sustainable development.

The IPCC process assesses published literature; it does not involve carrying out research.

---------------------------------

Multimedia? Outreach? Social Media? No research?

I don't know this organization, but it doesn't seem very scientific.

 

[jc456]

Over 90% of scientists say one thing, and Republicans, who think science is a faith say something else. Hmmmm, who to believe? Those that actually put in the work to become scientists or those who cut and paste from right wingernutbagging blogs?

But still, the question wasn't answered. Why do Republicans believe climate change is a scam? Anyone?

just curious, do you have a specific area of the globe that has actually experienced climate change outside the normal spring, summer, fall, winter thing? Please, I'm all eyes.

You keep posting instead of reading.

www.ipcc.ch

I recommend WG1 to enlighten your ignorance on this specific issue.

Dude, you can't have a discussion, you merely want me to read a book. I want to have a discussion and in such that takes more than one. I've already explained my position and was looking for yours. how much warming will doubling of CO2 cause? You can't answer that. That answer isn't in that report, it's a projection. I want what you think, not the boobs from the IPCC UN.

 

[threegoofs]

Over 90% of scientists say one thing, and Republicans, who think science is a faith say something else. Hmmmm, who to believe? Those that actually put in the work to become scientists or those who cut and paste from right wingernutbagging blogs?

But still, the question wasn't answered. Why do Republicans believe climate change is a scam? Anyone?

just curious, do you have a specific area of the globe that has actually experienced climate change outside the normal spring, summer, fall, winter thing? Please, I'm all eyes.

You keep posting instead of reading.

www.ipcc.ch

I recommend WG1 to enlighten your ignorance on this specific issue.

Curious, a scientific organization:

• Media Centre
• Multimedia
• Outreach
• IPCC Announcements
• Social Media

That says: AR5 puts greater emphasis on assessing the socio-economic aspects of climate change and its implications for sustainable development.

The IPCC process assesses published literature; it does not involve carrying out research.

---------------------------------

Multimedia? Outreach? Social Media? No research?

I don't know this organization, but it doesn't seem very scientific.

Maybe if you read the actual report, rather than the headlines, you'd understand more.

 

[flacaltenn]

Hell -- very few folks gonna read that shit.. I already have read most of the non-political parts of the RECENT UN crapfests..

How about what folks were getting TOLD about Global Warming. To help you out here. I picked my favorite example of hysteria from thinkprogress -- c'mon --- admit you're a regular there.. REMEMBER they are correctly quoting the projections for back in 2009....

An introduction to global warming impacts: Hell and High Water

Two of the best recent analyses of what we are headed towards can be found here:

M.I.T. joins climate realists, doubles its projection of global warming by 2100 to 5.1°C

Hadley Center: “Catastrophic” 5-7°C warming by 2100 on current emissions path

As Dr. Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice for the Met Office’s Hadley Centre explains on their website (here):
Contrast that with a world where no action is taken to curb global warming. Then, temperatures are likely to rise by 5.5 °C and could rise as high as 7 °C above pre-industrial values by the end of the century.
That likely rise corresponds to roughly 9°F globally and typically 40% higher than that over inland mid-latitudes (i.e. much of this country) — or well over 10°F.

[Note: The MIT rise is compared to 1980-1999 levels see study here). So you can add at least 0.5 C and 1.0°F for comparison with pre-industrial temperatures.]

Indeed, some of the best research on this has come from the Hadley Center, since it has one of the few models that incorporates many of the major carbon cycle feedbacks. In a 2003 Geophysical Research Letters (subs. req’d) paper, “Strong carbon cycle feedbacks in a climate model with interactive CO2 and sulphate aerosols,” the Hadley Center, the U.K.’s official center for climate change research, finds that the world would hit 1000 ppm in 2100 even in a scenario that, absent those feedbacks, we would only have hit 700 ppm in 2100. I would note that the Hadley Center, though more inclusive of carbon cycle feedbacks than most other models, still does not model most of the feedbacks above or any feedbacks from the melting of the tundra even though it is probably the most serious of those amplifying feedbacks.
So we must stabilize at 450 ppm or below — or risk what can only be called humanity’s self-destruction. Since the cost is maybe 0.11% of GDP per year — or probably a bit higher than that if we shoot for 350 ppm — the choice would seem clear. Now if only the scientific community and environmentalists and progressives could start articulating this reality cogently.

I blew up the part about the magic multipliers applied to the actual warming powers of CO2 that I just don't buy.
And the reference to the "TRIGGER" that is part of your VALUED theory,. Not mine.

Same way the UN is counting days to the inevitable -- irreversible demise of life as we know it..

And you try to tell me there IS NOW and ALWAYS HAS BEEN a CONSENSUS on all of this?? That's hysterical...

Again. Pop culture references.

I know science is hard to read. But lazy and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

So you think it's OK for the media and politicians to be complicit in misinforming the public? For our hapless leader to be WOEFULLY uninformed on the topic and directing a concerted govt paid propaganda campaign to achieve political goals supposedly based on the LATEST science?

This battle ain't fought in the literature. I'm positive of that. I've read enough of it. And if YOU HAD done the same, you would have realized that the ThinkProgress hysteria was FACTUALLY BASED on what the "science was saying" in 2009.. Sucks that you can't do that --- since you've already demonstrated who is intellectually lazy here with your dismissal of Marcott's explanation of temperature proxies..

Perhaps you'd like to point any FACTUAL errors in what was asserted back then in that article.. Or impeach ANY of their sources that you wish.

 

[threegoofs]

Hell -- very few folks gonna read that shit.. I already have read most of the non-political parts of the RECENT UN crapfests..

How about what folks were getting TOLD about Global Warming. To help you out here. I picked my favorite example of hysteria from thinkprogress -- c'mon --- admit you're a regular there.. REMEMBER they are correctly quoting the projections for back in 2009....

An introduction to global warming impacts: Hell and High Water

Two of the best recent analyses of what we are headed towards can be found here:

M.I.T. joins climate realists, doubles its projection of global warming by 2100 to 5.1°C

Hadley Center: “Catastrophic” 5-7°C warming by 2100 on current emissions path

As Dr. Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice for the Met Office’s Hadley Centre explains on their website (here):
Contrast that with a world where no action is taken to curb global warming. Then, temperatures are likely to rise by 5.5 °C and could rise as high as 7 °C above pre-industrial values by the end of the century.
That likely rise corresponds to roughly 9°F globally and typically 40% higher than that over inland mid-latitudes (i.e. much of this country) — or well over 10°F.

[Note: The MIT rise is compared to 1980-1999 levels see study here). So you can add at least 0.5 C and 1.0°F for comparison with pre-industrial temperatures.]

Indeed, some of the best research on this has come from the Hadley Center, since it has one of the few models that incorporates many of the major carbon cycle feedbacks. In a 2003 Geophysical Research Letters (subs. req’d) paper, “Strong carbon cycle feedbacks in a climate model with interactive CO2 and sulphate aerosols,” the Hadley Center, the U.K.’s official center for climate change research, finds that the world would hit 1000 ppm in 2100 even in a scenario that, absent those feedbacks, we would only have hit 700 ppm in 2100. I would note that the Hadley Center, though more inclusive of carbon cycle feedbacks than most other models, still does not model most of the feedbacks above or any feedbacks from the melting of the tundra even though it is probably the most serious of those amplifying feedbacks.
So we must stabilize at 450 ppm or below — or risk what can only be called humanity’s self-destruction. Since the cost is maybe 0.11% of GDP per year — or probably a bit higher than that if we shoot for 350 ppm — the choice would seem clear. Now if only the scientific community and environmentalists and progressives could start articulating this reality cogently.

I blew up the part about the magic multipliers applied to the actual warming powers of CO2 that I just don't buy.
And the reference to the "TRIGGER" that is part of your VALUED theory,. Not mine.

Same way the UN is counting days to the inevitable -- irreversible demise of life as we know it..

And you try to tell me there IS NOW and ALWAYS HAS BEEN a CONSENSUS on all of this?? That's hysterical...

Again. Pop culture references.

I know science is hard to read. But lazy and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

So you think it's OK for the media and politicians to be complicit in misinforming the public? For our hapless leader to be WOEFULLY uninformed on the topic and directing a concerted govt paid propaganda campaign to achieve political goals supposedly based on the LATEST science?

This battle ain't fought in the literature. I'm positive of that. I've read enough of it. And if YOU HAD done the same, you would have realized that the ThinkProgress hysteria was FACTUALLY BASED on what the "science was saying" in 2009.. Sucks that you can't do that --- since you've already demonstrated who is intellectually lazy here with your dismissal of Marcott's explanation of temperature proxies..

Perhaps you'd like to point any FACTUAL errors in what was asserted back then in that article.. Or impeach ANY of their sources that you wish.

While I admire your devotion to non scientific sources discussing scientific topics, you might want to actually consider that your blog postings and 'hysteria' are just that.


The science is in the literature- there is no other place it exists by scientific convention. Just because you don't like the conclusions does not change the facts.

 

[jc456]

Hell -- very few folks gonna read that shit.. I already have read most of the non-political parts of the RECENT UN crapfests..

How about what folks were getting TOLD about Global Warming. To help you out here. I picked my favorite example of hysteria from thinkprogress -- c'mon --- admit you're a regular there.. REMEMBER they are correctly quoting the projections for back in 2009....

An introduction to global warming impacts: Hell and High Water

Two of the best recent analyses of what we are headed towards can be found here:

M.I.T. joins climate realists, doubles its projection of global warming by 2100 to 5.1°C

Hadley Center: “Catastrophic” 5-7°C warming by 2100 on current emissions path

As Dr. Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice for the Met Office’s Hadley Centre explains on their website (here):
Contrast that with a world where no action is taken to curb global warming. Then, temperatures are likely to rise by 5.5 °C and could rise as high as 7 °C above pre-industrial values by the end of the century.
That likely rise corresponds to roughly 9°F globally and typically 40% higher than that over inland mid-latitudes (i.e. much of this country) — or well over 10°F.

[Note: The MIT rise is compared to 1980-1999 levels see study here). So you can add at least 0.5 C and 1.0°F for comparison with pre-industrial temperatures.]

Indeed, some of the best research on this has come from the Hadley Center, since it has one of the few models that incorporates many of the major carbon cycle feedbacks. In a 2003 Geophysical Research Letters (subs. req’d) paper, “Strong carbon cycle feedbacks in a climate model with interactive CO2 and sulphate aerosols,” the Hadley Center, the U.K.’s official center for climate change research, finds that the world would hit 1000 ppm in 2100 even in a scenario that, absent those feedbacks, we would only have hit 700 ppm in 2100. I would note that the Hadley Center, though more inclusive of carbon cycle feedbacks than most other models, still does not model most of the feedbacks above or any feedbacks from the melting of the tundra even though it is probably the most serious of those amplifying feedbacks.
So we must stabilize at 450 ppm or below — or risk what can only be called humanity’s self-destruction. Since the cost is maybe 0.11% of GDP per year — or probably a bit higher than that if we shoot for 350 ppm — the choice would seem clear. Now if only the scientific community and environmentalists and progressives could start articulating this reality cogently.

I blew up the part about the magic multipliers applied to the actual warming powers of CO2 that I just don't buy.
And the reference to the "TRIGGER" that is part of your VALUED theory,. Not mine.

Same way the UN is counting days to the inevitable -- irreversible demise of life as we know it..

And you try to tell me there IS NOW and ALWAYS HAS BEEN a CONSENSUS on all of this?? That's hysterical...

Again. Pop culture references.

I know science is hard to read. But lazy and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

So you think it's OK for the media and politicians to be complicit in misinforming the public? For our hapless leader to be WOEFULLY uninformed on the topic and directing a concerted govt paid propaganda campaign to achieve political goals supposedly based on the LATEST science?

This battle ain't fought in the literature. I'm positive of that. I've read enough of it. And if YOU HAD done the same, you would have realized that the ThinkProgress hysteria was FACTUALLY BASED on what the "science was saying" in 2009.. Sucks that you can't do that --- since you've already demonstrated who is intellectually lazy here with your dismissal of Marcott's explanation of temperature proxies..

Perhaps you'd like to point any FACTUAL errors in what was asserted back then in that article.. Or impeach ANY of their sources that you wish.

While I admire your devotion to non scientific sources discussing scientific topics, you might want to actually consider that your blog postings and 'hysteria' are just that.


The science is in the literature- there is no other place it exists by scientific convention. Just because you don't like the conclusions does not change the facts.

You didn't answer his question either. So you don't participate in forum discussions, you're a dictator. got it. LOL, dictate to something else,

 

[flacaltenn]

Hell -- very few folks gonna read that shit.. I already have read most of the non-political parts of the RECENT UN crapfests..

How about what folks were getting TOLD about Global Warming. To help you out here. I picked my favorite example of hysteria from thinkprogress -- c'mon --- admit you're a regular there.. REMEMBER they are correctly quoting the projections for back in 2009....

An introduction to global warming impacts: Hell and High Water

Two of the best recent analyses of what we are headed towards can be found here:

M.I.T. joins climate realists, doubles its projection of global warming by 2100 to 5.1°C

Hadley Center: “Catastrophic” 5-7°C warming by 2100 on current emissions path

As Dr. Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice for the Met Office’s Hadley Centre explains on their website (here):
Contrast that with a world where no action is taken to curb global warming. Then, temperatures are likely to rise by 5.5 °C and could rise as high as 7 °C above pre-industrial values by the end of the century.
That likely rise corresponds to roughly 9°F globally and typically 40% higher than that over inland mid-latitudes (i.e. much of this country) — or well over 10°F.

[Note: The MIT rise is compared to 1980-1999 levels see study here). So you can add at least 0.5 C and 1.0°F for comparison with pre-industrial temperatures.]

Indeed, some of the best research on this has come from the Hadley Center, since it has one of the few models that incorporates many of the major carbon cycle feedbacks. In a 2003 Geophysical Research Letters (subs. req’d) paper, “Strong carbon cycle feedbacks in a climate model with interactive CO2 and sulphate aerosols,” the Hadley Center, the U.K.’s official center for climate change research, finds that the world would hit 1000 ppm in 2100 even in a scenario that, absent those feedbacks, we would only have hit 700 ppm in 2100. I would note that the Hadley Center, though more inclusive of carbon cycle feedbacks than most other models, still does not model most of the feedbacks above or any feedbacks from the melting of the tundra even though it is probably the most serious of those amplifying feedbacks.
So we must stabilize at 450 ppm or below — or risk what can only be called humanity’s self-destruction. Since the cost is maybe 0.11% of GDP per year — or probably a bit higher than that if we shoot for 350 ppm — the choice would seem clear. Now if only the scientific community and environmentalists and progressives could start articulating this reality cogently.

I blew up the part about the magic multipliers applied to the actual warming powers of CO2 that I just don't buy.
And the reference to the "TRIGGER" that is part of your VALUED theory,. Not mine.

Same way the UN is counting days to the inevitable -- irreversible demise of life as we know it..

And you try to tell me there IS NOW and ALWAYS HAS BEEN a CONSENSUS on all of this?? That's hysterical...

Again. Pop culture references.

I know science is hard to read. But lazy and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

So you think it's OK for the media and politicians to be complicit in misinforming the public? For our hapless leader to be WOEFULLY uninformed on the topic and directing a concerted govt paid propaganda campaign to achieve political goals supposedly based on the LATEST science?

This battle ain't fought in the literature. I'm positive of that. I've read enough of it. And if YOU HAD done the same, you would have realized that the ThinkProgress hysteria was FACTUALLY BASED on what the "science was saying" in 2009.. Sucks that you can't do that --- since you've already demonstrated who is intellectually lazy here with your dismissal of Marcott's explanation of temperature proxies..

Perhaps you'd like to point any FACTUAL errors in what was asserted back then in that article.. Or impeach ANY of their sources that you wish.

While I admire your devotion to non scientific sources discussing scientific topics, you might want to actually consider that your blog postings and 'hysteria' are just that.


The science is in the literature- there is no other place it exists by scientific convention. Just because you don't like the conclusions does not change the facts.

What FACTS in the 2009 thinkprogress propaganda were NOT backed by the "literature"??
Since you don't read it -- can't discuss it -- don't understand it --- could take awhile to get my question answered.. Eh?