Global Warming Update

[frigidweirdo]

And because of it's complexity, climate system cannot be based on just correlation of temperature and CO2 emission. Pro GW scientists are screaming that increase of CO2 also increase the temperature. That was also a main theme of the Al Gore's movie, or should I say power point presentation. First of all, global warming science is not proven, it's settled science. Second, correlation does not prove the causation. That theory, and its still just theory is debunked.
I am not scientist, but just like many of you, I follow what's going on. I red that increase of CO2 doesn't cause temperature increase, but the other way around. If GW scientists are nor political hacks and looking for real proof, they would not settle for most convenient explanation that suits the agenda, but would look for the answers how increased CO2 causes global warming. Since there is no real explanation nor real science behind it, of course they gonna fix the data and provide settled answers. Bottom line, THAT song that they play over and over is, and will continue to pay their bills.

However, people make educated guesses.

So, when Mao killed all the birds because they ate the crops, his guess was the crops would thrive. It wasn't an educated guess, it was based on simply "logic".
However he forgot to take stuff into account, like the insects which eat the crops worse than the birds, and the birds ate the insects, so crops were MORE damaged afterwards.

So with climate change we're looking at an increase in CO2.

We know CO2 levels rise and fall naturally alongside temperature rises. We're not sure (as far as I can tell) what the impact of CO2 is on temperatures.
However what we can tell from recent history is that temperatures ARE RISING when they should be falling. The only difference we can see is that CO2 levels are rising massively.

Now, he's the part where we gamble. Do we say "it won't have an impact", or do we say "it might have an impact" or do we say "it will have an impact"?

An educated guess would suggest that as temperatures have been changing with a rise in CO2 levels, which are a greenhouse gases that do cause warming anyway, that perhaps something will happen.

 

[Ame®icano]

Sooo, you're saying that only real science is one that is supported by the leftists. Everything else is bull shit. Interesting.

No, I never said that. If you can't address what I actually say, just come out and say so. Don't beat around the bush.

These are your words:

Both are true. If you don't understand why, you need to look at the science more.

By science, I don't mean the kook right wing websites that have been feeding you bullshit in the name of politics. Looks at some real science from independent people, instead of the political hacks you've clearly been relying on.

Any website or source that doesn't agree with GW agenda you call "kook right wing". I posted a link to peer reviewed articles, that you dismissed. Why should I accept your "kook left wing" sources if you refuse to accept mine.

I wont even discuss the rest of your ideological crap.

By the way, can you define real science and who are independent people?

 

[RDD_1210]

And of course Mammy dismisses 1350 skeptical papers without even passing the table of contents. Aint that right Mammy????

Did you bother looking at the link? It links to a list of forum postings on a message board. Seriously??

 

[RDD_1210]

Both are true. If you don't understand why, you need to look at the science more.

By science, I don't mean the kook right wing websites that have been feeding you bullshit in the name of politics. Looks at some real science from independent people, instead of the political hacks you've clearly been relying on.

Sooo, you're saying that only real science is one that is supported by the leftists. Everything else is bull shit. Interesting.

You're also saying I need to look at the science more. I'm pretty sure I know about it at least as much as you, I just don't advertize it. Here is the website, up to you if you gonna read it or not, with over 1300 peer reviewed papers on global warming.

POPULAR TECHNOLOGY

LOL, that is the funniest thing I have ever read. Did you even bother reading your own link?

 

[Pete7469]

ClosedCaption doesn't understand the difference between a hypothesis, theory & fact

CC only knows what he's told to think. If it's moonbat approved "science" he defends it and ridicules any "science" that is used to question or disprove his ecobullshit dogma.

While I applaud the efforts many of you put into arguing with these mindless drones, I can't help but believe it's a pointless endeavor.

It's not even that they can't think, it's that they refuse to think. It's the equivalant of the woman who gets her ass beat by her union plumber boyfriend, but denies it happens until she's bleeding in front of a police car and then tries to stop the cops from dragging his ass to jail "beceause they're in love".

It's worse than willful ignorance or mere stupidity, it's a pathology.

 

[Ame®icano]

However, people make educated guesses.

So, when Mao killed all the birds because they ate the crops, his guess was the crops would thrive. It wasn't an educated guess, it was based on simply "logic".
However he forgot to take stuff into account, like the insects which eat the crops worse than the birds, and the birds ate the insects, so crops were MORE damaged afterwards.

So with climate change we're looking at an increase in CO2.

We know CO2 levels rise and fall naturally alongside temperature rises. We're not sure (as far as I can tell) what the impact of CO2 is on temperatures.
However what we can tell from recent history is that temperatures ARE RISING when they should be falling. The only difference we can see is that CO2 levels are rising massively.

Now, he's the part where we gamble. Do we say "it won't have an impact", or do we say "it might have an impact" or do we say "it will have an impact"?

An educated guess would suggest that as temperatures have been changing with a rise in CO2 levels, which are a greenhouse gases that do cause warming anyway, that perhaps something will happen.

If you checked the link I provided earlier, you would notice that "educated guess" is nothing more then a guess. In the link there are peer reviewed papers that are disproving those educated guesses. Can you provide peer review papers that contains proof of GW? Not a study of computer models, I mean peer reviewed paper of observational data that proves GW. Oops, that's not gonna happen.

Also, about your correlation in between temperature and CO2, which is by the way upside down, you should read some of the data supported documents. CO2 rise lags behind rise of temperature, not the other way around. LINK

By the way, educated guess is still just a guess.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If you checked the link I provided earlier, you would notice that "educated guess" is nothing more then a guess. In the link there are peer reviewed papers that are disproving those educated guesses. Can you provide peer review papers that contains proof of GW? Not a study of computer models, I mean peer reviewed paper of observational data that proves GW. Oops, that's not gonna happen.

Also, about your correlation in between temperature and CO2, which is by the way upside down, you should read some of the data supported documents. CO2 rise lags behind rise of temperature, not the other way around. LINK

By the way, educated guess is still just a guess.

You want proof of something in the future? Seriously?

Well, if you can find me some good proof on some football scores in the future or whatever, you just let me know, okay?

You can predict the future by looking at the past, by seeing how things should work, and then making GUESSES that is is going to happen again in the future.

But then again, you're claiming there are things that disprove something in the future. Hmm.

As for whether CO2 lags behind or not, it doesn't really matter so much at this point in the debate. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Guess what happens when you have more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

And of course Mammy dismisses 1350 skeptical papers without even passing the table of contents. Aint that right Mammy????

Did you bother looking at the link? It links to a list of forum postings on a message board. Seriously??

If they were serious about their stance on global warming, they wouldn't look to focus the phrase on "climate change" for fear of ridicule due to the colder temperatures in this country over the past few years. Clinging to the fact that polar ice will all melt and the oceans will rise, all while the earth is constantly getting warmer is going to prove an embarrassment to all who wish to cling to this "man-made" theory. The 70s itself had everyone screaming global cooling, now they wish to call it "climate change". In case you haven't figured it out, the earth has been going through trends of warming and cooling ever since they have been keeping records of global temperatures. It's government control under the power of ideological political influence, supported by its high profit making potential in supporting unstable corporations like Solyndra, Nevada Geothermal, First Solar etc.... nothing more. How many taxpayer dollars have we wasted in bad investment choices The reality is solar and wind power is vastly inferior with meeting the needs of consumer demand, compared to that of coal and nuclear power.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I dont understand why you guys are arguing science with the deniers. First they are not scientists. Second, they dont believe scientists. Third, they base their arguments against scientists on...wait for it....SCIENCE! Yeah, just try and wrap your head around that one.

They believe that since they dont understand the science then that means the science is NOT TRUE. Why? Because their gut says its not.

So they are forced to give you an arguement thats based in science but only some science and gut feelings, mix in some jabs at Al Gore and unproven smears that scientists only science for money. Again not all of them, just the ones their gut tells them.

It's pointless

 

[skookerasbil]

How about a global colding update >>>>

Soon will be the coldest start to a year EVAR!!! >>>>

2014 Closing In On Coldest Start To The Year In US History | Real Science

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

If the weather clears up soon im gonna start up my wood/charcoal smoker today and smoke some brisket. I will fondly think of this glorious thread as I bask is the wonderous aroma of the smoke.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I dont understand why you guys are arguing science with the deniers. First they are not scientists. Second, they dont believe scientists. Third, they base their arguments against scientists on...wait for it....SCIENCE! Yeah, just try and wrap your head around that one.

They believe that since they dont understand the science then that means the science is NOT TRUE. Why? Because their gut says its not.

So they are forced to give you an arguement thats based in science but only some science and gut feelings, mix in some jabs at Al Gore and unproven smears that scientists only science for money. Again not all of them, just the ones their gut tells them.

It's pointless

How many people here are scientists? Seems a lot of these scientists who do make comments aren't climatologists either. So what?

Can an individual not have an opinion? Can they not see what other people say and for opinions?

 

[frigidweirdo]

How about a global colding update >>>>

Soon will be the coldest start to a year EVAR!!! >>>>

2014 Closing In On Coldest Start To The Year In US History | Real Science

Naturally, we should be getting colder.

However somewhere cold in the world doesn't mean the world is getting colder.

You know how a fridge works? To make it cold inside, the pipes on the outside are hot. Why? It's how it works.

 

[Ame®icano]

If you checked the link I provided earlier, you would notice that "educated guess" is nothing more then a guess. In the link there are peer reviewed papers that are disproving those educated guesses. Can you provide peer review papers that contains proof of GW? Not a study of computer models, I mean peer reviewed paper of observational data that proves GW. Oops, that's not gonna happen.

Also, about your correlation in between temperature and CO2, which is by the way upside down, you should read some of the data supported documents. CO2 rise lags behind rise of temperature, not the other way around. LINK

By the way, educated guess is still just a guess.

You want proof of something in the future? Seriously?

Well, if you can find me some good proof on some football scores in the future or whatever, you just let me know, okay?

You can predict the future by looking at the past, by seeing how things should work, and then making GUESSES that is is going to happen again in the future.

But then again, you're claiming there are things that disprove something in the future. Hmm.

As for whether CO2 lags behind or not, it doesn't really matter so much at this point in the debate. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Guess what happens when you have more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

Oh no, GW scientists were screaming how CO2 causes the increased temperature and ridiculing everyone who had any doubt about it. When it's actually proven with hard data that temperature increase causes increase in greenhouse gases, now they're saying "it doesn't matter.

Well, it does matter that people know where greenhouse gases comes from, how much is really caused by humans, and that world wont end tomorrow because GW scientists cooked the date to show hockey stick and that paying more taxes wont prevent volcano eruptions or wild fires or lighting strikes or cows to fart. Do humans contribute to greenhouse emissions? Absolutely. How much, lets discuss.

 

[jc456]

If you checked the link I provided earlier, you would notice that "educated guess" is nothing more then a guess. In the link there are peer reviewed papers that are disproving those educated guesses. Can you provide peer review papers that contains proof of GW? Not a study of computer models, I mean peer reviewed paper of observational data that proves GW. Oops, that's not gonna happen.

Also, about your correlation in between temperature and CO2, which is by the way upside down, you should read some of the data supported documents. CO2 rise lags behind rise of temperature, not the other way around. LINK

By the way, educated guess is still just a guess.

You want proof of something in the future? Seriously?

Well, if you can find me some good proof on some football scores in the future or whatever, you just let me know, okay?

You can predict the future by looking at the past, by seeing how things should work, and then making GUESSES that is is going to happen again in the future.

But then again, you're claiming there are things that disprove something in the future. Hmm.

As for whether CO2 lags behind or not, it doesn't really matter so much at this point in the debate. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Guess what happens when you have more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

You really didn't just write this. Did you? Wow, I guess you are behind in the times, too bad for a you. Then I bet you want someone to explain what it is you missed. Naw, you don't deserve to learn since you can't keep up. LOL

 

[jc456]

How about a global colding update >>>>

Soon will be the coldest start to a year EVAR!!! >>>>

2014 Closing In On Coldest Start To The Year In US History | Real Science

Naturally, we should be getting colder.

However somewhere cold in the world doesn't mean the world is getting colder.

You know how a fridge works? To make it cold inside, the pipes on the outside are hot. Why? It's how it works.

Again, wow, are you out of touch. We should be warming. I believe it is time for you to look at how the earth was a million years ago before the ice age hit. so you want the ice age? How did the life handle the last one?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Oh no, GW scientists were screaming how CO2 causes the increased temperature and ridiculing everyone who had any doubt about it. When it's actually proven with hard data that temperature increase causes increase in greenhouse gases, now they're saying "it doesn't matter.

Well, it does matter that people know where greenhouse gases comes from, how much is really caused by humans, and that world wont end tomorrow because GW scientists cooked the date to show hockey stick and that paying more taxes wont prevent volcano eruptions or wild fires or lighting strikes or cows to fart. Do humans contribute to greenhouse emissions? Absolutely. How much, lets discuss.

What you appear to be talking about is that temperature rises have been followed by CO2 rises.
What you're not talking about is when CO2 rises based not on temperature rises.

How much do humans contribute to greenhouse gases?

Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to wikipedia, CO2 levels have risen 40% since the 1750s.
Methane 167%

Greenhouse gases rise by 260% since Industrial Revolution - The Scotsman

"Greenhouse gases rise by 260% since Industrial Revolution"

"CO2 volumes are now 140 per cent above the levels found before the Industrial Revolution of 1750, (280ppm) when massive changes in human activity began releasing the gases into the air."

How much of this is a natural rise and how much of this is human pollution?
Where should CO2 levels be?

In the last 400,000 years the highest we've seen is about 300ppmv.

We're at 390ppmv right now. So, at least 90, or about 25% of what is in the atmosphere is man made. There have been three previous cycles, two have had a massive rise then a drop, the previous one saw an up, then down and it stayed at a high level, perhaps 285ppmv for quite a few years.
However we're experiencing something different.

If you look at the rise, and this rise continues, where will be at? 500ppmv? More? Will it just stop and flatten out even if we're pumping out more CO2? What is the impact of China going to be? I mean their cities are pollution filled hellholes, but not even the worst in the world.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Again, wow, are you out of touch. We should be warming. I believe it is time for you to look at how the earth was a million years ago before the ice age hit. so you want the ice age? How did the life handle the last one?

Out of touch huh?

If you look at the 100,000 year cycle, you see that temperatures rose, then dropped, a nice little spike.

If you look at the one we are in now, the spike happened, it dropped and then it stopped dropping and has stayed about the same level.

Also, some who reject man made climate change also said that temperatures should be dropping.

Don Easterbrook - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035, then warm about 0.5°C from ~2035 to ~2065, and cool slightly until 2100. The total increase in global warming for the century should be ~0.3 °C, rather than the catastrophic warming of 3-6°C (4-11°F) predicted by the IPCC."[1]

While IPCC was predicting global warming, Easterbrook (2001) predicted three decades of cooling due to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) shifting from its warm to cool phase.[5] He correlated PDO with climatic changes over the last 500 years.[6]

"The IPCC has predicted a global temperature increase of 0.6°C (1°F) by 2011 and 1.2°C (2°F) by 2038, whereas Easterbrook (2001) predicted the beginning of global cooling by 2007 (± 3 yrs) and cooling of about 0.3–0.5°C by 2040."

So, global cooling by 2007 huh? Probably would have happened without so much greenhouse gas in the air.

William M. Gray - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gray does not say there has not been any warming, but states "I don't question that. And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."

Written in 2006.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I dont understand why you guys are arguing science with the deniers. First they are not scientists. Second, they dont believe scientists. Third, they base their arguments against scientists on...wait for it....SCIENCE! Yeah, just try and wrap your head around that one.

They believe that since they dont understand the science then that means the science is NOT TRUE. Why? Because their gut says its not.

So they are forced to give you an arguement thats based in science but only some science and gut feelings, mix in some jabs at Al Gore and unproven smears that scientists only science for money. Again not all of them, just the ones their gut tells them.

It's pointless

The study of the sun's activity through sunspots and it's proven effect on the earth's climate is a SCIENCE that is backed by more years of research than climate change. In fact I trust a science that has a longer history of unbiased research over any global warming trend who's study can't seem to separate itself from financial political influence.

 

[jc456]

How about a global colding update >>>>

Soon will be the coldest start to a year EVAR!!! >>>>

2014 Closing In On Coldest Start To The Year In US History | Real Science

Naturally, we should be getting colder.

However somewhere cold in the world doesn't mean the world is getting colder.

You know how a fridge works? To make it cold inside, the pipes on the outside are hot. Why? It's how it works.

Naturally? By whose say so?