M.I.T. Professor: CO2 has little impact on global temperature changes

[Oddball]

Do I have up summed up correctly? Where does my hypothesis fail?

From the first sentence...KK isn't a republican.

After that, it's a stunningly accurate example of projection.

 

[rdean]

Do I have up summed up correctly? Where does my hypothesis fail?

From the first sentence...KK isn't a republican.

After that, it's a stunningly accurate example of projection.

I never said "all" Republicans. And it doesn't surprise me that there are Democrats that believe in the occult. Obama does. I have no doubt of that.

But my hypothesis still stands. No contrary evidence was presented. Simple denial is NOT evidence, except to most Republicans.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Oddball]

That you didn't say "all" is irrelevant to the fact that there are no republicans participating in this thread.

Your repeated invoking of them demonstrates both that you are seeing this topic through the filter of politics first, and are in fact projecting that behavior onto those with the temerity to disagree with you.

 

[code1211]

Republicans are so funny. First, they don't even believe in science. Then, they use differing opinions among scientists to "prove" that this the one or that one is "wrong".Then,

They insist scientists only work to get "grant" money. When the truth is, scientists make money in all kinds of ways. Like inventing "computers" and "medicines".And look at what they use that money on. Inventing computers and medicine.

Suppose that it was all a "scam" and they wanted money. What would they use it on? Fantasy trips to the Bahamas? I suspect no. Considering that it takes years to become a scientist. Bernie Madoff became a scam artist in no time at all and he got a lot more money.
I believe they would use the money to make computer models of the existing weather patterns to try to figure out why we just had a tornado in Toronto or why our oceans are the warmest they have ever been.

Of course, Republicans don't have to worry. They have God. God will save us. Just like he saved us on 9/11. Oh wait, he "lifted his veil of protection" because of the gays and feminists.

Ha ha ha ho ho ho tee hee.

The disagreement among scientists is what makes science worthwhile. When all scientists agree, either the data is irrefutable or the outcomes are rigged. In this case, the data is not all irrefutable.

The invention of computers and medicines along with everything else that has been invented, like cars for example are good examples of things to perform tasks within a limited sphere of use. Cars produce CO2. Henry didn't really think that one through. Computers crash and sometimes the net will distort a reality or allow a theft. Medicines have side effects.

The difference is that these things can be understood and the climate apparently cannot be. If it could be, it would eliminate room for doubt. It cannot be so there is room for doubt. Given reality, if you don't have doubts, you are blind.

Bernie madoff became a scam artist after years of study.

Belief in God is a faith and therefore requires no proof to eliminate all doubt. I require a whole bunch of proof to eliminate all doubt. If all doubt is eliminated for you in any pursuit, I would hope for your sake that it concerns a mother's love or a spouse's devotion.

"If you believe in things that you don't understand, then you'll suffer. Superstition..." -Stevie Wonder

 

[Old Rocks]

All science, all theory and hypothesis are fair game for falsification. However, when a theory or hypothesis is giving results consistant with what is happening in the real world, it has some valid points. In 1896, Arnnhenius predicted that the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere would raise the temperature of the atmosphere. That is what has happened. Hansen and others predicted that the rapid increase in GHGs that we are seeing today would result in glaciers and ice caps melting. That is what we are seeing today. Others predicted that there was a danger of warming waters in the oceans causing the rapid release of methane contained in the methane clathrates. We are seeing that happen in the last three years.

While climate is very complex, with a very large chaotic factor, the predictions made by those accepting the global warming theory have been coming true. The primary error on the part of Hansen and others is that they seem to have been too conservative. It is happening far faster than predicted due to feedbacks that were not evident only a few decades ago.

Could it be that there are negative feedbacks that will ameliorate the situation? One certainly would hope so, but, at present, none are evident. Lindzen's Iras Effect has been falsified by reality, and the so called 'cooling' since 1998 is a misnomer as almost every year since 1998 has been in the warmest 15 years on record. They are 'cool' only in comparison to 1998 and 2005.

Now, in the latter part of 2009, we have the start of an El Nino. And already the ocean temperatures are the warmest ever recorded. It is possible that 2010 could be the warmest year yet on record. That, and the continued melting of the Arctic Ice Cap validate the current theory concerning global warming.

 

[r2149]

Co2 might not be the problem . But as anybody who has ever lived in a big city can tell you all those industrial pollutants sure are a problem.

Cleveland, Detroit, San Diego and other large cities find themselves waking up to a haze of smog filled with industrial pollutants. For children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly whose lungs have weakened this is a big big problem and causes countless early deaths.

No way to lie about the issue.

Considering that 99% of America's water ways are so polluted they warn only one fish for consumption per month. And none for pregnant women or sick people. And that is just mercury they ware warning about. Loads of other pollutants are in our water ways.

My family enjoy's Kayaking. . Gone are the days when it's safe to kayak without those damn rubber suits. Because a fall in the water and a open sore can land you with a creepy illness in many water ways in America.

And it's world wide. Think China having to shut down industry for the week before the Olympic's to try to dissipate that black cloud of pollutants that hovers over much of China perpetually.

We have allowed industries to dump their waste into waterways and the air worldwide for decades and it's coming back to bite us .

Now before anybody says , whoa she is anti business.

Not at all I am a business woman. I build homes and own a mortgage company.
But I do it responsibly. As responsibly as can be anyway. We have no good venues for dumping some materials as waste really.

So I am not anti business. What I am is anti let them do as they please.
What I am is anti putting profits over the land , water and skies we and our children need to live on.

Technology has existed for decades that capture's a good bit of industrial pollution.
Wasn't used because it would change profit margins by pennies on the dollar.
That is plain just irresponsible.

So co2 or no co2 , don't kid yourselves, stuff that will kill you, or in a few years your kids and grandkids is being dumped on the land , water and skies in the name of pennies on the dollar profits .

And just imagine that nut case Ron Paul runs on a platform of complete deregulation.
That nut claims we should trust corporations to not pollute on the honor system!
Never mind that literally thousands of cases are proven where companies dump their toxins and run. Loony Ron Paul says we need not try to regulate that. He believes they would do it because it's the right thing to do. Yeah right! And even if they don't Paul says it hurts the free market to regulate business for anything. It's like Ron Paul woke up one day missing half of his brain or something.

Let Ron Paul tell that to the people in Peru who had so much sludge from oil waste dumped on their land the land is now barren and will not grow food and because of contaminated water they are dying of cancer at rates 12 times the average in the world.
Let Ron Paul tell them Shell is really sorry, but what can they expect it's a free market.[/QUOTE
Yes we are poisoning our air and water, we are damaging the environment we do need to come up with cleaner cars and electricity, all those things are true. But man made global warming is not, global warming is about political power plain and simple.

 

[r2149]

Last month was the coolest July on record for north America? Preliminary numbers show that July will finish as the 3rd coldest July on record for Minnesota. For some locations, this was the coldest July ever. International Falls shattered its coldest July on record with an average temperature of 58.8 degrees, which broke the old record of 59.4 degrees set in 1992. Rochester had its second coldest July on record with 65.3 degrees, second only to 64.2 degrees set in 1992. July 2009 finished as the third coldest in St. Cloud with 66 degrees.
2009 could very well be the coldest year on record for Saskatchewan. Environment Canada's top weatherman Dave Phillips says we've had colder than normal temperatures since December. "I could only find one year where you had nine consecutive months of cooler than normal temperatures.
04 Jan 2009 (the telegraph U.K.) It has already been the coldest start to winter for 30 years and is on average the chilliest beginning to the year since 2003 when temperatures in Aviemore, Scotland, fell to 0F, (-18C). And you wonder why people have doubts about global worming.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

 

[code1211]

Sorry, but since we can pick and choose which science we use and what we can ignore, and which scientists we trust ... I choose ... Midnight's scientists. All of those who say global warming is human made are full of shit, every single one of them, and their science doesn't exist.

And that's what the debate seems to be boiling down to. Republicans have "chosen" a reality. Once they decide "This is the truth", there is no evidence they will ever accept.

Take Iraq for instance. Bush has publicly stated that "No one in our administration has ever linked Saddam to 9/11". You can watch him say it on Youtube. Yet, we invaded Iraq because the majority of the American people believed that Saddam had ties to al Qaeda and Bin Laden. Not because of WMDs. Remember North Korea has WMDs and they are on the end of missiles, yet we didn't invade them. Where did they get that idea about Saddam? Even today, the majority of Republicans still believe that Saddam had ties to 9/11, even after Bush publicly said no.

Once a Republican believes something, nothing will change that belief. These are people that believe Noah's Ark is a true historical event. They "pick and choose" information.

You see, in science, data and evidence is looked at and a hypothesis is created that fits the data and evidence. If the data and evidence change, the hypothesis changes. Republicans take this for scientists not being able to make up their minds.

Noah's Ark is a perfect example of Republican thinking. First, they believe it's a "true" story. Any evidence they think they find that confirms it, they latch onto, like the Grand Canyon. Then when evidence is presented that proves the Grand Canyon is hundreds of millions of years old and fossils found at the bottom are simple and become complex as you move upward through the layers of earth, that evidence is discarded. So, the existence of the Grand Canyon is "proof" of Noah's Ark, but the other evidence just "made up".

Do I have up summed up correctly? Where does my hypothesis fail?

It's based on bigotry and assumption.

 

[Meister]

All science, all theory and hypothesis are fair game for falsification. However, when a theory or hypothesis is giving results consistant with what is happening in the real world, it has some valid points. In 1896, Arnnhenius predicted that the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere would raise the temperature of the atmosphere. That is what has happened. Hansen and others predicted that the rapid increase in GHGs that we are seeing today would result in glaciers and ice caps melting. That is what we are seeing today. Others predicted that there was a danger of warming waters in the oceans causing the rapid release of methane contained in the methane clathrates. We are seeing that happen in the last three years.

While climate is very complex, with a very large chaotic factor, the predictions made by those accepting the global warming theory have been coming true. The primary error on the part of Hansen and others is that they seem to have been too conservative. It is happening far faster than predicted due to feedbacks that were not evident only a few decades ago.

Could it be that there are negative feedbacks that will ameliorate the situation? One certainly would hope so, but, at present, none are evident. Lindzen's Iras Effect has been falsified by reality, and the so called 'cooling' since 1998 is a misnomer as almost every year since 1998 has been in the warmest 15 years on record. They are 'cool' only in comparison to 1998 and 2005.

Now, in the latter part of 2009, we have the start of an El Nino. And already the ocean temperatures are the warmest ever recorded. It is possible that 2010 could be the warmest year yet on record. That, and the continued melting of the Arctic Ice Cap validate the current theory concerning global warming.

The communists have spoken, it has been said...therefore it shall be.

 

[code1211]

All science, all theory and hypothesis are fair game for falsification. However, when a theory or hypothesis is giving results consistant with what is happening in the real world, it has some valid points. In 1896, Arnnhenius predicted that the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere would raise the temperature of the atmosphere. That is what has happened. Hansen and others predicted that the rapid increase in GHGs that we are seeing today would result in glaciers and ice caps melting. That is what we are seeing today. Others predicted that there was a danger of warming waters in the oceans causing the rapid release of methane contained in the methane clathrates. We are seeing that happen in the last three years.

While climate is very complex, with a very large chaotic factor, the predictions made by those accepting the global warming theory have been coming true. The primary error on the part of Hansen and others is that they seem to have been too conservative. It is happening far faster than predicted due to feedbacks that were not evident only a few decades ago.

Could it be that there are negative feedbacks that will ameliorate the situation? One certainly would hope so, but, at present, none are evident. Lindzen's Iras Effect has been falsified by reality, and the so called 'cooling' since 1998 is a misnomer as almost every year since 1998 has been in the warmest 15 years on record. They are 'cool' only in comparison to 1998 and 2005.

Now, in the latter part of 2009, we have the start of an El Nino. And already the ocean temperatures are the warmest ever recorded. It is possible that 2010 could be the warmest year yet on record. That, and the continued melting of the Arctic Ice Cap validate the current theory concerning global warming.

All of the effects that you point to are effects of the cause which is warming.

You imply that the cause of warming is increased CO2. There is no support for this conclusion.

You imply that the predictions of Hansen were to conservative when in truth, all of his 1988 scenarios are toen apart by the actual performance of climate. Your guru, Arnnhenius, pridicted that warming would occur if CO2 increased. Guess what? The warming we are still enjoying started before the Industrial Revolution.

That warming trend is on schedule to proceed as it did before the Industrial Revolution started and it has continued unabated nor speeded nor slowed by any change in atmospheric CO2. In fact, by predicting the rise of temperature as a standard progression based on historical performance, one finds a closer adherance to reality than any of Hansen's scenarios.

We still see that this interglacial is 2 degrees cooler than any of the previous 4 and may assume that any methane outgassing was outgassed during those times of higher temperatures in the past and that an Ice Age quickly followed.

The doomsday clock may be running, but if so, it is running slow and will probably tick on past the little burp of the methane that you are so worried about.

 

[Chris]

Christopher Monkton is not from MIT. He has also declared unequivecly that global warming has stopped.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/monckton-global_warming_has_stopped.pdf

We shall see this next year if his hypothesis can stand even one year before being falsified by reality. In the meantime, others have rebutted much of what he has stated.

Lord Christopher Monckton — OSS Foundation

 

[Chris]

All science, all theory and hypothesis are fair game for falsification. However, when a theory or hypothesis is giving results consistant with what is happening in the real world, it has some valid points. In 1896, Arnnhenius predicted that the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere would raise the temperature of the atmosphere. That is what has happened. Hansen and others predicted that the rapid increase in GHGs that we are seeing today would result in glaciers and ice caps melting. That is what we are seeing today. Others predicted that there was a danger of warming waters in the oceans causing the rapid release of methane contained in the methane clathrates. We are seeing that happen in the last three years.

While climate is very complex, with a very large chaotic factor, the predictions made by those accepting the global warming theory have been coming true. The primary error on the part of Hansen and others is that they seem to have been too conservative. It is happening far faster than predicted due to feedbacks that were not evident only a few decades ago.

Could it be that there are negative feedbacks that will ameliorate the situation? One certainly would hope so, but, at present, none are evident. Lindzen's Iras Effect has been falsified by reality, and the so called 'cooling' since 1998 is a misnomer as almost every year since 1998 has been in the warmest 15 years on record. They are 'cool' only in comparison to 1998 and 2005.

Now, in the latter part of 2009, we have the start of an El Nino. And already the ocean temperatures are the warmest ever recorded. It is possible that 2010 could be the warmest year yet on record. That, and the continued melting of the Arctic Ice Cap validate the current theory concerning global warming.

All of the effects that you point to are effects of the cause which is warming.

You imply that the cause of warming is increased CO2. There is no support for this conclusion.

You imply that the predictions of Hansen were to conservative when in truth, all of his 1988 scenarios are toen apart by the actual performance of climate. Your guru, Arnnhenius, pridicted that warming would occur if CO2 increased. Guess what? The warming we are still enjoying started before the Industrial Revolution.

That warming trend is on schedule to proceed as it did before the Industrial Revolution started and it has continued unabated nor speeded nor slowed by any change in atmospheric CO2. In fact, by predicting the rise of temperature as a standard progression based on historical performance, one finds a closer adherance to reality than any of Hansen's scenarios.

We still see that this interglacial is 2 degrees cooler than any of the previous 4 and may assume that any methane outgassing was outgassed during those times of higher temperatures in the past and that an Ice Age quickly followed.

The doomsday clock may be running, but if so, it is running slow and will probably tick on past the little burp of the methane that you are so worried about.

The boys at MIT disagree with you....

Climate change odds much worse than thought - MIT News Office

 

[elvis]

Christopher Monkton is not from MIT. He has also declared unequivecly that global warming has stopped.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/monckton-global_warming_has_stopped.pdf

We shall see this next year if his hypothesis can stand even one year before being falsified by reality. In the meantime, others have rebutted much of what he has stated.

Lord Christopher Monckton — OSS Foundation

Aw. How chivalrous of you, Chris.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I love it I have links throughout this thread that both disprove and prove what I posted in the OP.

I dont think this debate is over yet

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No matter what you might think about Earth based Man Made Global Warming, I think we can all agree that the recent warming on Mars, Jupiter and Saturn is a directly result of burning "Fossil Fuels" in our Earth based SUV's

Can I get an "AMEN!"?

 

[Bern80]

Monkton says we are in a cooling period, but the temperature for 2010 is above 1998 and 2005, it is pretty obvious that we are still warming, and rapidly, at that.

If that is really what you are going to use as 'proof' that warming has not stopped you are about as disingenuous, dishonest an intellectual as one can possibly be.

 

[code1211]

All science, all theory and hypothesis are fair game for falsification. However, when a theory or hypothesis is giving results consistant with what is happening in the real world, it has some valid points. In 1896, Arnnhenius predicted that the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere would raise the temperature of the atmosphere. That is what has happened. Hansen and others predicted that the rapid increase in GHGs that we are seeing today would result in glaciers and ice caps melting. That is what we are seeing today. Others predicted that there was a danger of warming waters in the oceans causing the rapid release of methane contained in the methane clathrates. We are seeing that happen in the last three years.

While climate is very complex, with a very large chaotic factor, the predictions made by those accepting the global warming theory have been coming true. The primary error on the part of Hansen and others is that they seem to have been too conservative. It is happening far faster than predicted due to feedbacks that were not evident only a few decades ago.

Could it be that there are negative feedbacks that will ameliorate the situation? One certainly would hope so, but, at present, none are evident. Lindzen's Iras Effect has been falsified by reality, and the so called 'cooling' since 1998 is a misnomer as almost every year since 1998 has been in the warmest 15 years on record. They are 'cool' only in comparison to 1998 and 2005.

Now, in the latter part of 2009, we have the start of an El Nino. And already the ocean temperatures are the warmest ever recorded. It is possible that 2010 could be the warmest year yet on record. That, and the continued melting of the Arctic Ice Cap validate the current theory concerning global warming.

All of the effects that you point to are effects of the cause which is warming.

You imply that the cause of warming is increased CO2. There is no support for this conclusion.

You imply that the predictions of Hansen were to conservative when in truth, all of his 1988 scenarios are toen apart by the actual performance of climate. Your guru, Arnnhenius, pridicted that warming would occur if CO2 increased. Guess what? The warming we are still enjoying started before the Industrial Revolution.

That warming trend is on schedule to proceed as it did before the Industrial Revolution started and it has continued unabated nor speeded nor slowed by any change in atmospheric CO2. In fact, by predicting the rise of temperature as a standard progression based on historical performance, one finds a closer adherance to reality than any of Hansen's scenarios.

We still see that this interglacial is 2 degrees cooler than any of the previous 4 and may assume that any methane outgassing was outgassed during those times of higher temperatures in the past and that an Ice Age quickly followed.

The doomsday clock may be running, but if so, it is running slow and will probably tick on past the little burp of the methane that you are so worried about.

The boys at MIT disagree with you....

Climate change odds much worse than thought - MIT News Office

What did the boys at MIT have to say about the last 5 years when they predicted warming that did not happen?

Predictions that are made mean nothing. Predictions that are born out by experience mean something. Let me know in 2100 what the result of actual experience v the prediction and then we will have something to discuss.

Right now, we have periodic predictions from MIT that are all proven wrong by experience. Those that have not been proven wrong are those that are new enough to not have had the chance to have proven wrong.

Not much to recomend the predictive capabilities, really.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

someone silence these crickets, the chirping is driving my crazy

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh my, idiotic stammering from the usual sources. Come on, since when have the ten warmest years on record represented cooling?

....................................................................................................................
As our legions of dedicated USA TODAY commenters enjoy pointing out, every year since 1998 — when the Earth's temperature peaked at a record high — has been cooler than that year. 2008, for example, was the planet's coolest year since 2000. Could this be evidence against global warming?
No, say two scientists in this week's issue of Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union. The scientists, David Easterling of the National Climatic Data Center and Michael Wehner of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, say that up-and-down temperatures year-to-year don't undermine the overwhelming evidence for global warming.

"The reality of the climate system is that, due to natural climate variability, it is entirely possible to have a period as long as a decade or two of 'cooling' superimposed on the longer-term warming trend due to anthropogenic [human-caused] greenhouse gas forcing," write the authors. "Climate scientists pay little attention to these short-term fluctuations as the short term 'cooling trends' mentioned above are statistically insignificant and fitting trends to such short periods is not very meaningful in the context of long-term climate change."

Further evidence for a warming world is that the 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998 and that even though 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, it was still the 8th-warmest year on record


Is the globe warming or cooling? - USATODAY.com