Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I have a degree in atmospheric physics and am a certified meteorologist, AGW is crap and a lie! The empirical evidence proves it. Dr Lindzen is one of the most prominent atmospheric scientists today and just who the fuck are you?
I throw the bullshit flag on that. You've already told us you're a retired cop working on a meteorology degree. Where'd the atmospheric physics come from?
Your judgement regarding a number of issues - like whether or not AR5 contains empirical data - has already been thrown SEVERELY into question. Lindzen is a laughing stock and has been for years.
WOW... You really are totally clueless..
You have no intelligence or commonsense at discerning evidence from a guess. Again you show your ignorance. Well done!
What I find hilarious about you cons is that you have no problem cherry picking when it comes to climate change. You intentionally ignore the fact that the vast majority of PEER-REVIEWED studies from around the world say man made climate change is real and cherry pick a handful ofbscientists who dissent. Not only that , but you choose scientists who aren't even involved in the discipline of climatology. It's kind of embarrassing.
Maybe you should just admit that deep down you know this phenomenon to be true and it scares you.
Here is what I think about the peer reviewed studies. It all depends on the input. Garbage in, garbage out. The numbers are crunched by a very few and the rest of the community makes their judgement on those numbers. So if those numbers are in question then any review will be in agreement, it more or less has to be. So it is not surprising that scientist look at the numbers, temperature up, CO2 up, man makes CO2 up then obviously there is a tie, and there may well be.
But is it catastrophic?
Gore has been saying for 20 years we only have 10 years to act. Gore's famous CO2 to temperature graph shows CO2 lagging temperature by about 400 years.
Temperature turns and goes up and 400 years later CO2 concentration goes up. Yes, they have an explanation for that but it isn't simple and in my opinion it should be simple.
Nuclear power can be explained relatively easily. I am not sure why climate change has to be so complicated.
Which brings us to the truth.
Not all scientists who disagree with GW hysteria are lying.
The money supposedly buying of those who disagree pales in the amount given to scientist who do agree.
A few degree change in temperature is a boom for mankind. I certainly have enjoyed this fall.
All it will take to turn this around is a major eruption, then we will be talking crop damage and ice age.
We have bigger fish to fry, like putting people to work, then we have in shutting down industry for a few degree rise in temperature.
The whole discussion is not about polluting, it is about CO2 and warming.
Finally, I and you, have heard it all before. In the 70s you damn well know they preached nothing but disaster for the human race. It was predicted we would be out of oil by the 90s and I just read that the storage capacity of the world is full. They predicted that genetically altered food would be the end of our food supply, yet here we are producing more food then ever. They predicted that the world could not sustain a population near what we see today. Scientist make their careers developing theories, that is what they do, but they don't always do it right or are right.
Lol where is this evidence that climatologists are profiting off of this? You people keep saying this without proof. Just because it sounds like it could be true doesn't mean it actually is.What I find hilarious about you cons is that you have no problem cherry picking when it comes to climate change. You intentionally ignore the fact that the vast majority of PEER-REVIEWED studies from around the world say man made climate change is real and cherry pick a handful ofbscientists who dissent. Not only that , but you choose scientists who aren't even involved in the discipline of climatology. It's kind of embarrassing.I must admit we are having one of the warmer Novembers I can remember, loving it!!!
Prominent Scientists Declare Climate Claims Ahead of UN Summit 'Irrational' - 'Based On Nonsense' - 'Leading us down a false path'
MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: 'Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial.' - 'When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period.'
Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: 'Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?'
Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore on climate claims: 'We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science.'
Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-summit-goals-irrational-based-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path/#ixzz3s2Kc3U
Richard Lindzen
Physicist
Richard Siegmund Lindzen is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books.Wikipedia
Born: February 8, 1940 (age 75),Webster, MA
Education: Harvard University
Fields: Atmospheric physics
Doctoral advisor: Richard M. Goody
Books: Climate Change: The Facts
William Happer
Physicist
William Happer is an American physicist who has specialised in the study of atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy.Wikipedia
Born: July 27, 1939 (age 76), India
Education: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Fields: Atomic physics
Notable awards: Davisson–Germer Prize in Atomic or Surface Physics
Patrick Moore is a Canadian scientist and former president of Greenpeace Canada. He trades as Ecosense Environmental in Vancouver, and is a frequent public speaker on behalf of industry groups. Wikipedia
Born: 1947, Port Alice, Canada
Organizations founded: Greenpeace
Education: University of British Columbia,North Carolina State University
Books: Green Spirit: Trees are the Answer
Maybe you should just admit that deep down you know this phenomenon to be true and it scares you.
Here is what I think about the peer reviewed studies. It all depends on the input. Garbage in, garbage out. The numbers are crunched by a very few and the rest of the community makes their judgement on those numbers. So if those numbers are in question then any review will be in agreement, it more or less has to be. So it is not surprising that scientist look at the numbers, temperature up, CO2 up, man makes CO2 up then obviously there is a tie, and there may well be.
But is it catastrophic? Gore has been saying for 20 years we only have 10 years to act. Gore's famous CO2 to temperature graph shows CO2 lagging temperature by about 400 years. Temperature turns and goes up and 400 years later CO2 concentration goes up. Yes, they have an explanation for that but it isn't simple and in my opinion it should be simple. Nuclear power can be explained relatively easily. I am not sure why climate change has to be so complicated.
Which brings us to the truth.
Not all scientists who disagree with GW hysteria are lying.
The money supposedly buying of those who disagree pales in the amount given to scientist who do agree.
A few degree change in temperature is a boom for mankind. I certainly have enjoyed this fall.
All it will take to turn this around is a major eruption, then we will be talking crop damage and ice age.
We have bigger fish to fry, like putting people to work, then we have in shutting down industry for a few degree rise in temperature.
The whole discussion is not about polluting, it is about CO2 and warming.
Finally, I and you, have heard it all before. In the 70s you damn well know they preached nothing but disaster for the human race. It was predicted we would be out of oil by the 90s and I just read that the storage capacity of the world is full. They predicted that genetically altered food would be the end of our food supply, yet here we are producing more food then ever. They predicted that the world could not sustain a population near what we see today. Scientist make their careers developing theories, that is what they do, but they don't always do it right or are right.
Enjoy the lower heating bills and walking in a tee shirt in November, it isn't going to last for long.
It's also so tiresome you bring up Al Gore. No one gives a shit what Al Gore says. I listen to the actual CONSENSUS of experts involved in the actual field.
What I find hilarious about you cons is that you have no problem cherry picking when it comes to climate change. You intentionally ignore the fact that the vast majority of PEER-REVIEWED studies from around the world say man made climate change is real and cherry pick a handful ofbscientists who dissent. Not only that , but you choose scientists who aren't even involved in the discipline of climatology. It's kind of embarrassing.
Maybe you should just admit that deep down you know this phenomenon to be true and it scares you.
Here is what I think about the peer reviewed studies. It all depends on the input. Garbage in, garbage out. The numbers are crunched by a very few and the rest of the community makes their judgement on those numbers. So if those numbers are in question then any review will be in agreement, it more or less has to be. So it is not surprising that scientist look at the numbers, temperature up, CO2 up, man makes CO2 up then obviously there is a tie, and there may well be.
What your response tells us is that you haven't the faintest idea how the peer review process in refereed scientific journals works. Your comments are ignorant nonsense.
But is it catastrophic?
What do YOU mean by "catastrophic"? You won't find climate scientists using the term. You will find AGW deniers using it as they claim "alarmist" climatologists have been predicting catastrophic change. They've even made up the acronym CAGW. It allows them to deny AGW but maintain plausible deniability when smacked up the side of the head with the facts - that they were only denying the catastrophic nature of the coming change.
Gore has been saying for 20 years we only have 10 years to act. Gore's famous CO2 to temperature graph shows CO2 lagging temperature by about 400 years.
As Billy000 told you, NO ONE is quoting Al Gore in these discussions any more. Not for several years now. Doing so makes you look pretty foolish.
Temperature turns and goes up and 400 years later CO2 concentration goes up. Yes, they have an explanation for that but it isn't simple and in my opinion it should be simple.
It's extremely simple. The process whereby increasing heat increases atmospheric CO2 levels is simpler than the process whereby increase CO2 increases temperatures. However, they're both true. Which makes more bubbles: opening a cold bottle of coke or a hot bottle of coke? The solubility of gas in liquids, opposite that of solids in liquids, INCREASES as the temperature of the liquid goes DOWN. When we warm up the world, it's liquids gas solubility goes down and some of the atmospheric gases dissolved in the world's oceans, lakes and streams is released to the atmosphere.
Nuclear power can be explained relatively easily. I am not sure why climate change has to be so complicated.
I'm not sure why you think simple-mindedness is a virtue.
Which brings us to the truth.
Not all scientists who disagree with GW hysteria are lying.
No, but an overwhelming amount of evidence clearly indicates they are wrong.
The money supposedly buying of those who disagree pales in the amount given to scientist who do agree.
Why do deniers so effortlessly cast away the idea that the fossil fuel industries, who have hundreds of billions of dollars at their disposal and whose very existence is threatened by efforts to stop global warming, might spend some tiny fraction of those funds on discrediting AGW and ending efforts to stop it.
A few degree change in temperature is a boom for mankind. I certainly have enjoyed this fall.
The phrase you're looking for is "a boon to mankind"
BOON noun
1.
something to be thankful for; blessing; benefit.
2.
something that is asked; a favor sought.
And it's not. It will be a disaster of enormous proportions. Sea level rises will flood the coasts, hundreds of millions of people will have to be relocated to... where? Water supplies will disappear with the disappearing glaciers and shrinking snowpack. Crops will fail from rising temperatures, altered seasonal timing and dramatic changes in precipitation patterns.
All it will take to turn this around is a major eruption, then we will be talking crop damage and ice age.
Wrong. The effects of even the largest eruptions in the last millenia didn't last more than 3-5 years. CO2 levels in our atmosphere will last for well over a century.
We have bigger fish to fry, like putting people to work, then we have in shutting down industry for a few degree rise in temperature.
Wrong again. And, of course, there's no reason we can't do both. Alternate energy systems, hydrogen infrastructure, fuel cell technology, home solar and battery systems. Plenty of new tech to create a few jobs. And, perhaps you haven't checked the numbers, but unemployment isn't particularly bad right now.
The whole discussion is not about polluting, it is about CO2 and warming.
Finally, I and you, have heard it all before. In the 70s you damn well know they preached nothing but disaster for the human race. It was predicted we would be out of oil by the 90s and I just read that the storage capacity of the world is full. They predicted that genetically altered food would be the end of our food supply, yet here we are producing more food then ever. They predicted that the world could not sustain a population near what we see today. Scientist make their careers developing theories, that is what they do, but they don't always do it right or are right.
Did it ever occur to you that some of those catastrophes were averted BECAUSE science warned us where we were headed? What has happened to our terribly polluted waters? Acid rain? Food production? Medicine? Computers?
AGW is real and it is a real threat.
With the exception of Trapp Volcanoes, which we have not had erupting for millions of years, volcanic eruptions cool the climate. Really, where in that article do you find anything that says that volcanic eruptions contribute to global warming?What I find hilarious about you cons is that you have no problem cherry picking when it comes to climate change. You intentionally ignore the fact that the vast majority of PEER-REVIEWED studies from around the world say man made climate change is real and cherry pick a handful ofbscientists who dissent. Not only that , but you choose scientists who aren't even involved in the discipline of climatology. It's kind of embarrassing.
Maybe you should just admit that deep down you know this phenomenon to be true and it scares you.
Here is what I think about the peer reviewed studies. It all depends on the input. Garbage in, garbage out. The numbers are crunched by a very few and the rest of the community makes their judgement on those numbers. So if those numbers are in question then any review will be in agreement, it more or less has to be. So it is not surprising that scientist look at the numbers, temperature up, CO2 up, man makes CO2 up then obviously there is a tie, and there may well be.
What your response tells us is that you haven't the faintest idea how the peer review process in refereed scientific journals works. Your comments are ignorant nonsense.
But is it catastrophic?
What do YOU mean by "catastrophic"? You won't find climate scientists using the term. You will find AGW deniers using it as they claim "alarmist" climatologists have been predicting catastrophic change. They've even made up the acronym CAGW. It allows them to deny AGW but maintain plausible deniability when smacked up the side of the head with the facts - that they were only denying the catastrophic nature of the coming change.
Gore has been saying for 20 years we only have 10 years to act. Gore's famous CO2 to temperature graph shows CO2 lagging temperature by about 400 years.
As Billy000 told you, NO ONE is quoting Al Gore in these discussions any more. Not for several years now. Doing so makes you look pretty foolish.
Temperature turns and goes up and 400 years later CO2 concentration goes up. Yes, they have an explanation for that but it isn't simple and in my opinion it should be simple.
It's extremely simple. The process whereby increasing heat increases atmospheric CO2 levels is simpler than the process whereby increase CO2 increases temperatures. However, they're both true. Which makes more bubbles: opening a cold bottle of coke or a hot bottle of coke? The solubility of gas in liquids, opposite that of solids in liquids, INCREASES as the temperature of the liquid goes DOWN. When we warm up the world, it's liquids gas solubility goes down and some of the atmospheric gases dissolved in the world's oceans, lakes and streams is released to the atmosphere.
Nuclear power can be explained relatively easily. I am not sure why climate change has to be so complicated.
I'm not sure why you think simple-mindedness is a virtue.
Which brings us to the truth.
Not all scientists who disagree with GW hysteria are lying.
No, but an overwhelming amount of evidence clearly indicates they are wrong.
The money supposedly buying of those who disagree pales in the amount given to scientist who do agree.
Why do deniers so effortlessly cast away the idea that the fossil fuel industries, who have hundreds of billions of dollars at their disposal and whose very existence is threatened by efforts to stop global warming, might spend some tiny fraction of those funds on discrediting AGW and ending efforts to stop it.
A few degree change in temperature is a boom for mankind. I certainly have enjoyed this fall.
The phrase you're looking for is "a boon to mankind"
BOON noun
1.
something to be thankful for; blessing; benefit.
2.
something that is asked; a favor sought.
And it's not. It will be a disaster of enormous proportions. Sea level rises will flood the coasts, hundreds of millions of people will have to be relocated to... where? Water supplies will disappear with the disappearing glaciers and shrinking snowpack. Crops will fail from rising temperatures, altered seasonal timing and dramatic changes in precipitation patterns.
All it will take to turn this around is a major eruption, then we will be talking crop damage and ice age.
Wrong. The effects of even the largest eruptions in the last millenia didn't last more than 3-5 years. CO2 levels in our atmosphere will last for well over a century.
We have bigger fish to fry, like putting people to work, then we have in shutting down industry for a few degree rise in temperature.
Wrong again. And, of course, there's no reason we can't do both. Alternate energy systems, hydrogen infrastructure, fuel cell technology, home solar and battery systems. Plenty of new tech to create a few jobs. And, perhaps you haven't checked the numbers, but unemployment isn't particularly bad right now.
The whole discussion is not about polluting, it is about CO2 and warming.
Finally, I and you, have heard it all before. In the 70s you damn well know they preached nothing but disaster for the human race. It was predicted we would be out of oil by the 90s and I just read that the storage capacity of the world is full. They predicted that genetically altered food would be the end of our food supply, yet here we are producing more food then ever. They predicted that the world could not sustain a population near what we see today. Scientist make their careers developing theories, that is what they do, but they don't always do it right or are right.
Did it ever occur to you that some of those catastrophes were averted BECAUSE science warned us where we were headed? What has happened to our terribly polluted waters? Acid rain? Food production? Medicine? Computers?
AGW is real and it is a real threat.
Ok, I admit it, I don't know how to separate quotes as you did.
But thanks for the response it takes time to respond.
First, Peer Review. You seem to think, and this is my opinion, that just throwing the words out there actually means something. I am sure when you hear "peer review" that is a stamp of quality. An assurance that whom ever did the review was impeccable and spent the proper amount of time "vetting" whatever it is they were reviewing. Not so by a very long shot.
But as is my way I do not expect you to accept my opinion, so I offer this link which I think has no ax to grind. You seem to be interested in science so if I am right you really ought to read the full article, quite interesting.
Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
CONCLUSION (from the article)
So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief.
Al Gore, a speaker at the Paris conference on climate change, I hardly think that the GW fear side has written Gore off.
But as for his chart and simplicity. I fully believe in Occam's razor is more commonly described as 'the simplest answer is most often is the correct answer. In my opinion there are not two ideas, since only one fits. The GW theory, as I understand states that as the CO2 concentration rises temperature rises with it. But as I pointed out the graph says something different. Which is actually simple and explainable. As temperature rises CO2 is released from the oceans just like I think you said. That is simple, that is understandable. Also as temperature rises tundra becomes exposed again releasing GHGs. Simple explainable. But trying to explain how CO2 concentrations cause temperature to rise, as CO2 concentrations continue to fall isn't easy nor easily understandable.
Catastrophic climate change? No one calling it that? I beg to differ, here are some examples:
Urgent Call to World Leaders to Prevent Catastrophic Climate Change
Larry Linden: Big changes needed to avert possible climate “catastrophe”
And I apologize for using the word boom instead of boon. I do it all the time, I think it might be a mental disorder or something. It looks right when I type it but sadly it is not.
As for volcano and there effects, as a man of science you should read this article. Which blames GW, somewhat, on eruptions.
How do volcanoes affect world climate?
but Im thinking for big oil, even that number is a weee bit high!!
With the exception of Trapp Volcanoes, which we have not had erupting for millions of years, volcanic eruptions cool the climate. Really, where in that article do you find anything that says that volcanic eruptions contribute to global warming?What I find hilarious about you cons is that you have no problem cherry picking when it comes to climate change. You intentionally ignore the fact that the vast majority of PEER-REVIEWED studies from around the world say man made climate change is real and cherry pick a handful ofbscientists who dissent. Not only that , but you choose scientists who aren't even involved in the discipline of climatology. It's kind of embarrassing.
Maybe you should just admit that deep down you know this phenomenon to be true and it scares you.
Here is what I think about the peer reviewed studies. It all depends on the input. Garbage in, garbage out. The numbers are crunched by a very few and the rest of the community makes their judgement on those numbers. So if those numbers are in question then any review will be in agreement, it more or less has to be. So it is not surprising that scientist look at the numbers, temperature up, CO2 up, man makes CO2 up then obviously there is a tie, and there may well be.
What your response tells us is that you haven't the faintest idea how the peer review process in refereed scientific journals works. Your comments are ignorant nonsense.
But is it catastrophic?
What do YOU mean by "catastrophic"? You won't find climate scientists using the term. You will find AGW deniers using it as they claim "alarmist" climatologists have been predicting catastrophic change. They've even made up the acronym CAGW. It allows them to deny AGW but maintain plausible deniability when smacked up the side of the head with the facts - that they were only denying the catastrophic nature of the coming change.
Gore has been saying for 20 years we only have 10 years to act. Gore's famous CO2 to temperature graph shows CO2 lagging temperature by about 400 years.
As Billy000 told you, NO ONE is quoting Al Gore in these discussions any more. Not for several years now. Doing so makes you look pretty foolish.
Temperature turns and goes up and 400 years later CO2 concentration goes up. Yes, they have an explanation for that but it isn't simple and in my opinion it should be simple.
It's extremely simple. The process whereby increasing heat increases atmospheric CO2 levels is simpler than the process whereby increase CO2 increases temperatures. However, they're both true. Which makes more bubbles: opening a cold bottle of coke or a hot bottle of coke? The solubility of gas in liquids, opposite that of solids in liquids, INCREASES as the temperature of the liquid goes DOWN. When we warm up the world, it's liquids gas solubility goes down and some of the atmospheric gases dissolved in the world's oceans, lakes and streams is released to the atmosphere.
Nuclear power can be explained relatively easily. I am not sure why climate change has to be so complicated.
I'm not sure why you think simple-mindedness is a virtue.
Which brings us to the truth.
Not all scientists who disagree with GW hysteria are lying.
No, but an overwhelming amount of evidence clearly indicates they are wrong.
The money supposedly buying of those who disagree pales in the amount given to scientist who do agree.
Why do deniers so effortlessly cast away the idea that the fossil fuel industries, who have hundreds of billions of dollars at their disposal and whose very existence is threatened by efforts to stop global warming, might spend some tiny fraction of those funds on discrediting AGW and ending efforts to stop it.
A few degree change in temperature is a boom for mankind. I certainly have enjoyed this fall.
The phrase you're looking for is "a boon to mankind"
BOON noun
1.
something to be thankful for; blessing; benefit.
2.
something that is asked; a favor sought.
And it's not. It will be a disaster of enormous proportions. Sea level rises will flood the coasts, hundreds of millions of people will have to be relocated to... where? Water supplies will disappear with the disappearing glaciers and shrinking snowpack. Crops will fail from rising temperatures, altered seasonal timing and dramatic changes in precipitation patterns.
All it will take to turn this around is a major eruption, then we will be talking crop damage and ice age.
Wrong. The effects of even the largest eruptions in the last millenia didn't last more than 3-5 years. CO2 levels in our atmosphere will last for well over a century.
We have bigger fish to fry, like putting people to work, then we have in shutting down industry for a few degree rise in temperature.
Wrong again. And, of course, there's no reason we can't do both. Alternate energy systems, hydrogen infrastructure, fuel cell technology, home solar and battery systems. Plenty of new tech to create a few jobs. And, perhaps you haven't checked the numbers, but unemployment isn't particularly bad right now.
The whole discussion is not about polluting, it is about CO2 and warming.
Finally, I and you, have heard it all before. In the 70s you damn well know they preached nothing but disaster for the human race. It was predicted we would be out of oil by the 90s and I just read that the storage capacity of the world is full. They predicted that genetically altered food would be the end of our food supply, yet here we are producing more food then ever. They predicted that the world could not sustain a population near what we see today. Scientist make their careers developing theories, that is what they do, but they don't always do it right or are right.
Did it ever occur to you that some of those catastrophes were averted BECAUSE science warned us where we were headed? What has happened to our terribly polluted waters? Acid rain? Food production? Medicine? Computers?
AGW is real and it is a real threat.
Ok, I admit it, I don't know how to separate quotes as you did.
But thanks for the response it takes time to respond.
First, Peer Review. You seem to think, and this is my opinion, that just throwing the words out there actually means something. I am sure when you hear "peer review" that is a stamp of quality. An assurance that whom ever did the review was impeccable and spent the proper amount of time "vetting" whatever it is they were reviewing. Not so by a very long shot.
But as is my way I do not expect you to accept my opinion, so I offer this link which I think has no ax to grind. You seem to be interested in science so if I am right you really ought to read the full article, quite interesting.
Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
CONCLUSION (from the article)
So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief.
Al Gore, a speaker at the Paris conference on climate change, I hardly think that the GW fear side has written Gore off.
But as for his chart and simplicity. I fully believe in Occam's razor is more commonly described as 'the simplest answer is most often is the correct answer. In my opinion there are not two ideas, since only one fits. The GW theory, as I understand states that as the CO2 concentration rises temperature rises with it. But as I pointed out the graph says something different. Which is actually simple and explainable. As temperature rises CO2 is released from the oceans just like I think you said. That is simple, that is understandable. Also as temperature rises tundra becomes exposed again releasing GHGs. Simple explainable. But trying to explain how CO2 concentrations cause temperature to rise, as CO2 concentrations continue to fall isn't easy nor easily understandable.
Catastrophic climate change? No one calling it that? I beg to differ, here are some examples:
Urgent Call to World Leaders to Prevent Catastrophic Climate Change
Larry Linden: Big changes needed to avert possible climate “catastrophe”
And I apologize for using the word boom instead of boon. I do it all the time, I think it might be a mental disorder or something. It looks right when I type it but sadly it is not.
As for volcano and there effects, as a man of science you should read this article. Which blames GW, somewhat, on eruptions.
How do volcanoes affect world climate?
What I find hilarious about you cons is that you have no problem cherry picking when it comes to climate change. You intentionally ignore the fact that the vast majority of PEER-REVIEWED studies from around the world say man made climate change is real and cherry pick a handful ofbscientists who dissent. Not only that , but you choose scientists who aren't even involved in the discipline of climatology. It's kind of embarrassing.
Maybe you should just admit that deep down you know this phenomenon to be true and it scares you.
Here is what I think about the peer reviewed studies. It all depends on the input. Garbage in, garbage out. The numbers are crunched by a very few and the rest of the community makes their judgement on those numbers. So if those numbers are in question then any review will be in agreement, it more or less has to be. So it is not surprising that scientist look at the numbers, temperature up, CO2 up, man makes CO2 up then obviously there is a tie, and there may well be.
What your response tells us is that you haven't the faintest idea how the peer review process in refereed scientific journals works. Your comments are ignorant nonsense.
But is it catastrophic?
What do YOU mean by "catastrophic"? You won't find climate scientists using the term. You will find AGW deniers using it as they claim "alarmist" climatologists have been predicting catastrophic change. They've even made up the acronym CAGW. It allows them to deny AGW but maintain plausible deniability when smacked up the side of the head with the facts - that they were only denying the catastrophic nature of the coming change.
Gore has been saying for 20 years we only have 10 years to act. Gore's famous CO2 to temperature graph shows CO2 lagging temperature by about 400 years.
As Billy000 told you, NO ONE is quoting Al Gore in these discussions any more. Not for several years now. Doing so makes you look pretty foolish.
Temperature turns and goes up and 400 years later CO2 concentration goes up. Yes, they have an explanation for that but it isn't simple and in my opinion it should be simple.
It's extremely simple. The process whereby increasing heat increases atmospheric CO2 levels is simpler than the process whereby increase CO2 increases temperatures. However, they're both true. Which makes more bubbles: opening a cold bottle of coke or a hot bottle of coke? The solubility of gas in liquids, opposite that of solids in liquids, INCREASES as the temperature of the liquid goes DOWN. When we warm up the world, it's liquids gas solubility goes down and some of the atmospheric gases dissolved in the world's oceans, lakes and streams is released to the atmosphere.
Nuclear power can be explained relatively easily. I am not sure why climate change has to be so complicated.
I'm not sure why you think simple-mindedness is a virtue.
Which brings us to the truth.
Not all scientists who disagree with GW hysteria are lying.
No, but an overwhelming amount of evidence clearly indicates they are wrong.
The money supposedly buying of those who disagree pales in the amount given to scientist who do agree.
Why do deniers so effortlessly cast away the idea that the fossil fuel industries, who have hundreds of billions of dollars at their disposal and whose very existence is threatened by efforts to stop global warming, might spend some tiny fraction of those funds on discrediting AGW and ending efforts to stop it.
A few degree change in temperature is a boom for mankind. I certainly have enjoyed this fall.
The phrase you're looking for is "a boon to mankind"
BOON noun
1.
something to be thankful for; blessing; benefit.
2.
something that is asked; a favor sought.
And it's not. It will be a disaster of enormous proportions. Sea level rises will flood the coasts, hundreds of millions of people will have to be relocated to... where? Water supplies will disappear with the disappearing glaciers and shrinking snowpack. Crops will fail from rising temperatures, altered seasonal timing and dramatic changes in precipitation patterns.
All it will take to turn this around is a major eruption, then we will be talking crop damage and ice age.
Wrong. The effects of even the largest eruptions in the last millenia didn't last more than 3-5 years. CO2 levels in our atmosphere will last for well over a century.
We have bigger fish to fry, like putting people to work, then we have in shutting down industry for a few degree rise in temperature.
Wrong again. And, of course, there's no reason we can't do both. Alternate energy systems, hydrogen infrastructure, fuel cell technology, home solar and battery systems. Plenty of new tech to create a few jobs. And, perhaps you haven't checked the numbers, but unemployment isn't particularly bad right now.
The whole discussion is not about polluting, it is about CO2 and warming.
Finally, I and you, have heard it all before. In the 70s you damn well know they preached nothing but disaster for the human race. It was predicted we would be out of oil by the 90s and I just read that the storage capacity of the world is full. They predicted that genetically altered food would be the end of our food supply, yet here we are producing more food then ever. They predicted that the world could not sustain a population near what we see today. Scientist make their careers developing theories, that is what they do, but they don't always do it right or are right.
Did it ever occur to you that some of those catastrophes were averted BECAUSE science warned us where we were headed? What has happened to our terribly polluted waters? Acid rain? Food production? Medicine? Computers?
AGW is real and it is a real threat.
Yeah, but those guys don't count. They're not real scientists. Here's the definition of a real scientist:
1. A person who says global warming is happening, that it is bad, and that people are causing it.
2. A person who says the polar bears are gonna die next year.
3. A person who repeats the statement next year.
Bear, you are truly an inobservant dumb fuck. I have lived through 'it' for over 72 years, and have seen glacial retreat in the Cascades, Sierra Nevada, and Rockies. Seen it up close and personal. And, from the USGS, you can get a photographic record of most of the glaciers in the world, and see for yourself the retreat that is presently going on.
The problem for you and the other 'Conservatives' is that you do not want to face reality, and will do all within your power to deny that reality. And you absolutely avoid information presented by the people that actually study in the disciplines that are involved in climate science, instead preferring nonsense by simpletons that know very little science at all.
The problem for you is, you need to tell me why we need more glaciers. A warmer world is a boom to mankind.
What I find hilarious about you cons is that you have no problem cherry picking when it comes to climate change. You intentionally ignore the fact that the vast majority of PEER-REVIEWED studies from around the world say man made climate change is real and cherry pick a handful ofbscientists who dissent. Not only that , but you choose scientists who aren't even involved in the discipline of climatology. It's kind of embarrassing.
Maybe you should just admit that deep down you know this phenomenon to be true and it scares you.
Here is what I think about the peer reviewed studies. It all depends on the input. Garbage in, garbage out. The numbers are crunched by a very few and the rest of the community makes their judgement on those numbers. So if those numbers are in question then any review will be in agreement, it more or less has to be. So it is not surprising that scientist look at the numbers, temperature up, CO2 up, man makes CO2 up then obviously there is a tie, and there may well be.
What your response tells us is that you haven't the faintest idea how the peer review process in refereed scientific journals works. Your comments are ignorant nonsense.
But is it catastrophic?
What do YOU mean by "catastrophic"? You won't find climate scientists using the term. You will find AGW deniers using it as they claim "alarmist" climatologists have been predicting catastrophic change. They've even made up the acronym CAGW. It allows them to deny AGW but maintain plausible deniability when smacked up the side of the head with the facts - that they were only denying the catastrophic nature of the coming change.
Gore has been saying for 20 years we only have 10 years to act. Gore's famous CO2 to temperature graph shows CO2 lagging temperature by about 400 years.
As Billy000 told you, NO ONE is quoting Al Gore in these discussions any more. Not for several years now. Doing so makes you look pretty foolish.
Temperature turns and goes up and 400 years later CO2 concentration goes up. Yes, they have an explanation for that but it isn't simple and in my opinion it should be simple.
It's extremely simple. The process whereby increasing heat increases atmospheric CO2 levels is simpler than the process whereby increase CO2 increases temperatures. However, they're both true. Which makes more bubbles: opening a cold bottle of coke or a hot bottle of coke? The solubility of gas in liquids, opposite that of solids in liquids, INCREASES as the temperature of the liquid goes DOWN. When we warm up the world, it's liquids gas solubility goes down and some of the atmospheric gases dissolved in the world's oceans, lakes and streams is released to the atmosphere.
Nuclear power can be explained relatively easily. I am not sure why climate change has to be so complicated.
I'm not sure why you think simple-mindedness is a virtue.
Which brings us to the truth.
Not all scientists who disagree with GW hysteria are lying.
No, but an overwhelming amount of evidence clearly indicates they are wrong.
The money supposedly buying of those who disagree pales in the amount given to scientist who do agree.
Why do deniers so effortlessly cast away the idea that the fossil fuel industries, who have hundreds of billions of dollars at their disposal and whose very existence is threatened by efforts to stop global warming, might spend some tiny fraction of those funds on discrediting AGW and ending efforts to stop it.
A few degree change in temperature is a boom for mankind. I certainly have enjoyed this fall.
The phrase you're looking for is "a boon to mankind"
BOON noun
1.
something to be thankful for; blessing; benefit.
2.
something that is asked; a favor sought.
And it's not. It will be a disaster of enormous proportions. Sea level rises will flood the coasts, hundreds of millions of people will have to be relocated to... where? Water supplies will disappear with the disappearing glaciers and shrinking snowpack. Crops will fail from rising temperatures, altered seasonal timing and dramatic changes in precipitation patterns.
All it will take to turn this around is a major eruption, then we will be talking crop damage and ice age.
Wrong. The effects of even the largest eruptions in the last millenia didn't last more than 3-5 years. CO2 levels in our atmosphere will last for well over a century.
We have bigger fish to fry, like putting people to work, then we have in shutting down industry for a few degree rise in temperature.
Wrong again. And, of course, there's no reason we can't do both. Alternate energy systems, hydrogen infrastructure, fuel cell technology, home solar and battery systems. Plenty of new tech to create a few jobs. And, perhaps you haven't checked the numbers, but unemployment isn't particularly bad right now.
The whole discussion is not about polluting, it is about CO2 and warming.
Finally, I and you, have heard it all before. In the 70s you damn well know they preached nothing but disaster for the human race. It was predicted we would be out of oil by the 90s and I just read that the storage capacity of the world is full. They predicted that genetically altered food would be the end of our food supply, yet here we are producing more food then ever. They predicted that the world could not sustain a population near what we see today. Scientist make their careers developing theories, that is what they do, but they don't always do it right or are right.
Did it ever occur to you that some of those catastrophes were averted BECAUSE science warned us where we were headed? What has happened to our terribly polluted waters? Acid rain? Food production? Medicine? Computers?
AGW is real and it is a real threat.
"Unemployment isn't particularly bad right now"
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/02/06/
Thank you, Freewill for posting this paragraph.
There are many reasons that large volcanic eruptions have such far-reaching effects on global climate. First, volcanic eruptions produce major quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2), a gas known to contribute to the greenhouse effect. Such greenhouse gases trap heat radiated off of the surface of the earth forming a type of insulation around the planet. The greenhouse effect is essential for our survival because it maintains the temperature of our planet within a habitable range. Nevertheless, there is growing concern that our production of gases such as CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels may be pushing the system a little too far, resulting in excessive warming on a global scale. There is no doubt that volcanic eruptions add CO2 to the atmosphere, but compared to the quantity produced by human activities, their impact is virtually trivial: volcanic eruptions produce about 110 million tons of CO2 each year, whereas human activities contribute almost 10,000 times that quantity.
Now while the volcanoes do contribute CO2 to the atmosphere, as well as water vapor, the amount is trivial compared to what we put into the atmosphere. What is not trivial is the amount of aerosols they put up. The sulpher compounds reflect light, to the extent that they significantly cool the atmosphere for a few years. Case in point, Tambora in 1816, the year without a summer.
I'm sorry. Do you actually not understand how grants work?Lol where is this evidence that climatologists are profiting off of this? You people keep saying this without proof. Just because it sounds like it could be true doesn't mean it actually is.What I find hilarious about you cons is that you have no problem cherry picking when it comes to climate change. You intentionally ignore the fact that the vast majority of PEER-REVIEWED studies from around the world say man made climate change is real and cherry pick a handful ofbscientists who dissent. Not only that , but you choose scientists who aren't even involved in the discipline of climatology. It's kind of embarrassing.I must admit we are having one of the warmer Novembers I can remember, loving it!!!
Prominent Scientists Declare Climate Claims Ahead of UN Summit 'Irrational' - 'Based On Nonsense' - 'Leading us down a false path'
MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: 'Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial.' - 'When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period.'
Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: 'Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?'
Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore on climate claims: 'We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science.'
Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-summit-goals-irrational-based-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path/#ixzz3s2Kc3U
Richard Lindzen
Physicist
Richard Siegmund Lindzen is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books.Wikipedia
Born: February 8, 1940 (age 75),Webster, MA
Education: Harvard University
Fields: Atmospheric physics
Doctoral advisor: Richard M. Goody
Books: Climate Change: The Facts
William Happer
Physicist
William Happer is an American physicist who has specialised in the study of atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy.Wikipedia
Born: July 27, 1939 (age 76), India
Education: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Fields: Atomic physics
Notable awards: Davisson–Germer Prize in Atomic or Surface Physics
Patrick Moore is a Canadian scientist and former president of Greenpeace Canada. He trades as Ecosense Environmental in Vancouver, and is a frequent public speaker on behalf of industry groups. Wikipedia
Born: 1947, Port Alice, Canada
Organizations founded: Greenpeace
Education: University of British Columbia,North Carolina State University
Books: Green Spirit: Trees are the Answer
Maybe you should just admit that deep down you know this phenomenon to be true and it scares you.
Here is what I think about the peer reviewed studies. It all depends on the input. Garbage in, garbage out. The numbers are crunched by a very few and the rest of the community makes their judgement on those numbers. So if those numbers are in question then any review will be in agreement, it more or less has to be. So it is not surprising that scientist look at the numbers, temperature up, CO2 up, man makes CO2 up then obviously there is a tie, and there may well be.
But is it catastrophic? Gore has been saying for 20 years we only have 10 years to act. Gore's famous CO2 to temperature graph shows CO2 lagging temperature by about 400 years. Temperature turns and goes up and 400 years later CO2 concentration goes up. Yes, they have an explanation for that but it isn't simple and in my opinion it should be simple. Nuclear power can be explained relatively easily. I am not sure why climate change has to be so complicated.
Which brings us to the truth.
Not all scientists who disagree with GW hysteria are lying.
The money supposedly buying of those who disagree pales in the amount given to scientist who do agree.
A few degree change in temperature is a boom for mankind. I certainly have enjoyed this fall.
All it will take to turn this around is a major eruption, then we will be talking crop damage and ice age.
We have bigger fish to fry, like putting people to work, then we have in shutting down industry for a few degree rise in temperature.
The whole discussion is not about polluting, it is about CO2 and warming.
Finally, I and you, have heard it all before. In the 70s you damn well know they preached nothing but disaster for the human race. It was predicted we would be out of oil by the 90s and I just read that the storage capacity of the world is full. They predicted that genetically altered food would be the end of our food supply, yet here we are producing more food then ever. They predicted that the world could not sustain a population near what we see today. Scientist make their careers developing theories, that is what they do, but they don't always do it right or are right.
Enjoy the lower heating bills and walking in a tee shirt in November, it isn't going to last for long.
It's also so tiresome you bring up Al Gore. No one gives a shit what Al Gore says. I listen to the actual CONSENSUS of experts involved in the actual field.
OK, I will stop pointing out that colleges get grants. Grants pay professors. If you and the GW fear mongering side will quit with the big oil is buying off the opposition, at least quit saying it without proof.
Lol so your original point was that humans do not cause climate change and volcanos do, and now that you have the quote saying the effect from volcanos is very minimal in comparison to humans, your point is...what?Thank you, Freewill for posting this paragraph.
There are many reasons that large volcanic eruptions have such far-reaching effects on global climate. First, volcanic eruptions produce major quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2), a gas known to contribute to the greenhouse effect. Such greenhouse gases trap heat radiated off of the surface of the earth forming a type of insulation around the planet. The greenhouse effect is essential for our survival because it maintains the temperature of our planet within a habitable range. Nevertheless, there is growing concern that our production of gases such as CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels may be pushing the system a little too far, resulting in excessive warming on a global scale. There is no doubt that volcanic eruptions add CO2 to the atmosphere, but compared to the quantity produced by human activities, their impact is virtually trivial: volcanic eruptions produce about 110 million tons of CO2 each year, whereas human activities contribute almost 10,000 times that quantity.
Now while the volcanoes do contribute CO2 to the atmosphere, as well as water vapor, the amount is trivial compared to what we put into the atmosphere. What is not trivial is the amount of aerosols they put up. The sulpher compounds reflect light, to the extent that they significantly cool the atmosphere for a few years. Case in point, Tambora in 1816, the year without a summer.
You are welcome, you asked for where in the article it said that eruptions effected GW, there you have it. He actually says it does but the effect is minimal. That is a judgement call, never the less the author does say it effects GW.
Yes, "a boom".
One hint: WATER SUPPLIES
Where do you suppose the water is going to go?
Glaciers provide summer drinking and irrigation water in numerous locations worldwide. The loss of glaciers is the loss of those supplies. Where do YOU think it goes?
I'm sorry. Do you actually not understand how grants work?Lol where is this evidence that climatologists are profiting off of this? You people keep saying this without proof. Just because it sounds like it could be true doesn't mean it actually is.What I find hilarious about you cons is that you have no problem cherry picking when it comes to climate change. You intentionally ignore the fact that the vast majority of PEER-REVIEWED studies from around the world say man made climate change is real and cherry pick a handful ofbscientists who dissent. Not only that , but you choose scientists who aren't even involved in the discipline of climatology. It's kind of embarrassing.I must admit we are having one of the warmer Novembers I can remember, loving it!!!
Prominent Scientists Declare Climate Claims Ahead of UN Summit 'Irrational' - 'Based On Nonsense' - 'Leading us down a false path'
MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: 'Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial.' - 'When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period.'
Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: 'Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?'
Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore on climate claims: 'We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science.'
Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-summit-goals-irrational-based-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path/#ixzz3s2Kc3U
Richard Lindzen
Physicist
Richard Siegmund Lindzen is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books.Wikipedia
Born: February 8, 1940 (age 75),Webster, MA
Education: Harvard University
Fields: Atmospheric physics
Doctoral advisor: Richard M. Goody
Books: Climate Change: The Facts
William Happer
Physicist
William Happer is an American physicist who has specialised in the study of atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy.Wikipedia
Born: July 27, 1939 (age 76), India
Education: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Fields: Atomic physics
Notable awards: Davisson–Germer Prize in Atomic or Surface Physics
Patrick Moore is a Canadian scientist and former president of Greenpeace Canada. He trades as Ecosense Environmental in Vancouver, and is a frequent public speaker on behalf of industry groups. Wikipedia
Born: 1947, Port Alice, Canada
Organizations founded: Greenpeace
Education: University of British Columbia,North Carolina State University
Books: Green Spirit: Trees are the Answer
Maybe you should just admit that deep down you know this phenomenon to be true and it scares you.
Here is what I think about the peer reviewed studies. It all depends on the input. Garbage in, garbage out. The numbers are crunched by a very few and the rest of the community makes their judgement on those numbers. So if those numbers are in question then any review will be in agreement, it more or less has to be. So it is not surprising that scientist look at the numbers, temperature up, CO2 up, man makes CO2 up then obviously there is a tie, and there may well be.
But is it catastrophic? Gore has been saying for 20 years we only have 10 years to act. Gore's famous CO2 to temperature graph shows CO2 lagging temperature by about 400 years. Temperature turns and goes up and 400 years later CO2 concentration goes up. Yes, they have an explanation for that but it isn't simple and in my opinion it should be simple. Nuclear power can be explained relatively easily. I am not sure why climate change has to be so complicated.
Which brings us to the truth.
Not all scientists who disagree with GW hysteria are lying.
The money supposedly buying of those who disagree pales in the amount given to scientist who do agree.
A few degree change in temperature is a boom for mankind. I certainly have enjoyed this fall.
All it will take to turn this around is a major eruption, then we will be talking crop damage and ice age.
We have bigger fish to fry, like putting people to work, then we have in shutting down industry for a few degree rise in temperature.
The whole discussion is not about polluting, it is about CO2 and warming.
Finally, I and you, have heard it all before. In the 70s you damn well know they preached nothing but disaster for the human race. It was predicted we would be out of oil by the 90s and I just read that the storage capacity of the world is full. They predicted that genetically altered food would be the end of our food supply, yet here we are producing more food then ever. They predicted that the world could not sustain a population near what we see today. Scientist make their careers developing theories, that is what they do, but they don't always do it right or are right.
Enjoy the lower heating bills and walking in a tee shirt in November, it isn't going to last for long.
It's also so tiresome you bring up Al Gore. No one gives a shit what Al Gore says. I listen to the actual CONSENSUS of experts involved in the actual field.
OK, I will stop pointing out that colleges get grants. Grants pay professors. If you and the GW fear mongering side will quit with the big oil is buying off the opposition, at least quit saying it without proof.
