The best last chance: UN climate conference opens

[Zander]

You are a lemming.....

 

[Si modo]

Zman, do you ever research anything?

One Newsweek article from 35 years ago?? You can't be serious.

Here's the real truth of the matter...

In the 1970s there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. Of those scientific papers considering climate trends over the 21st century, only 10% inclined towards future cooling, while most papers predicted future warming.[2] The general public had little awareness of carbon dioxide's effects on climate, but Science News in May 1959 forecast a 25% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000, with a consequent warming trend. (The actual increase in this period was 29%.)[3] Paul R. Ehrlich mentioned climate change from greenhouse gases in 1968.[4] By the time the idea of global cooling reached the public press in the mid-1970s temperatures had stopped falling, and there was concern in the climatological community about carbon dioxide's warming effects.[5] In response to such reports, the World Meteorological Organization issued a warning in June 1976 that a very significant warming of global climate was probable.[6]

Currently there are some concerns about the possible cooling effects of a slowdown or shutdown of thermohaline circulation, which might be provoked by an increase of fresh water mixing into the North Atlantic due to glacial melting. The probability of this occurring is generally considered to be very low, and the IPCC notes, "even in models where the THC weakens, there is still a warming over Europe. For example, in all AOGCM integrations where the radiative forcing is increasing, the sign of the temperature change over north-west Europe is positive."[7]

Global cooling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Imagine that! The press filtering the state of the science to the public? Noooooo waaaaaaay!

 

[Chris]

You are a lemming.....

Not hardly.

But corporate lobbyists for the coal and oil companies do not form my opinions.

There is no question that pumping billions and billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is warming the earth. That is a scientific certainty.

But the right has missed the real question entirely, as usual.

Will global warming save us from a Maunder Minimum type event or will it release the arctic methane and raise the sea levels 20 feet?

 

[Si modo]

You are a lemming.....

Not hardly.

But corporate lobbyists for the coal and oil companies do not form my opinions.

There is no question that pumping billions and billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is warming the earth. That is a scientific certainty.

But the right has missed the real question entirely, as usual.

Will global warming save us from a Maunder Minimum type event or will it release the arctic methane and raise the sea levels 20 feet?

No one knows, or at least scientists don't. Nor have they even modeled it scientifically. I'll worry about it when I see more meat to an argument that either will likely happen.

 

[Chris]

You are a lemming.....

Not hardly.

But corporate lobbyists for the coal and oil companies do not form my opinions.

There is no question that pumping billions and billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is warming the earth. That is a scientific certainty.

But the right has missed the real question entirely, as usual.

Will global warming save us from a Maunder Minimum type event or will it release the arctic methane and raise the sea levels 20 feet?

No one knows, or at least scientists don't. Nor have they even modeled it scientifically. I'll worry about it when I see more meat to an argument that either will likely happen.

No, actually the boys at MIT modeled it pretty well. The doubling of atmospheric CO2 is going to increase global temperatures 4-7 degrees by 2100.

All this is within the context of the Sun's activity, however. So tempertures will rise 4-7 degrees more than they would have without the CO2.

 

[Si modo]

Not hardly.

But corporate lobbyists for the coal and oil companies do not form my opinions.

There is no question that pumping billions and billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is warming the earth. That is a scientific certainty.

But the right has missed the real question entirely, as usual.

Will global warming save us from a Maunder Minimum type event or will it release the arctic methane and raise the sea levels 20 feet?

No one knows, or at least scientists don't. Nor have they even modeled it scientifically. I'll worry about it when I see more meat to an argument that either will likely happen.

No, actually the boys at MIT modeled it pretty well. The doubling of atmospheric CO2 is going to increase global temperatures 4-7 degrees by 2100.


All this is within the context of the Sun's activity, however. So tempertures will rise 4-7 degrees more than they would have without the CO2.

Really? Let's see the peer-reviewed paper. I would like to inspect the science for myself.

Don't parrot a blog, now. I want to see peer-reviewed paper demonstrating what you claim.

 

[L.K.Eder]

kyoto was the last last chance. last chance now in copenhagen. theyll pick another city and try to snare the US again.

One would suspect this is the rest of the world's attempt to cancel out our dominance.

None of them will adhere to the agreement.

They'll just laugh at us for being stupid enough to fall for this scam.

And Obama is making history....the first President to sign away our standing in the world as an economic power ushering in China and Russia as world leaders.

it is a conspiracy!

 

[Chris]

Do you guys ever do ANY reading at all?

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.

Climate change odds much worse than thought

 

[Si modo]

Do you guys ever do ANY reading at all?

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.

Climate change odds much worse than thought

I asked for the peer-reviewed science. You do know what that is, right?

 

[Si modo]

Until I see the peer-reviewed work, I know nothing about the work. Could Chris be right? Could climatologist Spencer be right?

....

The MIT report breaks other scientific forecasting principles as well such as the need to “use diverse sources of data” or to at least “find sources with differing (and hopefully compensating) biases”.

For example, the MIT Joint Program study authors assume that global climate is highly sensitive to increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. This is not a stance shared by many leading climate experts such as University of Alabama-Huntsville climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer (UAH Global Hydrology and Climate Center) who observes, “It turns out that the belief in a sensitive climate is not because of the observational evidence, but in spite of it. If the climate system really was that sensitive, it would have forced itself into oblivion long ago.

“The use of statistical probabilities by the MIT group does two misleading things: (1) it implies scientific precision where none exists, and (2) it implies the climate system’s response to any change is a “roll of the dice””, Spencer said.

Joint Program study authors assumed probability distribution functions for many important variables, including climate sensitivity for which there is only one ‘real world’ correct value which is yet unknown. All other numbers are wrong and so have a zero probability of being right.

....

MEDIA RELEASE - MIT 'ROULETTE WHEEL' CLIMATE FORECASTS MEANINGLESS | Climate Realists

That doesn't even look like it's falsifiable work. But, I like to think for myself and I only do that with peer-reviewed work.

 

[Chris]

Do you guys ever do ANY reading at all?

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.

Climate change odds much worse than thought

I asked for the peer-reviewed science. You do know what that is, right?

I figured you would change the subject or try to confuse the issue. This is what the right does when the facts do not meet their worldview.

You have to pay to receive the whole article....

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175/2009JCLI2863.1

 

[Si modo]

Do you guys ever do ANY reading at all?

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.

Climate change odds much worse than thought

I asked for the peer-reviewed science. You do know what that is, right?

I figured you would change the subject or try to confuse the issue. This is what the right does when the facts do not meet their worldview.

You have to pay to receive the whole article....

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175/2009JCLI2863.1

No, dear. This is what scientists do. They look at the science. You brought this science up and we are still talking about it. If you don't want to talk about what you brought up, just let me know.

I will inspect it tomorrow when I have access from work.

First glance at the abstract, it appears that they are using data for this that is now in question.

When I can look at the paper, I will determine if the model is even falsifiable. It seems there is a chance that it is not. If not, it is immediately dismissable as anything scientific.

 

[Chris]

I asked for the peer-reviewed science. You do know what that is, right?

I figured you would change the subject or try to confuse the issue. This is what the right does when the facts do not meet their worldview.

You have to pay to receive the whole article....

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175/2009JCLI2863.1

No, dear. This is what scientists do. They look at the science. You brought this science up.

I will inspect it tomorrow when I have access from work.

First glance at the abstract, it appears that they are using data for this that is now in question.

When I can look at the paper, I will determine if the model is even falsifiable. It seems there is a chance that it is not. If not, it is immediately dismissable as anything scientific.

Horseshit.

It is easy enough to calculate the impact of doubling atmospheric CO2.

Like I said, change the subject, and try to confuse the issue. It's what you do.

The American Petroleum Institue must be proud of you.

 

[Si modo]

I figured you would change the subject or try to confuse the issue. This is what the right does when the facts do not meet their worldview.

You have to pay to receive the whole article....

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175/2009JCLI2863.1

No, dear. This is what scientists do. They look at the science. You brought this science up.

I will inspect it tomorrow when I have access from work.

First glance at the abstract, it appears that they are using data for this that is now in question.

When I can look at the paper, I will determine if the model is even falsifiable. It seems there is a chance that it is not. If not, it is immediately dismissable as anything scientific.

Horseshit.

It is easy enough to calculate the impact of doubling atmospheric CO2.

Like I said, change the subject, and try to confuse the issue. It's what you do.

The American Petroleum Institue must be proud of you.

What is horseshit? Your bringing up a paper and then not wanting to discuss it?

If it's so easy to calculate the impact of doubling atmospheric CO2, then do it. Right now. Show us your methodology. Then show us why you have chosen to double the CO2. Then show us the data you've used along with the variables. But do make sure that there is falsifiablity built in. You know why that's important, right?

Go ahead, Chris. You said it's easy. Do it.

What subject did I change? YOU brought up this MIT work and I am discussing it. As I said, if you don't want to discuss it, just let me know.

 

[eagleseven]

It is easy enough to calculate the impact of doubling atmospheric CO2.

Silly me, thinking that you need a formal education in the sciences and a solid foundation in both advanced mathematics and statistical analysis to predict the behavior of a simple system like the climate of the entire Earth.

Why do people even bother attending graduate school to obtain doctorates of philosophy, anyways?

*facepalm*

If you cannot debate this issue on Si Modo's level, speak no more. You are completely outclassed, forced to rely upon childish ad-homonyms. Leave scientific debates to scientists, thank you.

 

[ba1614]

Zman, do you ever research anything?

One Newsweek article from 35 years ago?? You can't be serious.

Here's the real truth of the matter...

In the 1970s there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. Of those scientific papers considering climate trends over the 21st century, only 10% inclined towards future cooling, while most papers predicted future warming.[2] The general public had little awareness of carbon dioxide's effects on climate, but Science News in May 1959 forecast a 25% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000, with a consequent warming trend. (The actual increase in this period was 29%.)[3] Paul R. Ehrlich mentioned climate change from greenhouse gases in 1968.[4] By the time the idea of global cooling reached the public press in the mid-1970s temperatures had stopped falling, and there was concern in the climatological community about carbon dioxide's warming effects.[5] In response to such reports, the World Meteorological Organization issued a warning in June 1976 that a very significant warming of global climate was probable.[6]

Currently there are some concerns about the possible cooling effects of a slowdown or shutdown of thermohaline circulation, which might be provoked by an increase of fresh water mixing into the North Atlantic due to glacial melting. The probability of this occurring is generally considered to be very low, and the IPCC notes, "even in models where the THC weakens, there is still a warming over Europe. For example, in all AOGCM integrations where the radiative forcing is increasing, the sign of the temperature change over north-west Europe is positive."[7]

Global cooling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, the guys writing papers about it in the 70's were bang on with their science, weren't they.

• “...civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind,” biologist George Wald, Harvard University, April 19, 1970.

• By 1995, “...somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” Sen. Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look magazine, April 1970.

• Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor “...the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born,” Newsweek magazine, January 26, 1970.

• The world will be “...eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age,” Kenneth Watt, speaking at Swarthmore University, April 19, 1970.

• “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” biologist Barry Commoner, University of Washington, writing in the journal Environment, April 1970.

• “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from the intolerable deteriorations and possible extinction,” The New York Times editorial, April 20, 1970.

• “By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half...” Life magazine, January 1970.

• “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich, interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April 1970.

• “...air pollution...is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone,” Paul Ehrlich, interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April 1970.

• Ehrlich also predicted that in 1973, 200,000 Americans would die from air pollution, and that by 1980 the life expectancy of Americans would be 42 years.

• “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” Earth Day organizer Denis Hayes, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.

• “By the year 2000...the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America and Australia, will be in famine,” Peter Gunter, North Texas State University, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.

 

[mudwhistle]

No, dear. This is what scientists do. They look at the science. You brought this science up.

I will inspect it tomorrow when I have access from work.

First glance at the abstract, it appears that they are using data for this that is now in question.

When I can look at the paper, I will determine if the model is even falsifiable. It seems there is a chance that it is not. If not, it is immediately dismissable as anything scientific.

Horseshit.

It is easy enough to calculate the impact of doubling atmospheric CO2.

Like I said, change the subject, and try to confuse the issue. It's what you do.

The American Petroleum Institue must be proud of you.

What is horseshit? Your bringing up a paper and then not wanting to discuss it?

If it's so easy to calculate the impact of doubling atmospheric CO2, then do it. Right now. Show us your methodology. Then show us why you have chosen to double the CO2. Then show us the data you've used along with the variables. But do make sure that there is falsifiablity built in. You know why that's important, right?

Go ahead, Chris. You said it's easy. Do it.

What subject did I change? YOU brought up this MIT work and I am discussing it. As I said, if you don't want to discuss it, just let me know.

Yeah......what she said.....[Si modo]

I figure Obama wants to control our breathing next. Carbon Dioxide is an essential gas needed for plant growth...everything that burns or breaths gives it off.....so it's no small wonder they want to tax it.

Water Vapor reacting to the Sun is the largest portion of the earth's greenhouse gases. Wonder if he can figure out a way to tax us for that too......

 

[mudwhistle]

It is easy enough to calculate the impact of doubling atmospheric CO2.

Silly me, thinking that you need a formal education in the sciences and a solid foundation in both advanced mathematics and statistical analysis to predict the behavior of a simple system like the climate of the entire Earth.

Why do people even bother attending graduate school to obtain doctorates of philosophy, anyways?

*facepalm*

If you cannot debate this issue on Si Modo's level, speak no more. You are completely outclassed, forced to rely upon childish ad-homonyms. Leave scientific debates to scientists, thank you.

Dude.....go easy on him.....he can't help it.....he thinks debunked Lib talking-points are more valid then the word of an actual scientist working in an actual labratory.

He has no idea who he's talking to. He also doesn't know the topic very well because he thinks that when you bring up the actual science involved it's changing the subject.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You are a lemming.....

Not hardly.

You just agreed that you are a lemming. (double negative)

But corporate lobbyists for the coal and oil companies do not form my opinions.

No the government does. After all everything the government does saves you money and is good for you right?

There is no question that pumping billions and billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is warming the earth. That is a scientific certainty.

There is no question that we will be taxed into oblivion by people trying to "save the planet" as if we could. the planet will out last the human race.

That is an economic and paleontological fact.

But the right has missed the real question entirely, as usual.

Will global warming save us from a Maunder Minimum type event or will it release the arctic methane and raise the sea levels 20 feet?

yeah and Florida was supposed to be underwater 20 years ago, Chicken Little.

 

[Shorebreak]

Man-made climate change is a religion. Non-believers are heretics (or mental health risks if they are scientists).

Since we can't burn the heretics (because of the obvious CO2 issues ), they need to be crucified and strung up in public places as a reminder to others who might choose to oppose the religious doctrine that's being forced upon them by corporate globalists.