The Case for Global Warming Stronger Than Ever

[skookerasbil]

Heres a poll from Reason-Rupe........hardly considered a right wing polling place.

The Question?

"What is the biggest problem facing America today?"

About 25 items were identified................ Reason-Rupe Surveys : Reason Magazine


Where is global warming?
Not on the list s0ns!!!!:boobies:




You read the posts/threads by the alarmist nutters on here and you'd think every American was going to bed at night and waking up with shitstained drawers worrying about global warming.


yuk.........yuk..............

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There's plenty more evidence in the Met Office report to support global warming. But the question from critics remains: how can we be sure this isn't just a natural phenomenon? Scientists haven't done a good enough job of communicating how they distinguish human versus natural influences, says Hegerl. The answer lies in climate models — massive computer simulations that allow the scientists to project climate effects in various scenarios, including those in which humans do not emit any greenhouses at all. "We go out of our way to check out other explanations — by assuming it's all explained by solar activity, or by solar activity plus volcanoes, or by combinations of any of the other natural forcings known to affect climate," says Hegerl.

According to the models, none of those combinations can produce the climate patterns currently being observed in the real world. Add the greenhouse gases that we know humans are generating (and which we've known since the 1800s tend to warm the Earth, all other things being equal), and the simulations finally come close to matching the real world. Its possible, albeit far-fetched, that the simulations are defective. It is even less possible that all of them (and there are many) are defective in the direction of overstating humanity's contribution to warming.

Report: The Case for Global Warming Stronger Than Ever - TIME

So much for the skeptic/denier meme that climate scientists aren't considering other sources of warming.

A computer world ONLY is as good as the data programed into it. Let me give you a few things we CAN NOT do or do not know right now.

Science can not accurately predict how and when clouds will form, nor what types.

No world generated by the computer can recreate what we KNOW HAS happened with any accuracy. even with all the KNOWN data for that event and dates.

Science can not figure out what makes weather. They can FOLLOW it and predict what will happen with a bit of accuracy out for about a week. BUT they can not predict when and how those highs and lows will form with any accuracy EXCEPT based on OBSERVED weather conditions.

 

[skookerasbil]

I gotta say......this video so perfectly represents the sentiments felt by all skeptics in 2011..................Mr Jimmie Johnson says it perfectly just at the end of this 30 second spot...........

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNKfFKVzPBU]Sunoco "Victory Wave w/Jimmie Johnson" Big Science Music - YouTube[/ame]

 

[skookerasbil]

Its just threads like this that warp the ENVIRONMENT forum scoreboard even more...............

 

[Flopper]

The question in the survey was how serious is the threat of global warming to you and your family. Global warming is a serious threat to future generations, not the current generation. Today, people are concerned more with current economic conditions and less concerned about the world at the end of this century. However, from this survey it's pretty clear that in spite of the current economic problems the developed nations are concerned.

It's for the children right? Its always for the children. When you can't rationally justify what you want to do, and the facts are stacked heavily against you, liberals always cry that it's for the children. How much more patheitc could you possibly be?

Accept for a few radical claims, global warming has always been about the future, the future being decades in the future. It's not about today and it never has been.

Practically every scientific society and academy of science on the planet agree that the planet is warming and man is the likely cause. Not being a conspiracy theorist, I don't need to know any more and frankly I don't know why I'm wasting my time replying to this stupid post.

 

[IanC]

There's plenty more evidence in the Met Office report to support global warming. But the question from critics remains: how can we be sure this isn't just a natural phenomenon? Scientists haven't done a good enough job of communicating how they distinguish human versus natural influences, says Hegerl. The answer lies in climate models — massive computer simulations that allow the scientists to project climate effects in various scenarios, including those in which humans do not emit any greenhouses at all. "We go out of our way to check out other explanations — by assuming it's all explained by solar activity, or by solar activity plus volcanoes, or by combinations of any of the other natural forcings known to affect climate," says Hegerl.

According to the models, none of those combinations can produce the climate patterns currently being observed in the real world. Add the greenhouse gases that we know humans are generating (and which we've known since the 1800s tend to warm the Earth, all other things being equal), and the simulations finally come close to matching the real world. Its possible, albeit far-fetched, that the simulations are defective. It is even less possible that all of them (and there are many) are defective in the direction of overstating humanity's contribution to warming.

Report: The Case for Global Warming Stronger Than Ever - TIME

So much for the skeptic/denier meme that climate scientists aren't considering other sources of warming.

konradv- I think you are mistaken in your belief that no one could come up with a model that explains the present climate conditions without CO2 being the major driving force. the current models were written to emphysize CO2's effects and they do. mind you I dont believe that models that could be written to emphysize other factors would be any more reliable than the one we have now, just different.

 

[wirebender]

Practically every scientific society and academy of science on the planet agree that the planet is warming and man is the likely cause. Not being a conspiracy theorist, I don't need to know any more and frankly I don't know why I'm wasting my time replying to this stupid post.

Correction, the political heads of practically every scientific society and academy of science on the planet agree. Among the actual bodies of those scientific societies and acadamies it is very difficult to find anyone who is onboard who does not depend on grant money in order to buy his daily bread.

If you believe the case for anthropogenic global warming is so strong, then you won't mind posting a single piece of hard, observable, repeatable evidence that proves an unequivocal link between the activites of man and the changing global climate.

Failing to do that, you have effectively proven my point. AGW is about money and political power, not science and the proof of that statement is in the absolute lack of a single shred of the evidence I just asked for.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

There's plenty more evidence in the Met Office report to support global warming. But the question from critics remains: how can we be sure this isn't just a natural phenomenon? Scientists haven't done a good enough job of communicating how they distinguish human versus natural influences, says Hegerl. The answer lies in climate models — massive computer simulations that allow the scientists to project climate effects in various scenarios, including those in which humans do not emit any greenhouses at all. "We go out of our way to check out other explanations — by assuming it's all explained by solar activity, or by solar activity plus volcanoes, or by combinations of any of the other natural forcings known to affect climate," says Hegerl.

According to the models, none of those combinations can produce the climate patterns currently being observed in the real world. Add the greenhouse gases that we know humans are generating (and which we've known since the 1800s tend to warm the Earth, all other things being equal), and the simulations finally come close to matching the real world. Its possible, albeit far-fetched, that the simulations are defective. It is even less possible that all of them (and there are many) are defective in the direction of overstating humanity's contribution to warming.

Report: The Case for Global Warming Stronger Than Ever - TIME

So much for the skeptic/denier meme that climate scientists aren't considering other sources of warming.

 

[skookerasbil]

The question in the survey was how serious is the threat of global warming to you and your family. Global warming is a serious threat to future generations, not the current generation. Today, people are concerned more with current economic conditions and less concerned about the world at the end of this century. However, from this survey it's pretty clear that in spite of the current economic problems the developed nations are concerned.

It's for the children right? Its always for the children. When you can't rationally justify what you want to do, and the facts are stacked heavily against you, liberals always cry that it's for the children. How much more patheitc could you possibly be?

Not as pathetic as a fool like you that would throw away your children's future for your temporary luxury.

Yes, we do care for the future of our children and grandchildren. We realize that people like you do not.

Ray.....it really comes down to necessary tradeoffs. To go Manhattan Project into alternative energies dooms the future of our children as well. Its that simple. No home ownership.........no retirement fund........290 million people struggling to keep their heads above water. 100% certainty.

The majority of the people have come to the conclusion that we cant spend that kind of money, especially when so many of the projections by scientists have been off.........thus, the chosen necessary tradeoff by the public. I liken it to people trying to push the game of soccer in America. Its just never gonna happen.

I think too.......the bigger issue is, you dont spend that kind of money on 20th century technology. I am confident that over the next several decades, methods of energy development will look far different then they do in 2011 and people will laugh at the notion that there was a time some were seriously considering solar and wind as a viable solution.
Some of the technologies that will be developed this century will boggle the mind that will be akin to showing a Civil War soldier an M1 tank.

Of course, one thing is clear........the technology WONT be developed if governement keeps trying to force us to use bogus technologies.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvD8yvj2YoE]Woman Faints at President Obama's Inauguration 2009 - YouTube[/ame]

Global Warming makes people faint

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Excelsior!!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9wmczxnT3c]Al Gore Im Serial! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[konradv]

How much more patheitc could you possibly be?

Don't worry. Nobody's going to touch your record.

 

[Old Rocks]

There's plenty more evidence in the Met Office report to support global warming. But the question from critics remains: how can we be sure this isn't just a natural phenomenon? Scientists haven't done a good enough job of communicating how they distinguish human versus natural influences, says Hegerl. The answer lies in climate models — massive computer simulations that allow the scientists to project climate effects in various scenarios, including those in which humans do not emit any greenhouses at all. "We go out of our way to check out other explanations — by assuming it's all explained by solar activity, or by solar activity plus volcanoes, or by combinations of any of the other natural forcings known to affect climate," says Hegerl.

According to the models, none of those combinations can produce the climate patterns currently being observed in the real world. Add the greenhouse gases that we know humans are generating (and which we've known since the 1800s tend to warm the Earth, all other things being equal), and the simulations finally come close to matching the real world. Its possible, albeit far-fetched, that the simulations are defective. It is even less possible that all of them (and there are many) are defective in the direction of overstating humanity's contribution to warming.

Report: The Case for Global Warming Stronger Than Ever - TIME

So much for the skeptic/denier meme that climate scientists aren't considering other sources of warming.

konradv- I think you are mistaken in your belief that no one could come up with a model that explains the present climate conditions without CO2 being the major driving force. the current models were written to emphysize CO2's effects and they do. mind you I dont believe that models that could be written to emphysize other factors would be any more reliable than the one we have now, just different.

There are only two ways that the atmosphere and oceans on the surface of the earth can warm up. One is an increase in the Total Solar Iradiance, the other is an increase in the retention of that heat.

The Earth reflects much of the TSI it receives from the sun. And radiates some of the heat away. As early as 1820, Joseph Fourier calculated that between the albedo of the Earth and the radiation of the heat at the surface, the Earth should have the oceans frozen nearly to the equator. He correctly hypothesized that something in the atmosphere was absorbing the heat. In 1858, Tyndall of England did the first mapping of the absorption spectra of greenhouse gases, water vapor, CO2, CH4, ect.

In the last 50 years, there has been a slight decline in the TSI. Yet, we have been rapidly warming. That leaves only an increase in the absorption of the reflected and radiated heat by our atmosphere to explain the increase in temperature. So, how would that occur?

In the last 150 years, by the burning of fossil fuels, we have increased the CO2 content of our atmosphere by 40%. We also have increased the CH4 by 150%.

Pretty damned simple, except for the many simpletons on this board.

We are in the start of the cooling period in the Milankovic Cycles, we have a decreased TSI, but we are rapidly warming. Every decade is warmer than the last. The only factor that would increase warming is the increase in GHGs in the atmosphere.

The simplicity is there. But the politics of preventing the inevitable results of a rapid warming and climate change is too great to address the problem. Too much money would be lost to the very wealthy of this nation and others. So we will do the grand experiment. At what point does the consequences become so great that even the willfully blind can no long deny the problem? And, realizing that no matter what we do, there is 30 to 50 more years of warming in the pipeline because of the lag in the warming of the oceans, that is how long we have to see how far the changes in climate will go.

 

[konradv]

There's plenty more evidence in the Met Office report to support global warming. But the question from critics remains: how can we be sure this isn't just a natural phenomenon? Scientists haven't done a good enough job of communicating how they distinguish human versus natural influences, says Hegerl. The answer lies in climate models — massive computer simulations that allow the scientists to project climate effects in various scenarios, including those in which humans do not emit any greenhouses at all. "We go out of our way to check out other explanations — by assuming it's all explained by solar activity, or by solar activity plus volcanoes, or by combinations of any of the other natural forcings known to affect climate," says Hegerl.

According to the models, none of those combinations can produce the climate patterns currently being observed in the real world. Add the greenhouse gases that we know humans are generating (and which we've known since the 1800s tend to warm the Earth, all other things being equal), and the simulations finally come close to matching the real world. Its possible, albeit far-fetched, that the simulations are defective. It is even less possible that all of them (and there are many) are defective in the direction of overstating humanity's contribution to warming.

Report: The Case for Global Warming Stronger Than Ever - TIME

So much for the skeptic/denier meme that climate scientists aren't considering other sources of warming.

A computer world ONLY is as good as the data programed into it. Let me give you a few things we CAN NOT do or do not know right now.

Science can not accurately predict how and when clouds will form, nor what types.

No world generated by the computer can recreate what we KNOW HAS happened with any accuracy. even with all the KNOWN data for that event and dates.

Science can not figure out what makes weather. They can FOLLOW it and predict what will happen with a bit of accuracy out for about a week. BUT they can not predict when and how those highs and lows will form with any accuracy EXCEPT based on OBSERVED weather conditions.

That may ALL be true, but we're talking CLIMATE, not weather! The data and all the computer simulations show temps going UP to varying degrees and no other climate forcer other than man's contribution, explains the rise. The skeptics/deniers like to claim that climatologists aren't taking natural cycles into account (laughable, really), when the truth is it's they who want to ignore man's contribution.

 

[konradv]

There's plenty more evidence in the Met Office report to support global warming. But the question from critics remains: how can we be sure this isn't just a natural phenomenon? Scientists haven't done a good enough job of communicating how they distinguish human versus natural influences, says Hegerl. The answer lies in climate models — massive computer simulations that allow the scientists to project climate effects in various scenarios, including those in which humans do not emit any greenhouses at all. "We go out of our way to check out other explanations — by assuming it's all explained by solar activity, or by solar activity plus volcanoes, or by combinations of any of the other natural forcings known to affect climate," says Hegerl.

According to the models, none of those combinations can produce the climate patterns currently being observed in the real world. Add the greenhouse gases that we know humans are generating (and which we've known since the 1800s tend to warm the Earth, all other things being equal), and the simulations finally come close to matching the real world. Its possible, albeit far-fetched, that the simulations are defective. It is even less possible that all of them (and there are many) are defective in the direction of overstating humanity's contribution to warming.

Report: The Case for Global Warming Stronger Than Ever - TIME

So much for the skeptic/denier meme that climate scientists aren't considering other sources of warming.

konradv- I think you are mistaken in your belief that no one could come up with a model that explains the present climate conditions without CO2 being the major driving force. the current models were written to emphysize CO2's effects and they do. mind you I dont believe that models that could be written to emphysize other factors would be any more reliable than the one we have now, just different.

I think you're mistaken in saying it's my belief. It's the belief of most climate scientists. If what you say about this model is true, show me the one that demonstrates it isn't man that's driving warming. If you're going to make that sort of claim, shouldn't you give us a cite. If you can't, isn't your statement more like wishful thinking, than actual fact?

 

[Old Rocks]

Practically every scientific society and academy of science on the planet agree that the planet is warming and man is the likely cause. Not being a conspiracy theorist, I don't need to know any more and frankly I don't know why I'm wasting my time replying to this stupid post.

Correction, the political heads of practically every scientific society and academy of science on the planet agree. Among the actual bodies of those scientific societies and acadamies it is very difficult to find anyone who is onboard who does not depend on grant money in order to buy his daily bread.

If you believe the case for anthropogenic global warming is so strong, then you won't mind posting a single piece of hard, observable, repeatable evidence that proves an unequivocal link between the activites of man and the changing global climate.

Failing to do that, you have effectively proven my point. AGW is about money and political power, not science and the proof of that statement is in the absolute lack of a single shred of the evidence I just asked for.

You have been given the evidence many times. The fact that you are in denial concerning what the real scientists have observed and presented evidence for, changes the evidence and observations not one whit. Simply shows your determination to remain willfully ignorant.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There's plenty more evidence in the Met Office report to support global warming. But the question from critics remains: how can we be sure this isn't just a natural phenomenon? Scientists haven't done a good enough job of communicating how they distinguish human versus natural influences, says Hegerl. The answer lies in climate models — massive computer simulations that allow the scientists to project climate effects in various scenarios, including those in which humans do not emit any greenhouses at all. "We go out of our way to check out other explanations — by assuming it's all explained by solar activity, or by solar activity plus volcanoes, or by combinations of any of the other natural forcings known to affect climate," says Hegerl.

According to the models, none of those combinations can produce the climate patterns currently being observed in the real world. Add the greenhouse gases that we know humans are generating (and which we've known since the 1800s tend to warm the Earth, all other things being equal), and the simulations finally come close to matching the real world. Its possible, albeit far-fetched, that the simulations are defective. It is even less possible that all of them (and there are many) are defective in the direction of overstating humanity's contribution to warming.

Report: The Case for Global Warming Stronger Than Ever - TIME

So much for the skeptic/denier meme that climate scientists aren't considering other sources of warming.

konradv- I think you are mistaken in your belief that no one could come up with a model that explains the present climate conditions without CO2 being the major driving force. the current models were written to emphysize CO2's effects and they do. mind you I dont believe that models that could be written to emphysize other factors would be any more reliable than the one we have now, just different.

There are only two ways that the atmosphere and oceans on the surface of the earth can warm up. One is an increase in the Total Solar Iradiance, the other is an increase in the retention of that heat.

The Earth reflects much of the TSI it receives from the sun. And radiates some of the heat away. As early as 1820, Joseph Fourier calculated that between the albedo of the Earth and the radiation of the heat at the surface, the Earth should have the oceans frozen nearly to the equator. He correctly hypothesized that something in the atmosphere was absorbing the heat. In 1858, Tyndall of England did the first mapping of the absorption spectra of greenhouse gases, water vapor, CO2, CH4, ect.

In the last 50 years, there has been a slight decline in the TSI. Yet, we have been rapidly warming. That leaves only an increase in the absorption of the reflected and radiated heat by our atmosphere to explain the increase in temperature. So, how would that occur?

In the last 150 years, by the burning of fossil fuels, we have increased the CO2 content of our atmosphere by 40%. We also have increased the CH4 by 150%.

Pretty damned simple, except for the many simpletons on this board.

We are in the start of the cooling period in the Milankovic Cycles, we have a decreased TSI, but we are rapidly warming. Every decade is warmer than the last. The only factor that would increase warming is the increase in GHGs in the atmosphere.

The simplicity is there. But the politics of preventing the inevitable results of a rapid warming and climate change is too great to address the problem. Too much money would be lost to the very wealthy of this nation and others. So we will do the grand experiment. At what point does the consequences become so great that even the willfully blind can no long deny the problem? And, realizing that no matter what we do, there is 30 to 50 more years of warming in the pipeline because of the lag in the warming of the oceans, that is how long we have to see how far the changes in climate will go.

And yet there is still not a single repeatable laboratory experiment that reproduces those results at the amounts indicated.

 

[PredFan]

Global Warming, aka Climate Change is the largest scam ever conducted.

If AGW were true then there would be no need for lies. Yet there is fraud, deciet, coercion, and tons of political and economic pressure. If it were true, the facts would speak for themselves, and there would never be any of the damning e-mails that have come to light.

It's a scam folks, plain and simple.

 

[Si modo]

Yes. Time Magazine...that long-honored scientific journal.

 

[konradv]

Global Warming, aka Climate Change is the largest scam ever conducted.

If AGW were true then there would be no need for lies. Yet there is fraud, deciet, coercion, and tons of political and economic pressure. If it were true, the facts would speak for themselves, and there would never be any of the damning e-mails that have come to light.

It's a scam folks, plain and simple.

Who said there were lies? That's just propaganda. There may be differences in interpretation, but the REAL lie is that there isn't something going on or that we can't possibly have anything to do with it. How can that be true, when man puts out more CO2 in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year?!?!