'Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong'

[Procrustes Stretched]

2. A coherent explanation of how CO2 is both simultaneously exiting the oceans in an imaginary "Feedback Loop" and saturating the oceans thereby causing them to turn "acidic" because the two concepts are mutually exclusive.

Past Climate Cycles: Ice Age Speculations

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Ideological conservatives disbelieve claims that fracking can cause earthquakes because the science is not clear?

Ideological conservatives disbelieve the claims about man made contributions to global warming because the science isn't clear?

One thing does seem very clear, however; science is only beginning to get a handle on the big picture of global warming.

Findings like these tell us it's too early to know for sure if man's impact is affecting things at the political cry of "alarming rates."

We may simply be going through another natural cycle of warmer and colder times - one that's been observed through a scientific analysis of the Earth to be naturally occurring for hundreds of thousands of years. -

MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts scientific data | TG Daily

Do ideological conservatives believe man made contributions to the atmosphere have a negative effect? Do they believe that the effect is just not what most scientists say it is?

When do a majority of scientist have more credibility than a small minority of scientists?

If I had known how many trained scientific experts there were here @ USMB, I'd have done my homework.



The funny thing is people here are debating the minutiae of larger arguments and getting caught up in feedback loops of their own making.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

2. A coherent explanation of how CO2 is both simultaneously exiting the oceans in an imaginary "Feedback Loop" and saturating the oceans thereby causing them to turn "acidic" because the two concepts are mutually exclusive.

Past Climate Cycles: Ice Age Speculations

The Discovery of Global Warming - A History

Been there, done that.

OR trots that one out and had you bother to read it you'd see it doesn't answer either point especially how CO2 is both exiting the oceans in a "Feedback Loop" and entering the oceans turning them "acidic"

It's simple, Dante, you can't find an experiment showing how a .01% change causes "Global Warming" because there aren't any.

You can't provide an explanation of the "Feedback Loop/Acidification" Quandary because the Warmer just make it up as they go and trapped themselves with a mutually exclusive Consensus steeled science stupidity

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So we have these MIT scientists who do experiments ... ...

MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts scientific data
Posted on October 30, 2008 - 09:55 by Rick C. Hodgin

MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts scientific data | TG Daily


-- -- --

Climate change odds much worse than thought
New analysis shows warming could be double previous estimates
David Chandler, MIT News Office
May 19, 2009

Climate change odds much worse than thought - MIT News Office
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

----------------

and we have the noted contrarian scientist Richard Lindzen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lindzen hypothesized that the Earth may act like an infrared iris. A sea surface temperature increase in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth's atmosphere.[6] This hypothesis suggests a negative feedback which would counter the effects of CO2 warming by lowering the climate sensitivity. Satellite data from CERES has led researchers investigating Lindzen's theory to conclude that the Iris effect would instead warm the atmosphere.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So we have these MIT scientists who do experiments ... ...

MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts scientific data
Posted on October 30, 2008 - 09:55 by Rick C. Hodgin

MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts scientific data | TG Daily


-- -- --

Climate change odds much worse than thought
New analysis shows warming could be double previous estimates
David Chandler, MIT News Office
May 19, 2009

Climate change odds much worse than thought - MIT News Office
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

----------------

and we have the noted contrarian scientist Richard Lindzen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lindzen hypothesized that the Earth may act like an infrared iris. A sea surface temperature increase in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth's atmosphere.[6] This hypothesis suggests a negative feedback which would counter the effects of CO2 warming by lowering the climate sensitivity. Satellite data from CERES has led researchers investigating Lindzen's theory to conclude that the Iris effect would instead warm the atmosphere.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change
S. Robert Lichter, Ph.D, April 24, 2008

STATS survey of experts reveals changing scientific opinion on global warming, extent of pressure to play up or down threat.

STATS: STATS ARTICLES 2008

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

While some people cling to partisan or ideology driven beliefs, others consider the consequences of sailing to ends of the earth and finding it round and not flat. Discovery opens up a new chapter in human existence.

William D. Nordhaus

"Yale economist rebuts sceptics' arguments, point by point. The earth is getting warmer. Due to carbon dioxide pollution. Humans are responsible. The science is legitimate. It's a bad situation. It's worth taking action."

Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong by William D. Nordhaus | The New York Review of Books

I live in Chicago.
Warmer is better.

How many trillions should we waste to reduce temperatures by 0.2 degrees in 2080?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And nobody has said that it would. What has been pointed out is that in a world with 7 billion people and undependable weather, agriculture will be affected in an undesirable manner. And there will be starvation. In the last two years we have seen major damage to crops in various nations due to extreme weather events. By the figures of the world's two biggest re-insurance companies, Swiss Re, and Munich Re, the costs of extreme weather events has increased by a factor of five from 1970 to today.

Plants grow better with higher CO2 levels.
Warmer weather lengthens growing seasons.

 

[Big Fitz]

As a long time cyclist, there is no need for someone to tell me the climate is changing. I know that.

If a scientist says so, then it is true, so according to some of the replies. They do.

....

You cycling anecdote aside (so scientific, ), and plenty of scientists say there is no evidence that any global warming is due to man's influence.

Stalemate.

.... If you wanted to prove the earth was round to a primitive would you two walk around the earth. Would that prove it.

....

Interesting you say that. Because of the flaw of conclusions based on consensus, many did believe that the Earth was flat. Thus, any conclusion based on some sort of imagined consensus is a flaw - nothing but a belief. Conclusions based on data and observations is how science is done, among other things that you clearly haven't grasped.

....If someone wants to believe or deny something, no argument, no matter how complete will convince them. Consider conspiracy thinkers.

As far as a demonstration that is below.


"We challenged two leading British scientists to try to prove the science of global warming to a group of people whose views very loosely reflect national opinions.

And, as if that wasn't tough enough we asked them to do it in my kitchen.

Can they do it? Well, you can see for yourself."

BBC - Ethical Man blog: In praise of scepticism

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The IPCC is a policy group. Policy and science are not the same thing, nor are activism and science. Now you know.

Speaking of Anecdotes, that's how the IPCC arrived at the conclusion of the glaciers melting. From interviews of ice climbing guides in Nepal interviewed by a Geography student and WWF member, their opinion regarding declining business and changing nature of the glaciers. Of course, then they never bothered to double check the data.

 

[Big Fitz]

And nobody has said that it would. What has been pointed out is that in a world with 7 billion people and undependable weather, agriculture will be affected in an undesirable manner. And there will be starvation. In the last two years we have seen major damage to crops in various nations due to extreme weather events. By the figures of the world's two biggest re-insurance companies, Swiss Re, and Munich Re, the costs of extreme weather events has increased by a factor of five from 1970 to today.

Plants grow better with higher CO2 levels.
Warmer weather lengthens growing seasons.

A standard professional greenhouse gets best results at a CO2 concentration of 1400ppm. Where are we at again? 200ppm? 400ppm?

yeah. Not worried any time soon.

Oh and doesn't ocean acidification then effectively sequester CO2, but then outgasses it again to only be re-sequestered? Umm yeah. I'm noticing a feedback loop too.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

While some people cling to partisan or ideology driven beliefs, others consider the consequences of sailing to ends of the earth and finding it round and not flat. Discovery opens up a new chapter in human existence.

William D. Nordhaus

"Yale economist rebuts sceptics' arguments, point by point. The earth is getting warmer. Due to carbon dioxide pollution. Humans are responsible. The science is legitimate. It's a bad situation. It's worth taking action."

Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong by William D. Nordhaus | The New York Review of Books

And others look at the science when discussing science, you hack.

You are an enemy of science, hack. Science is not determined by economists, hack.

Stop soiling science by politicizing it.

Oh boy, here we go again. Soiling science by politicizing it. All the while the dumb ass is politicizing it, and never, never refering to science.

Here is some real science. From the American Institute of Physics, a Scientific Society composed of Scientific Societies.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

From the American Geophysical Union;

AGU revises position on climate change

AGU revises position on climate change


WASHINGTON – A statement released on January 24 by the world’s largest scientific society of Earth and space scientists—the American Geophysical Union, or AGU—updates the organization’s position on climate change: the evidence for it, potential consequences from it, and how to respond to it.

The statement is the first revision since 2003 of the climate-change position of the AGU, which has a membership of 50,000 researchers, teachers, and students in 137 countries. The society adopted the statement at a meeting of AGU’s leadership body, the AGU Council, in San Francisco, California, on 14 December 2007. AGU position statements expire in four years, unless extended by the Council.

Following is the text of the revised statement (also available online at http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml).

Human Impacts on Climate

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.


###


Adopted by AGU Council, December, 2003

Revised and Reaffirmed, December, 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming.

Clearly out of balance. LOL!

Quick, let's waste a few trillion to reduce the temperature by 0.2 degrees!

 

[Big Fitz]

They don't know what properly balanced is. A Wooly Mammoth would probably think the Ice Age is properly balanced. A dinosaur would have said the Pleistocene was properly balanced. An eco-fascist thinks that if they're in power it's properly balanced.

 

[newpolitics]

And others look at the science when discussing science, you hack.

You are an enemy of science, hack. Science is not determined by economists, hack.

Stop soiling science by politicizing it.

Oh boy, here we go again. Soiling science by politicizing it. All the while the dumb ass is politicizing it, and never, never refering to science.

Here is some real science. From the American Institute of Physics, a Scientific Society composed of Scientific Societies.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

From the American Geophysical Union;

AGU revises position on climate change

AGU revises position on climate change


WASHINGTON – A statement released on January 24 by the world’s largest scientific society of Earth and space scientists—the American Geophysical Union, or AGU—updates the organization’s position on climate change: the evidence for it, potential consequences from it, and how to respond to it.

The statement is the first revision since 2003 of the climate-change position of the AGU, which has a membership of 50,000 researchers, teachers, and students in 137 countries. The society adopted the statement at a meeting of AGU’s leadership body, the AGU Council, in San Francisco, California, on 14 December 2007. AGU position statements expire in four years, unless extended by the Council.

Following is the text of the revised statement (also available online at http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml).

Human Impacts on Climate

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.


###


Adopted by AGU Council, December, 2003

Revised and Reaffirmed, December, 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming.

Clearly out of balance. LOL!

Quick, let's waste a few trillion to reduce the temperature by 0.2 degrees!

You're the dumbass who has been negging me? BWAHAHAHAHA! You're clearly are stupid with a comment like this. You make conservatives so easy to make fun of.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Oh boy, here we go again. Soiling science by politicizing it. All the while the dumb ass is politicizing it, and never, never refering to science.

Here is some real science. From the American Institute of Physics, a Scientific Society composed of Scientific Societies.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

From the American Geophysical Union;

AGU revises position on climate change

AGU revises position on climate change


WASHINGTON – A statement released on January 24 by the world’s largest scientific society of Earth and space scientists—the American Geophysical Union, or AGU—updates the organization’s position on climate change: the evidence for it, potential consequences from it, and how to respond to it.

The statement is the first revision since 2003 of the climate-change position of the AGU, which has a membership of 50,000 researchers, teachers, and students in 137 countries. The society adopted the statement at a meeting of AGU’s leadership body, the AGU Council, in San Francisco, California, on 14 December 2007. AGU position statements expire in four years, unless extended by the Council.

Following is the text of the revised statement (also available online at http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml).

Human Impacts on Climate

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.


###


Adopted by AGU Council, December, 2003

Revised and Reaffirmed, December, 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming.

Clearly out of balance. LOL!

Quick, let's waste a few trillion to reduce the temperature by 0.2 degrees!

You're the dumbass who has been negging me? BWAHAHAHAHA! You're clearly are stupid with a comment like this. You make conservatives so easy to make fun of.

Yes, I've negged you once.
You failed English and science?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So we have these MIT scientists who do experiments ... ...

MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts scientific data
Posted on October 30, 2008 - 09:55 by Rick C. Hodgin

MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts scientific data | TG Daily


-- -- --

Climate change odds much worse than thought
New analysis shows warming could be double previous estimates
David Chandler, MIT News Office
May 19, 2009

Climate change odds much worse than thought - MIT News Office
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

----------------

and we have the noted contrarian scientist Richard Lindzen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lindzen hypothesized that the Earth may act like an infrared iris. A sea surface temperature increase in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth's atmosphere.[6] This hypothesis suggests a negative feedback which would counter the effects of CO2 warming by lowering the climate sensitivity. Satellite data from CERES has led researchers investigating Lindzen's theory to conclude that the Iris effect would instead warm the atmosphere.

Those aren't repeatable experiments, Dear

 

[westwall]

Ideological conservatives disbelieve claims that fracking can cause earthquakes because the science is not clear?

Ideological conservatives disbelieve the claims about man made contributions to global warming because the science isn't clear?

One thing does seem very clear, however; science is only beginning to get a handle on the big picture of global warming.

Findings like these tell us it's too early to know for sure if man's impact is affecting things at the political cry of "alarming rates."

We may simply be going through another natural cycle of warmer and colder times - one that's been observed through a scientific analysis of the Earth to be naturally occurring for hundreds of thousands of years. -







MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts scientific data | TG Daily

Do ideological conservatives believe man made contributions to the atmosphere have a negative effect? Do they believe that the effect is just not what most scientists say it is?

When do a majority of scientist have more credibility than a small minority of scientists?

If I had known how many trained scientific experts there were here @ USMB, I'd have done my homework.



The funny thing is people here are debating the minutiae of larger arguments and getting caught up in feedback loops of their own making.

Actually, the science isn't clear. The AGW supporters admit they have ne clear understanding of how clouds affect the climate. Coupled to the fact they also have no idea (and for the most part ignore it) water vapor, the dominant GHG by many orders of magnitude, and we are left with a science that relys almost completely on computer models.

When the empirical data doesn't conform to their models the MO is to alter the empirical data. That is not science, that is fraud. There is recent peer reviewed paper that shows clouds and water vapor to be a negative forcer which is the exact opposite of what the AGW supporters have claimed them to be.

That too is little reported.

http://junksciencearchive.com/Greenhouse/Earth-s_Climate_Engine.pdf

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And nobody has said that it would. What has been pointed out is that in a world with 7 billion people and undependable weather, agriculture will be affected in an undesirable manner. And there will be starvation. In the last two years we have seen major damage to crops in various nations due to extreme weather events. By the figures of the world's two biggest re-insurance companies, Swiss Re, and Munich Re, the costs of extreme weather events has increased by a factor of five from 1970 to today.

Global economy is also much bigger than it was in the 1970's, Decline Hider.

In 1970 Japan was synonymous with cheap plastic crap products, India was a third world backwater and China was yet another Progressive success where tens of million were starving and murdered and the living earning an average of nothing a day

 

[code1211]

So we have these MIT scientists who do experiments ... ...

MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts scientific data
Posted on October 30, 2008 - 09:55 by Rick C. Hodgin

MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts scientific data | TG Daily


-- -- --

Climate change odds much worse than thought
New analysis shows warming could be double previous estimates
David Chandler, MIT News Office
May 19, 2009

Climate change odds much worse than thought - MIT News Office
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

----------------

and we have the noted contrarian scientist Richard Lindzen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lindzen hypothesized that the Earth may act like an infrared iris. A sea surface temperature increase in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth's atmosphere.[6] This hypothesis suggests a negative feedback which would counter the effects of CO2 warming by lowering the climate sensitivity. Satellite data from CERES has led researchers investigating Lindzen's theory to conclude that the Iris effect would instead warm the atmosphere.

The guys from MIT are geniuses and there's just no getting around that fact. What is interesting is that they revise their prediction of the disaster that is upcoming due to the climate every year and every year the hurtful effects predicted are worse than the year before.

This shows a couple things:
1. Since the effects have in truth been getting less severe, they are all wrong up to now and
2. Every succeeding class demonstrates by way its own prediction that the previous class was wrong.

Interesting group this class of geniuses.