Has the left become emotionally attached to climate change theory?

[justoffal]

Yeah um.....if you're talking about ice cover then maybe you should really be asking the question... " Why were the Poles liquid several times in the past million or so years?

Nah....I don't suppose you'd be interested in that...Doiesn't fit the narrative.

JO

 

[konradv]

The foundation of the left is that of emotion.

It's always emotional with the left. They went from praising science and facts, to emotionalism full of tears and whining. What happened?

I mean it's really freaking annoying.

Anyone who argues against climate change, would argue gravity plays no role in plane crashes.

That's how ridiculous your argument is.

I've seen the "evidence" for climate change and it's not convincing.

Do the world a favor and go sky diving without a parachute. Thanks in advance.

You're not convinced that CO2 can absorb IR radiation? All you'd have to "see" is a simple spectrographic experiment where increasing amounts of CO2 are added, resulting in increased absorption of IR radiation. Take off your blinders. Your objections aren't scientific at all, they're political.

 

[konradv]

Yeah um.....if you're talking about ice cover then maybe you should really be asking the question... " Why were the Poles liquid several times in the past million or so years?

Nah....I don't suppose you'd be interested in that...Doiesn't fit the narrative.

You're the one with a "narrative", because you're ignoring the time factor. AGW theory concerns what's been happening over the last ~200 years, not what happened over hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Of course, over the long haul things have changed many times, but that's really irrelevant to the discussion of why CO2 levels have increased so much in recent times and what that could be doing to the climate.

 

[justoffal]

Which is exactly what makes it so completely and totally absurd.

Weather reserch is less than 130 years old. The climate pattern is eons old. Our very best guess will never be anything more than a guess.

And I ask once again...

By what mechanism did our entire Globe come out of the last ice age?

 

[JoeBlam]

I've seen the "evidence" for climate change and it's not convincing.

Do the world a favor and go sky diving without a parachute. Thanks in advance.

Climate change is not a debatable issue.

It's time to embrace the horror.

 

[Old Rocks]

The foundation of the left is that of emotion.

It's always emotional with the left. They went from praising science and facts, to emotionalism full of tears and whining. What happened?

I mean it's really freaking annoying.

Anyone who argues against climate change, would argue gravity plays no role in plane crashes.

That's how ridiculous your argument is.

I've seen the "evidence" for climate change and it's not convincing.

Do the world a favor and go sky diving without a parachute. Thanks in advance.

No, you have rejected the evidence from scientists all over the world without ever reading any of it. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

This is the history of the investigation of the effects of GHGs in the atmosphere from the largest Scientific Society on Earth, the American Institulte of Physics;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[Old Rocks]

I've seen the "evidence" for climate change and it's not convincing.

Do the world a favor and go sky diving without a parachute. Thanks in advance.

Climate change is not a debatable issue.

It's time to embrace the horror.

It's called July. It's called fucking hot. Get over it.

And what you just stated is called idiocy, and you will never get over it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Which is exactly what makes it so completely and totally absurd.

Weather reserch is less than 130 years old. The climate pattern is eons old. Our very best guess will never be anything more than a guess.

And I ask once again...

By what mechanism did our entire Globe come out of the last ice age?

Damn, here we go again, competing the education of someone that apparently never finished high school.

Weather research may be only 130 years old, but climate records, good ones, go back at least 800,000 years, from ice cores.

The cause of the ice ages and inter-glacials is the Milankovic Cycles, by which we should be slowly descending into an ice age, rather that very rapidly heating up.

The present climate pattern is less than two million years old. And prior to that, there have been other climate patterns, determined by the position of the tectonic plates, amount of GHGs in the atmosphere, and solar output.

There have been several periods in the past when there was a rapid increase or decrease in GHGs in the atmosphere. These invariably resulted in an extinction event, large and small.

Endangered Species International

 

[mamooth]

The left is simply attached to reality. The science isn't political. Or wasn't, until the right deliberately made it political.

The more interesting issue is the right's emotional attachment to global warming denial. One currently can't be a member of the right-wing-fringe-cult in good standing without embracing a crazy conspiracy theory about how global warming is a big fraud being used to push socialism. Failure to mouth that mantra gets one kicked out of cult. Since banishment from the herd would be like a death sentence to a right-wing-fringe-cultist, they all mouth the conspiracy theory.

 

[Vox]

No. the left has found a fountain of potential taxpayers money to get rich on.

nothing new under the sun.

there is no man-made climate change and never was.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yeah um.....if you're talking about ice cover then maybe you should really be asking the question... " Why were the Poles liquid several times in the past million or so years?

Nah....I don't suppose you'd be interested in that...Doiesn't fit the narrative.

You're the one with a "narrative", because you're ignoring the time factor. AGW theory concerns what's been happening over the last ~200 years, not what happened over hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Of course, over the long haul things have changed many times, but that's really irrelevant to the discussion of why CO2 levels have increased so much in recent times and what that could be doing to the climate.

Actually, if you really were interested in an answer, Offal, you would have looked up information such as is contained in this graph;

http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.e...ins/imagemanager/files/Kremlik/500million.jpg

If one looks at the graph, you realize that CO2 is very low at present compared to the historic amounts. Were you to investigate this in finer detail, you would see several extinction periods where there was rapid changes, up or down, in the level of GHGs in the atmosphere. These were from natural causes, increasing or decreasing the GHGs, but the physics are the same, whether the GHGs are man caused, or from clathrates.

 

[Katzndogz]

When clinging to the hoax of global warming denies the very reality that it is indeed a hoax, it has to be emotional.

2899 Record cold temps vs 667 record warm temps in U.S. ? From July 24 to August 19 | Climate Depot

2899 Record cold temps vs 667 record warm temps

Via: 2899 Record cold temps vs 667 record warm temps

 

[Vox]

Yeah um.....if you're talking about ice cover then maybe you should really be asking the question... " Why were the Poles liquid several times in the past million or so years?

Nah....I don't suppose you'd be interested in that...Doiesn't fit the narrative.

You're the one with a "narrative", because you're ignoring the time factor. AGW theory concerns what's been happening over the last ~200 years, not what happened over hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Of course, over the long haul things have changed many times, but that's really irrelevant to the discussion of why CO2 levels have increased so much in recent times and what that could be doing to the climate.

except GW has not been happening for the last 200 years.

30 years ago the scare was - the global cooling.

and for the last decade there is not much warming as well.

everything is a normal cycle and has nothing to do with anthropomorphic activity. AT ALL

 

[Old Rocks]

No. the left has found a fountain of potential taxpayers money to get rich on.

nothing new under the sun.

there is no man-made climate change and never was.

And you scientific basis for this blanket statement is?

American Geophysical Union Releases Revised Position Statement on Climate Change

American Geophysical Union Releases Revised Position Statement on Climate Change

Statement Highlights How Human Activities Are Changing Earth’s Climate and the Harmful Impact of that Change on Society

5 August 2013
AGU Release No. 13-38

WASHINGTON, DC—The American Geophysical Union today released a revised version of its position statement on climate change. Titled “Human-induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action,” the statement declares that “humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years” and that ”rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” AGU develops position statements to provide scientific expertise on significant policy issues related to Earth and space science. These statements are limited to positions that are within the range of available geophysical data or norms of legitimate scientific debate.

”AGU has a responsibility to help policy makers and the public understand the impacts our science can have on public health and safety, economic stability and growth, and national security,” said Gerald North, chair of AGU’s Climate Change Position Statement Review Panel. ”Because our understanding of climate change and its impacts on the world around us has advanced so significantly in the last few years, it was vitally important that AGU update its position statement. The new statement is more reflective of the current state of scientific knowledge. It also calls greater attention to the specific societal impacts we face and actions that can diminish the threat.”

AGU’s position statements are renewed every 4 years. The climate change position statement was first adopted in December 2003. It was then revised and reaffirmed in December 2007, and again in February 2012.

AGU’s Position Statement Task Force reviews each statement to determine if it should be renewed as is, modified, or eliminated. In March 2012, the Task Force determined that the climate change position statement would require updating prior to renewal.

With input from AGU’s Council, relevant section and focus group leadership, the Position Statement Task Force, and staff, a panel of experts was subsequently formed to review the statement and make any necessary modifications. A draft of the updated statement was printed in Eos in November 2012, and all AGU members were encouraged to submit comments. After further revisions by the review panel based on the comments received, the statement was then adopted by the AGU Council in June 2013 and by the AGU Board in August 2013.

The newly approved statement will be reported to the AGU membership in the 20 August 2013 issue of Eos, the source of record for all AGU proceedings.

The 14-person panel that reviewed and updated the position statement included the following:
•Amy Clement, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami (approve)
•John Farrington, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (approve)
•Susan Joy Hassol, Climate Communication (approve)
•Robert Hirsch, U.S. Geological Survey (approve)
•Peter Huybers, Harvard University (approve)
•Peter Lemke, Alfred Wegener Institute (approve)
•Gerald North, Texas A&M University (approve, panel chair)
•Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton University (approve)
•Roger Pielke Sr., University of Colorado Boulder (dissent)
•Ben Santer, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (approve)
•Gavin Schmidt, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NASA (approve)
•Leonard A. Smith, London School of Economics (approve)
•Eric Sundquist, U.S. Geological Survey (approve)
•Pieter Tans, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (approve)

Learn more about the revised statement, the previous statement, and all AGU position statements

 

[Old Rocks]

When clinging to the hoax of global warming denies the very reality that it is indeed a hoax, it has to be emotional.

2899 Record cold temps vs 667 record warm temps in U.S. ? From July 24 to August 19 | Climate Depot

2899 Record cold temps vs 667 record warm temps

Via: 2899 Record cold temps vs 667 record warm temps

TS.3.1.1 Global Average Temperatures - AR4 WGI Technical Summary

2012 was the hottest year ever recorded in the continental US. But the continental US makes up only 2% of the Earth's surface, it was the 9th warmest year recorded in instrumental records for the Earth as a whole.

If one looks at the record for the past 150 years, you see many ups and downs. However, if you draw a mean line, it is up. And, if you draw a mean line for the last 50 years, it is really up.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yeah um.....if you're talking about ice cover then maybe you should really be asking the question... " Why were the Poles liquid several times in the past million or so years?

Nah....I don't suppose you'd be interested in that...Doiesn't fit the narrative.

You're the one with a "narrative", because you're ignoring the time factor. AGW theory concerns what's been happening over the last ~200 years, not what happened over hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Of course, over the long haul things have changed many times, but that's really irrelevant to the discussion of why CO2 levels have increased so much in recent times and what that could be doing to the climate.

except GW has not been happening for the last 200 years.

30 years ago the scare was - the global cooling.

and for the last decade there is not much warming as well.

everything is a normal cycle and has nothing to do with anthropomorphic activity. AT ALL

Only if your were ignorant enough to get your science from Time and Newsweek.

They predicted an ice age in the 70's

They predicted an ice age in the 70's

Posted on 24 September 2007 by John Cook

The argument "they predicted an ice age in the 70's" has barnstormed into the Top Ten thanks largely to an Investor's Business Daily article claiming James Hansen believed we were heading for an ice age. This is based on the 1971 paper Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate (Rasool 1971) that speculated if aerosol levels increase 6 to 8 fold, it could trigger an ice age.

However, James Hansen wasn't an author of the Rasool paper and never made any ice age predictions. So what was his involvement? According to Investor Business Daily, "Aiding Rasool's research was a 'computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen'." [ UPDATE - James Hansen explains in more detail about his program used in Rasool's paper ] As Tim Lambert succintly puts it at Deltoid, "By their logic, if I borrow a pen from you, you must agree with everything I write with your pen."

Putting James Hansen aside, the whole logic that "climate scientists got it wrong in the 70's so they must be wrong now" is a flawed ad hominem argument that says nothing about the current science of anthropogenic global warming. Is it really appropriate to compare a single study in the 70's to the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming today?

National Academy of Sciences - now and then

The most comprehensive study on the subject (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was by the US National Academy of Sciences. It's basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…"

Contrast this with the US National Academy of Science's current position: "there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action." Incidentally, this is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom

 

[konradv]

When clinging to the hoax of global warming denies the very reality that it is indeed a hoax, it has to be emotional.

2899 Record cold temps vs 667 record warm temps in U.S. ? From July 24 to August 19 | Climate Depot

2899 Record cold temps vs 667 record warm temps

Via: 2899 Record cold temps vs 667 record warm temps

That's weather, not climate. When you have increasing amounts of a substance in the atmosphere which is able to absorb IR radiation, how can you expect anything but a warming trend? If there's a hoax involved, it's the deniers' claim that they actually understand and/or care about the science

 

[justoffal]

There is no question that their data collection is polarized...( oooh! I jsut made a funny! ) and cherry picked to support their presuppositions. Buth then there is a larger and heavier 800 pound gorilla in the room. I will repeat the queston that no lefty has dared to even attempt an answer to.


" By what Mechanism did our planet come out of the last Ice age ? ".......

I have been throwing this at them for nearly two years alll over the internet and so far no takers.

JO

 

[justoffal]

Which is exactly what makes it so completely and totally absurd.

Weather reserch is less than 130 years old. The climate pattern is eons old. Our very best guess will never be anything more than a guess.

And I ask once again...

By what mechanism did our entire Globe come out of the last ice age?

Damn, here we go again, competing the education of someone that apparently never finished high school.

Weather research may be only 130 years old, but climate records, good ones, go back at least 800,000 years, from ice cores.

The cause of the ice ages and inter-glacials is the Milankovic Cycles, by which we should be slowly descending into an ice age, rather that very rapidly heating up.

The present climate pattern is less than two million years old. And prior to that, there have been other climate patterns, determined by the position of the tectonic plates, amount of GHGs in the atmosphere, and solar output.

There have been several periods in the past when there was a rapid increase or decrease in GHGs in the atmosphere. These invariably resulted in an extinction event, large and small.

Endangered Species International

Nothing you have stated is anything but pure conjecture. I am familiar with the Ice Core controversies and the raging arguments that have never ceased pertaining to them
I don't see how you feel comforatable citing any of that as Bible Fact but then again you are free to choose but of course choice does not substitue for scientific fact.

The one fact that is easy enough to determine is that the Globe warmed up to come out of the last ice age by whatever mechanisms we choose to ideintify whehter it be an identfiable cycle or simply the hot water bottle of Gaia is actaully irrelevant...what is relveant is that it happened without Anthropgenci contributions and there is no way to fix that incosistency as it remains the single largest hole in the pro AGW arguments. See...this is called critical thinking. Something that flies right out the window when you are atop several layers of soap boxes constructed of overblown degree lettering.

More to the point. Unnlike true science....AGW worshipers are totally blind to the Solar Cycles treating them as if they are irrelevant. They are also blind to general rules water chemistry despite their so called expertise.

I submit to you that as the solar cycles change so changes the co2 concentration of our atmsphere base on the variable c02 colubiity of the largest co2 sink on the planet....the unified ocieans.

YOU ARE A WILLING IDIOT.....


JO

 

[konradv]

There is no question that their data collection is polarized...( oooh! I jsut made a funny! ) and cherry picked to support their presuppositions. Buth then there is a larger and heavier 800 pound gorilla in the room. I will repeat the queston that no lefty has dared to even attempt an answer to.


" By what Mechanism did our planet come out of the last Ice age ? ".......

I have been throwing this at them for nearly two years alll over the internet and so far no takers.

While that may be a legitimate question for an Earth History class, it's irrelevant to the question of AGW and why we've seen a rapid rise in GHGs over the last two centuries. The same result can have different causes at different times. Also, you continue to ignore the time course, i.e. 100s of thousands to millions of years vs. ~200. You're the one doing the cherry-picking by opnly looking at results and equating them, when they have no real relationship to each other.