What the science says

[CrusaderFrank]

Reduce CO2 emissions. Did you think there was something else? And where the fuck did you not learn to write?

Can't you show us the lab work that controls for all variables except for CO2? No

For each 10ppm reduction in CO2 what's the expected decrease in temperature? Right, you have no answer

 

[Crick]

You asked me a question and I answered it. Now it's your turn. Do you really believe all of mainstream science, from scientists all over the world, different political opinions, different religions, different ethical positions, different goals, different personalities - are all involved in a massive secret conspiracy?

 

[Vastator]

Not all scientists are in agreement. Those are the facts. Scientific fact is not acquired through a voting process. It is arrived at through the process of elimination of competing theories.

 

[Crick]

And who is it that decides if a theory has been eliminated?

 

[Vastator]

And who is it that decides if a theory has been eliminated?

Dont try deflecting. You said all scientists from all countries, all religions, and all political opinions agree. And you are categorically wrong. They absolutely do not.

 

[Crick]

Deflecting? I am responding directly to your comment in the immediately preceding post. Do you not recall having just said "It is arrived at through the process of elimination of competing theories"?

At least 97% of all publishing climate scientists agree with the IPCC conclusion that human activities, to wit: GHG emissions and deforestation - are the primary cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years.

My comment containing "scientists all over the world, different political opinions, different religions, different ethical positions, different goals, different personalities" was a query concerning the common denier claim that all such scientists are involved in a conspiracy, a hoax; either to keep grant money flowing or to create a socialist state or to put humanity back in the stone age or to increase taxation or to increase the power of government. I certainly believe that scientists from all over the world and from all over the spectra of politics, religion, ethics and personality agree with the IPCC. For one thing, those are the people from whose work the IPCC's conclusions originate. For another, a large number of different surveys, polls and studies of such scientists and their work have clearly shown that to be the case. Of course there are climate scientists who reject the IPCC's bottom line: About one out of every 100 of them. Do you really think those few are more likely to be correct about all of this?

 

[Old Rocks]

And who is it that decides if a theory has been eliminated?

Dont try deflecting. You said all scientists from all countries, all religions, and all political opinions agree. And you are categorically wrong. They absolutely do not.

Yet so many do agree on the basics of AGW that there are no Scientific Societies arguing that it is not taking place. And all the National Science Academies of the world state that it is taking place. As do all the major Universities in the world.

And who do you have? A few scientists playing the contrarian role. Some of whom stood before Congress and argued that smoking tobacco was not harmful. LOL

 

[Vastator]

I find your claim of 97% very, very dubious. And as you said; the people who agree with the IPCC, are the scientists who provided the information from which the IPCC, has drawn thier conclusions. Do you really expect these scientists to dispute their own provided findings? Would kinda dry up that grant money; dontcha' think?

 

[Old Rocks]

Egad, another dumb fuck that has no idea how grant money is awarded, and the controls on how it is spent. Tell me, boy, did you ever finish high school? Bother to get a GED?

 

[Vastator]

The earth has experienced fluctuations of temperature, and climate since well befor the dawn of man. On what do you place the blame; for the millennia of previous changes? And how can our recent, and very incomplete observations rule out natural fluctuation? The fact is that they can't.

 

[Vastator]

Egad, another dumb fuck that has no idea how grant money is awarded, and the controls on how it is spent. Tell me, boy, did you ever finish high school? Bother to get a GED?

Personal insult betrays your lack of knowledge pertaining to the subject at hand. It also parallels the response of a losing argument in the political arena. Hmmm...? You can waste all the bandwidth you'd like. But you won't be wasting anymore of my time...

 

[Old Rocks]

Quite on the contrary, we have a pretty good understanding of many of the past climate fluctuations. And, yes, we have ruled out natural causes for the present rapid increase in temperatures. This site presents a very good layman discussion of this;

Global Warming: Man or Myth - Natural Causes of Climate Change

 

[Old Rocks]

Egad, another dumb fuck that has no idea how grant money is awarded, and the controls on how it is spent. Tell me, boy, did you ever finish high school? Bother to get a GED?

Personal insult betrays your lack of knowledge pertaining to the subject at hand. It also parallels the response of a losing argument in the political arena. Hmmm...? You can waste all the bandwidth you'd like. But you won't be wasting anymore of my time...

Personal insult to an asshole that just accused the majority of scientists of being frauds. Hell man, I was nice, you are simply to dumb to even realize what the term scientific fraud means to anyone engaged in scientific disciplines.

 

[Crick]

I find your claim of 97% very, very dubious. And as you said; the people who agree with the IPCC, are the scientists who provided the information from which the IPCC, has drawn thier conclusions. Do you really expect these scientists to dispute their own provided findings? Would kinda dry up that grant money; dontcha' think?

The various studies and polls did not ask "do you agree with the IPCC?". They asked "Do you believe human activity is the primary cause of the observed warming?".

There has long been a serious misunderstanding among deniers that the IPCC is doing climate research and publishing its findings in its assessment reports. The IPCC does NO research. It is simply assessing the research of others and reporting what it finds there. What it has found there (and what Naomi Watts, Cook, Anderegg and Powell all found there) was that the overwhelming conclusions of all such research is that human activity is indeed the primary cause of the observed warming.

The vast majority of scientists agree with the IPCC's conclusions because that is what their research and the research of others has told them is taking place.

 

[Dante]

Indeed, there is unequivocal evidence to believe Global Warming is 100% fraud, supported only by FUDGE and FRAUD, and that those behind it should be PROSECUTED for fraud and treason.

The people who should be prosecuted are those denying the science. They need to be prosecuted for ignorance and stupidity

 

[Dante]

There, corrected...

: Global Warming Differences Resolved with Corrections in Readings

"But while temperature readings at the surface showed this increase, readings in the atmosphere taken by satellites and radiosondes -- instruments carried by weather balloons -- had shown little or no warming (actually slight cooling)"

""This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected," researchers said "

from your own link, so how dumb can one person be? time to start the trial


Findings of the report include:


-- Since the 1950s all data show the Earth's surface and the low and middle atmosphere have warmed, while the upper stratosphere has cooled. Those changes were expected from computer models of the effects of greenhouse warming.


-- Radiosonde readings for the midtroposphere -- the nearest portion of the atmosphere -- show it warming slightly faster than the surface, also an expected finding.


-- The most recent satellite data also show tropospheric warming, though there is some disagreement among data sets. This may be caused by uncertainties in the observations, flaws in climate models or a combination. The researchers think it is a problem with the data collection.


-- The observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone.


The report came a day after the government reported that the greenhouse gases widely blamed for raising the planet's temperature are still building up in the atmosphere.


The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Monday there was a continuing increase in carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide in the air last year, though methane leveled off. Overall, NOAA said, its annual greenhouse gas index "shows a continuing, steady rise in the amount of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere."

 

[Vastator]

It's definitely a subject that deserves more study. However given the only very recent observations, and the lack of an accurate base line; it would seem too soon too claim that man made emissions are the sole cause of temperature fluctuations. Earth has experienced increases in CO2 and other gases throughout its history, in tha absence of man. And until we can fully understand those changes as well; we're left with an incomplete picture.
Without a complete picture it's improbable that we can develop an effective solution. The issue needs more study. By more study I mean broader study. With better, and more complete computer modeling.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

At least 97% of all publishing climate scientists agree with the IPCC conclusion that human activities, to wit: GHG emissions and deforestation - are the primary cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years.

That lie was debunked years ago.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Indeed, there is unequivocal evidence to believe Global Warming is 100% fraud, supported only by FUDGE and FRAUD, and that those behind it should be PROSECUTED for fraud and treason.

The people who should be prosecuted are those denying the science. They need to be prosecuted for ignorance and stupidity

It would be the warmist-alarmist group of ANTI SCIENCE fools who believe the science is settled and all opposing view points are invalid.. because they don't fit with your socialist agenda. Your side would be first in line for prosecution.. FOOL!

 

[Billy_Bob]

There, corrected...

: Global Warming Differences Resolved with Corrections in Readings

"But while temperature readings at the surface showed this increase, readings in the atmosphere taken by satellites and radiosondes -- instruments carried by weather balloons -- had shown little or no warming (actually slight cooling)"

""This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected," researchers said "

from your own link, so how dumb can one person be? time to start the trial


Findings of the report include:


-- Since the 1950s all data show the Earth's surface and the low and middle atmosphere have warmed, while the upper stratosphere has cooled. Those changes were expected from computer models of the effects of greenhouse warming.


-- Radiosonde readings for the midtroposphere -- the nearest portion of the atmosphere -- show it warming slightly faster than the surface, also an expected finding.


-- The most recent satellite data also show tropospheric warming, though there is some disagreement among data sets. This may be caused by uncertainties in the observations, flaws in climate models or a combination. The researchers think it is a problem with the data collection.


-- The observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone.


The report came a day after the government reported that the greenhouse gases widely blamed for raising the planet's temperature are still building up in the atmosphere.


The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Monday there was a continuing increase in carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide in the air last year, though methane leveled off. Overall, NOAA said, its annual greenhouse gas index "shows a continuing, steady rise in the amount of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere."

Bull Shit!


Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant from one another, DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

Where is there room for any causation by man? Then in late 2012 the magical temperature adjustments began making our historical record useless... They claimed the models are right so the facts and observed data must be wrong.. This is akin to witch-doctoring...