'Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong'

[code1211]

I am well over fifty, and have seen the climate change in the last twenty years . To quote Bob Dylan, I don't need the weatherman to tell me which way the wind blows...I notice that the skeptics ( of
global warming) are mostly the youthful folks that seem to only have concern for preserving their financial or political lifestyles. They have no real window of reference here other than their biases and their own limited life experiences.

I am not young. I have noticed changes in the weather also. I've also noticed changes in me. Is my aging also the result of catastrophic release of CO2 by Mankind?

You have a result. You have a cause. The challenge is to connect the two.

Merely citing both is not proving anything.

 

[code1211]

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

Can you produce a single laboratory experiment that demonstrates how a even an instantaneous .01% change, much less one that happens over 150 years as you allege produces ANY of the results you allege?

Can you produce a single laboratory experiment, or even a coherent explanation, that demonstrates how CO2 is simultaneously leaving the ocean in a "Feedback loop" and increasing in the ocean turning them "Acidic" because the two concepts are mutually exclusive

Und der Katze sagt:

You are aware, are you not, that the polar ice is melting?

I'm not sure what your point is here.

 

[konradv]

Can you produce a single laboratory experiment that demonstrates how a even an instantaneous .01% change, much less one that happens over 150 years as you allege produces ANY of the results you allege?

Can you produce a single laboratory experiment, or even a coherent explanation, that demonstrates how CO2 is simultaneously leaving the ocean in a "Feedback loop" and increasing in the ocean turning them "Acidic" because the two concepts are mutually exclusive

these are almost irrelevant and highly stupid fucking questions that don't deserve answer, because the presumption here is that if an answer can't be produced, or a lab result shown, then AGW is false... well, that isn't true. A lab result has no absolute bearing on a reality that is so much bigger, and can not be produced in a small lab. We are talking about an organism as incredibly complex as Earth, and its weather system, which is too complex to model in a lab, yet dumbass are asserting that because it is still cold in certain places, AGW must be false... that is just base level idiocy. Either we are, or are not producing this global warming. We don't get to choose, and just because there is the possibility that some are making money off the possibility of this happening, or that some are using fear to get people concerned, doesn't change the objective reality. Godamn it you AGW deniers piss me off. You are as bad as creationists. AGW is real, and our children are going to pay for your fucking arrogance.

If we are producing it, then prove it. You can't.

A good place to start is this:

The AGW crowd claims that the production of CO2 starting in the Industrial Revolution and continuing through now is the cause of the warming that we currently enjoy.

However, the warming that we currently enjoy started in about 1600 when the cooling of the Little Ice Age ended. 1600 was the bottom of the graphed V of the Little Ice Age temperatures even though that period continued for a while while the warming gathered strength.

About 200 years later, the widespread use of the Steam engine started and with it the Industrial Revolution. It is your assignment to prove that the additional CO2 emissions of 1800 ad caused the warming that started in 1600 ad.

You are free to proceed.

You might also want to address why we re cooler today than we were 8000 years and why we are only 0.7 degrees warmer today than we were 2000 years ago.

For 10,000 years, our climate has moved up and down and today we are dead center in the middle of that range.

If ignorance is the justification for action, then, by all means, describe the actions that we need to take. All actions are justified by this standard.

I think you need to address the Conservation of Energy question, first. If CO2 absorbs and re-emits IR and CO2 has been going up, what happens to the extra energy re-emitted back towards earth? I may not be able to definitively prove temps have risen, but given one of the basic principles of science, you MUST show that the energy re-emited towards earth transforms to something other than heat or I win on logic alone.

 

[newpolitics]

Can you produce a single laboratory experiment that demonstrates how a even an instantaneous .01% change, much less one that happens over 150 years as you allege produces ANY of the results you allege?

Can you produce a single laboratory experiment, or even a coherent explanation, that demonstrates how CO2 is simultaneously leaving the ocean in a "Feedback loop" and increasing in the ocean turning them "Acidic" because the two concepts are mutually exclusive

these are almost irrelevant and highly stupid fucking questions that don't deserve answer, because the presumption here is that if an answer can't be produced, or a lab result shown, then AGW is false... well, that isn't true. A lab result has no absolute bearing on a reality that is so much bigger, and can not be produced in a small lab. We are talking about an organism as incredibly complex as Earth, and its weather system, which is too complex to model in a lab, yet dumbass are asserting that because it is still cold in certain places, AGW must be false... that is just base level idiocy. Either we are, or are not producing this global warming. We don't get to choose, and just because there is the possibility that some are making money off the possibility of this happening, or that some are using fear to get people concerned, doesn't change the objective reality. Godamn it you AGW deniers piss me off. You are as bad as creationists. AGW is real, and our children are going to pay for your fucking arrogance.

If we are producing it, then prove it. You can't.

A good place to start is this:

The AGW crowd claims that the production of CO2 starting in the Industrial Revolution and continuing through now is the cause of the warming that we currently enjoy.

However, the warming that we currently enjoy started in about 1600 when the cooling of the Little Ice Age ended. 1600 was the bottom of the graphed V of the Little Ice Age temperatures even though that period continued for a while while the warming gathered strength.

About 200 years later, the widespread use of the Steam engine started and with it the Industrial Revolution. It is your assignment to prove that the additional CO2 emissions of 1800 ad caused the warming that started in 1600 ad.

You are free to proceed.

You might also want to address why we re cooler today than we were 8000 years and why we are only 0.7 degrees warmer today than we were 2000 years ago.

For 10,000 years, our climate has moved up and down and today we are dead center in the middle of that range.

If ignorance is the justification for action, then, by all means, describe the actions that we need to take. All actions are justified by this standard.

I don't have to prove it. Can you prove AGW isn't the case? no. There is enough evidence to suggest AGW may be the scenario we are dealing with. It seems as if you are looking for absolute, irrefutable evidence that inarguably says that AGW is happening. Well, that is not the scientific world we live in. There is always room for uncertainty, but within the knowledge that we have, we can make educated assertions about the state of things, and given the knowledge we have about global warming, it is safe to say, at this point, that taking action would be advisable.

Here's what pisses me off about your position:

It requires complete inaction.

My presumption, therefore, is that, the only reason you do no like the AGW theory, is that is requires action, which means change. Change for you, me, and the entire industry, which wants that the least, because that also means changing profit margins. Hence, you, and many others reject AGW. And, this is no surprise that this kind of position is largely rooted in the conservative ideology, because they are people that are resistant to change. They like the status quo. It is all so predictable, and for this very reason alone, utterly discredits your position, because your motives for maintaing this position, unknown even to you, are so obvious. I don't mean to make personal attack. I am just calling things as I see them.

 

[blake]

A fresh example of Global warming is the melt of the Glacier (Perito Moreno glacier).

 

[code1211]

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

If you're trying to undermine skeptics, presenting a case to undermine might be a good idea. I have no idea what your tactic here is.

 

[IanC]

I think you need to address the Conservation of Energy question, first. If CO2 absorbs and re-emits IR and CO2 has been going up, what happens to the extra energy re-emitted back towards earth? I may not be able to definitively prove temps have risen, but given one of the basic principles of science, you MUST show that the energy re-emited towards earth transforms to something other than heat or I win on logic alone.

CO2 slows the loss of IR, especially in the lower atmosphere where it is basically saturated. a doubling is theoretically calculated to lead to a 1.0-1.2C increase in temperature. IPCC models create a scenario where that increase is roughly tripled by extra water evaporation, etc. all models predict a hotspot several kilometers up which IS NOT there. ergo the models are wrong. without a positive feedback (and more than likely a negative feedback) there is no chance of runaway warming.


doomsday predictions are built on the expectations of higher temperature gains than 1.1C per doubling. so far the positive feedbacks are missing so it is foolish to run about helter skelter wasting money until we have a clearer picture of what is going on. it is also much more likely that there are ways to ameliorate the increase in CO2 than to stop it. panic never helps clear thinking.

 

[Old Rocks]

Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - Home

AMEG Position


DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY



We declare there now exists an extremely high international security risk* from abrupt and runaway global warming being triggered by the end-summer collapse of Arctic sea ice towards a fraction of the current record and release of huge quantities of methane gas from the seabed. Such global warming would lead at first to worldwide crop failures but ultimately and inexorably to the collapse of civilization as we know it. This colossal threat demands an immediate emergency scale response to cool the Arctic and save the sea ice. The latest available data indicates that a sea ice collapse is more than likely by 2015 and even possible this summer (2012). Thus some measures to counter the threat have to be ready within a few months.



The immediacy of this risk is underlined by the discovery of vast areas of continental shelf already in a critical condition as a result of the warming of the Arctic Ocean seabed. Increasingly large quantities of methane are being emitted from the seabed. Moreover there is the possibility of methane held as hydrates or under thawing permafrost being suddenly released in very large quantities due to some disturbance such as an earthquake. The quantities of methane in the continental shelf are so vast that a release of only one or two percent of the methane could lead to the release of the remaining methane in an unstoppable chain reaction. Global warming would spiral upward way beyond the 2 degrees which many scientists consider the safety limit.

 

[Dante]

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

An economist says so. What a dumbass!

Hey, you people use a History Professor for economic theory and more

Newt Gingrich

and you failed to address one single argument

just attacked the source.

 

[westwall]

Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - Home

AMEG Position


DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY



We declare there now exists an extremely high international security risk* from abrupt and runaway global warming being triggered by the end-summer collapse of Arctic sea ice towards a fraction of the current record and release of huge quantities of methane gas from the seabed. Such global warming would lead at first to worldwide crop failures but ultimately and inexorably to the collapse of civilization as we know it. This colossal threat demands an immediate emergency scale response to cool the Arctic and save the sea ice. The latest available data indicates that a sea ice collapse is more than likely by 2015 and even possible this summer (2012). Thus some measures to counter the threat have to be ready within a few months.



The immediacy of this risk is underlined by the discovery of vast areas of continental shelf already in a critical condition as a result of the warming of the Arctic Ocean seabed. Increasingly large quantities of methane are being emitted from the seabed. Moreover there is the possibility of methane held as hydrates or under thawing permafrost being suddenly released in very large quantities due to some disturbance such as an earthquake. The quantities of methane in the continental shelf are so vast that a release of only one or two percent of the methane could lead to the release of the remaining methane in an unstoppable chain reaction. Global warming would spiral upward way beyond the 2 degrees which many scientists consider the safety limit.

Methane outgassing from ocean inundation that occured 8,000 years ago. In otgher words just another "oh my god the world is ending" group determined to keep their worthless gravy train from the Taxpayers going. Just once it would be nice to see them try and be factual.

 

[Dante]

human activity has NO effect on climate change?

okie dokie

 

[Dante]

Updated 11/9/2011 3:01 PM
WASHINGTON – The global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide jumped by the biggest amount on record, the U.S. Department of Energy calculated, a sign of how feeble the world's efforts are at slowing man-made global warming.

Biggest jump ever seen in global warming gases

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

December 6, 2011
Carbon capture? Go for the source
New analysis shows pulling CO2 from the air would not be cost-effective in the foreseeable future.
David L. Chandler, MIT News Office

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/carbon-dioxide-capture-1206.html

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Still waiting for:

1. One (1) repeatable laboratory experiment that shows how even an instantaneous .01% change in chemical composition of the atmosphere causes "Global Warming" and

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.

Thank you.

 

[Dante]

Still waiting for:

1. One (1) repeatable laboratory experiment that shows how even an instantaneous .01% change in chemical composition of the atmosphere causes "Global Warming" and

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.

Thank you.

read the whole thing in order to understand the argument instead of pulling out selected bits out of context

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

Can you produce a single laboratory experiment that demonstrates how a even an instantaneous .01% change, much less one that happens over 150 years as you allege produces ANY of the results you allege?

Can you produce a single laboratory experiment, or even a coherent explanation, that demonstrates how CO2 is simultaneously leaving the ocean in a "Feedback loop" and increasing in the ocean turning them "Acidic" because the two concepts are mutually exclusive

these are almost irrelevant and highly stupid fucking questions that don't deserve answer, because the presumption here is that if an answer can't be produced, or a lab result shown, then AGW is false... well, that isn't true. A lab result has no absolute bearing on a reality that is so much bigger, and can not be produced in a small lab. We are talking about an organism as incredibly complex as Earth, and its weather system, which is too complex to model in a lab, yet dumbass are asserting that because it is still cold in certain places, AGW must be false... that is just base level idiocy. Either we are, or are not producing this global warming. We don't get to choose, and just because there is the possibility that some are making money off the possibility of this happening, or that some are using fear to get people concerned, doesn't change the objective reality. Godamn it you AGW deniers piss me off. You are as bad as creationists. AGW is real, and our children are going to pay for your fucking arrogance.

Dear? Without the lab work, you're "Science" fall somewhere between phrenology and astrology.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Still waiting for:

1. One (1) repeatable laboratory experiment that shows how even an instantaneous .01% change in chemical composition of the atmosphere causes "Global Warming" and

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.

Thank you.

read the whole thing in order to understand the argument instead of pulling out selected bits out of context

And you can post an experiment or provide an explanation as requested because....?

 

[Dante]

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?

 

[Dante]

Still waiting for:

1. One (1) repeatable laboratory experiment that shows how even an instantaneous .01% change in chemical composition of the atmosphere causes "Global Warming" and

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.

Thank you.

read the whole thing in order to understand the argument instead of pulling out selected bits out of context

And you can post an experiment or provide an explanation as requested because....?

Experiments and models we now have are inadequate to prove anything conclusively. That is why we are still studying things. Scientists who understand far more than you and I ever will are debating this.

Why do you side with the minority?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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 teh 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?

Fracking?

Asking for 2 probably overloaded you.

Here's, lets do one

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.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yellow!

Feedback loop.

Acidification.

Go!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Wi8Fv0AJA4]Jeopardy Theme - YouTube[/ame]