‘Unprecedented’: Scientists declare global climate emergency; jet stream crosses equator

Unless and until they can prove unequivocally that Global climate change never happened before mankind stepped in then they can't say mankind is causing it now.

originally posted by: tmeister182
Unless and until they can prove unequivocally that Global climate change never happened before mankind stepped in then they can't say mankind is causing it now.

Well that makes no sense. Why would you think this? lol

originally posted by: tmeister182
Unless and until they can prove unequivocally that Global climate change never happened before mankind stepped in then they can't say mankind is causing it now.

That's completely scientifically false and nonsensical.

If a doc works in a ER and had 3 patients coming in with heart attacks, last week, how should he diagnose the next patient who presents with cardiac difficulties because there is a hole in his chest, and a bullet on the x-ray? "Natural causes?"

That's the equivalent of the assuming that because natural climate change once occurred, then we can't definitely call something happening now as artificial climate change.

What needs to be demonstrated, and it has been demonstrated extensively and conclusively, is that there is a firmly established physical mechanism behind currently observed climate change, and the origin of that change relates to changes induced by humans. It is a physics and chemistry problem, not a paleoclimate problem. If there were no indirect geological record of climate change, then we could and should still have exactly the same conclusion and mitigation today.

In fact, I almost wish it were so, that science wasn't as comprehensive. Consider the ozone hole---it was conclusively demosntrated that human CFC's did in fact cause excess and harmful decay of the stratospheric ozone. There was no significant geological record of long-past ozone hole dynamics, and yet people eventually did accept truthful science about what is happening now, because there is extensive scientific evidence for it. And humans took global regulatory action, a few whined about the cost, and thanks to human foresight, the problem is being mitigated successfully. Same thing happened with acid rain.

originally posted by: bknapple32

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: bknapple32

Perhaps I should rephrase it to "Scientists in the field of Climatology are clueless", as they cannot form a general consensus.

Again- did you receive the vast amounts of education that they received? Are you qualified?

Exactly what "vast amounts" of education are you claiming they received ?

Exactly when do these clowns admit the educations they receive are CLEARLY amongst the worst level of accuracy in human history ???

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: LSU0408

China is literally the largest invested and producer of rnewable energy and they are definately doing something about it.

Meteorologists are not qualified on their own to make climate change comments.

There have been at least 8 surveys done on what scientists think about climate change.

Do you honestly think removing the tropic forests isn't going to impact the climate?

www.google.com... obile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=SR63mHb6M9C6rM%3A
www.google.com... s_l=mobile-gws-serp.1.0.0i71l5.0.0.0.9857.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.mobile-gws-serp..0.0.0.JeXIoeF1ha4#imgrc=BHjioSQxNwP06M%3A

Seriously are you advocating we just keep on keeping on or should we discuss the fact we may be altering the entire symbiotic relationship of flora and fauna and climate.

We can look at the amount of forests removed against so-called climate change, and easily see that the hysteria does not match up.

Anyways, it is clear that the forests are regrowing ALL THE TIME, and the argument that once cut everything dies forever is also hysteria.

How about some admittance from the climate scientists that entire swaths of the calculations and formulas they use are not provable in REAL WORLD SCENARIO.

After 50 years of this, this should be easily recognizable.....

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ketsuko

Yes I know. But subsistence farming is not really the problem.

What is this problem you speak of ?

originally posted by: mbkennel

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Also what they fail to tell you is that to build one of those wind turbines, the lifespan of that single turbine will NEVER offset the fossil fuel expenditure it took to produce and place it.

That's just false. If it were true, then the turbines would have cost far more because of the embedded cost of the fossil fuels used in its manufacturing.

actually no its not false, you can look up the information youself......

It’s the very picture of weather weirding due to climate change. Something that would absolutely not happen in a normal world,” he wrote. “Something, that if it continues, basically threatens seasonal integrity.

Yet it has happened before so its another total lie from the global warming scammers that try deny historic climate change to introduce new taxes to fund a new tier of government.

As others have said earlier in this thread, this is a hoax conjured up either intentionally or through ignorance.

I'm shocked at how successful Faux News and the disinformants on the payroll of Big Oil have been at convincing people that manmade global warming isn't really a problem.

I'm not a libtard on some left wing agenda here.

It's simple logic: how does reducing our dependence on fossil fuels harm us? IT DOESN'T!

But if the majority of scientists are right, staying on the current course is a death sentence for humanity. Even if they're wrong, we'll still eventually deplete the world of fossil fuels and then we'll be forced to turn to wind, water, solar, and geothermal anyway!

a reply to: Farlander

ok This is a repeat argument - its the old "what if AGW isn't real and we built a better world for nothing" agument.

Essentially, I agree. Its very logical to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and save our resources.

But is that what is happening here or is this all just a global cash distribution scheme.

Has all the government plans actually saved our fossil fuel resource.

I suggest a serious discussion here. We have some very bright people on ATS. I suggest that we examine each type of renewable resource discuss the pro and cons, report not just on what the government is doing in regards to this resource but also take a look at the sock puppet charities like green peace and lets figure out if any action taken by the government has actually reduced the use of fossil fuels. We would be looking to discuss "spin" as well.

Anybody up for it?

Tired of Control Freaks

Satire Below

. . . . and in Real Estate news George W. Bush's 99,000 acre finca/rancho in Paraguay has gone on the market. Rumored to have been purchased as a hedge against nuclear contamination from the northern hemisphere, which would follow WW3, the utility of the purchase has now been rendered moot by recent southern hemisphere excursions of the northern hemisphere jet stream. Mr. Bush could not be reached for coherent comment.

Here is the basis for man-made climate change supporters:

I am wearing a black shoe. Ever since I got this shoe and wear it, I have never been attacked by a tiger. Therefore...I say that my black shoe protects me from tiger attacks. Even though there is no scientific proof of this.

Lets review...

Since the world is warming, even though it has before, and since humans are here and pollute, humans must be the cause of global warming. Even though every scientist will admit that there is no proof of this.

Sound familiar?

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Here is the basis for man-made climate change supporters:

I am wearing a black shoe. Ever since I got this shoe and wear it, I have never been attacked by a tiger. Therefore...I say that my black shoe protects me from tiger attacks. Even though there is no scientific proof of this.

Lets review...

Since the world is warming, even though it has before, and since humans are here and pollute, humans must be the cause of global warming. Even though every scientist will admit that there is no proof of this.

Sound familiar?

No, this is idiocy. A strawman, if you want precision.

The argument is this:
The Sun's surface is ~5700 K.
By the Stefan-Boltzmann law and some basic math, the much cooler Earth's temperature should then be 255 K, absorbing the Sun's radiation and re-emitting it at longer wavelengths.

Earth's surface temperature actually averages ~288 K, while most of its atmosphere is cooler - and it is increasingly so with altitude, up to outermost layers where the Sun's radiation interacts with molecules in the atmosphere.

If our atmosphere didn't shield us from a lot of the more energetic radiation from the Sun, life would have trouble.

Further, the surface and the atmosphere ought to be much closer in temperature. The fortuitous reason behind this is the greenhouse effect, which redistributes thermal radiation by keeping it nearer the surface of the Earth.

The greenhouse effect happens because molecules in our atmosphere are transparent to most bands of shortwave radiation emitted from the Sun, but translucent/opaque to some bands of longwave radiation emitted from the Earth.

Water vapor is the most influential greenhouse gas, but it is very short-lived in the atmosphere. However, carbon dioxide sticks around in the atmosphere for quite a long time. The greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide helps regulate the water vapor content of the atmosphere, as humidity has a strong relationship with temperature.

Carbon dioxide in the biosphere isn't introducing new molecules, but carbon dioxide emitted from fossil fuels is. Therefore, we are increasing the greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide by adding more of it to the atmosphere.

Further, this will increase water vapor in the atmosphere, which will cause more of a greenhouse effect. On a whole, this will mean higher mean surface temperatures and lower mean atmospheric temperatures on Earth.

Also, we have seen this empirically, with mean atmosphere cooling and mean surface temperature warming.

And with all that...man-made climate change is unanimously agreed to be nothing but a theory by all legit scientists. It is not a fact. And you know it.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Uh-huh. Don't give me this semantic bull# argument.

Can you refute that train of thought (and observation) or not?

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Uh-huh. Don't give me this semantic bull# argument.

Can you refute that train of thought (and observation) or not?

I've done my research and have developed my position. Typically, someone like you chooses to call it bull# when you don't like the facts. Here is the fact and you can call it what you wish...but it remains the truth. Man-made global warming is a theory and not a fact. That was and remains my statement. You can show me that it is likely, you can provide links to people who believe it is true, etc. But it remains unproven. I can show you links to scientists that say it is bull and others who claim it is a power play by an out-of-control government to seize more power over companies and individuals. You will then call all these people idiots and liars...because that is how your type debates. Well I can obviously say the same of your links to paid supporters of big government and progressive agendas.

I can't prove you wrong and you can't prove me wrong. So instead of you calling me names and me calling you out...how about we simply agree to disagree?

I lived in my city all my life and I can say I am experiencing weather patterns that are unprecedented in my lifetime.

One of the things I've noticed this summer is that the temperature swings from day to night are pretty drastic from 12 - 20 degrees F. This has never happened in the past during this time of year.

a reply to: nOraKat

That is correct! Our climate is changing, has been for a while and did probably many times long, long ago. It is natural and may cause us problems. But it is not proven to be significantly impacted by humans. Yes...we contribute and we do pollute and need to address these things. But as problematic as this natural change will likely be, throwing money away and false solutions, shutting down businesses that would hurt both the economy and individuals and allowing corrupt politicians to take money from companies and keep it for themselves...in the name of global warming...is a stupid move on the part of the people.

Kind of like the bail-out Obama did for the banks, etc. We threw tons of our money at businesses that failed and should have been allowed to fall. That is how it is supposed to work. Instead, the liberals decided like everything else to throw your money at something that doesn't and inn't working. Let it fail...allow something that works take its place.

Nature!

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Uh-huh. Don't give me this semantic bull# argument.

Can you refute that train of thought (and observation) or not?

I've done my research and have developed my position. Typically, someone like you chooses to call it bull# when you don't like the facts. Here is the fact and you can call it what you wish...but it remains the truth. Man-made global warming is a theory and not a fact. That was and remains my statement. You can show me that it is likely, you can provide links to people who believe it is true, etc. But it remains unproven. I can show you links to scientists that say it is bull and others who claim it is a power play by an out-of-control government to seize more power over companies and individuals. You will then call all these people idiots and liars...because that is how your type debates. Well I can obviously say the same of your links to paid supporters of big government and progressive agendas.

I can't prove you wrong and you can't prove me wrong. So instead of you calling me names and me calling you out...how about we simply agree to disagree?

I was not 'calling you names.'

I linked you to a nice and concise description of what a theory is in science. It is different from common parlance, so you're wrong. It's as simple as that. You don't have facts, sorry. If you would like to explain how you're right, please start with defining fact in science, proof in science, and then work up to scientific theory (not mere 'theory' as you claim).

I don't know what you think my "type" is, but the way I debate is: 1) look at claims, 2) look at evidence, 3) draw conclusion, 4) rebut claims if they are wrong. If you have something that counters my above post, link it and prove me and climate change theory wrong. I rather doubt that you can, but out of curiosity can you disprove any of these:

• Pi (π): 3.14159...
  
• The radius of the Sun (R): 695,700,000 meters
  
• The surface area of the Sun (A): 4πR^2 = 1,935,993,960,000,000,000 m^2
  
• Stefan-Boltzmann law: P = σT^4
  
• Stefan-Boltzmann constant (σ): 5.670367 × 10^−8 W/m^2K^4
  
• The surface temperature of the Sun (T): 5,778 K (I was a little low previously)
  
• The power output (luminosity) of the Sun (P): AσT^4 = 3,843,92,751,142,533,079,888,793,312.89794 W
  
• The radius of the Earth (r): 6,378,137 m
  
• The distance of the Earth from the Sun (o):149,597,870,691 m
  
• The fraction of power received by Earth from the Sun: (πr^2) / (4πo^2) = 1/4 * (r / o)^2 = 0.00000000045444
  
• The total power received by the Earth from the Sun (p): 174,683,570,719,843,961.43609 W
  
• The surface area of the Earth (a): 4πr^2 = 511,207,893,395,811.01787 m
  
• The average albedo (reflectivity) of the Earth (b): 0.31
  
• The average temperature the Earth should be (t): (p(1-b)/aσ)^(1/4) = 253.93532 K
  
• The average temperature of the Earth's surface during 20th century (c): 288.6 K
  
• The excess temperature of the Earth's surface: c-t = 34.66468 K
  
• The troposphere alone contains ~75-80% of the total atmospheric mass
  
• The temperature decreases with height through the troposphere by -0.0065 K/m (surface to 11 km)
  
• The temperature stays roughly consistent through the tropopause at 218 K (11 km to 20 km)
  
• 99% of atmospheric mass is below 32 km (I'm using mid latitudes here and above; height fluctuates with latitude)
  
• The temperature increases with height through the lower stratosphere by +0.001 K/m (20 km to 32 km)
  

Something is clearly causing excess heat at the surface. You can't make heat out of nothing (1st law of thermodynamics), and it isn't coming from the planet itself (observation). Radiation absorbed by the Earth is re-emitted, but since the Earth is much cooler, the wavelengths are longer.

Climate change theory is that greenhouse gases absorb some longwave radiation, causing warming at the surface and cooling with height. Some of this cooling is offset by other warming (ozone/UV interactions in the stratosphere, extreme shortwave radiation higher up). Here, have a visual from 1970 showing the satellite-observed bands where radiation is absorbed by molecules in the atmosphere:


I've outlined the facts behind climate change theory. So yeah, I can prove you wrong - learn from it. Don't give us any more hand-waving crap. Prove one of those wrong or accept that this is reality as we know it through careful observation in the course of scientific investigation.