It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Global Warming Dissenter Bjorn Lomborg (Sort of) Has a Change of Heart

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
reply to post by illumin8ed
 


Indeed!

Here's another simple equation:

1. CO2 is undeniably a greenhouse gas that, if removed from our atmosphere, would reduce global temperatures by 60 degrees Fahrenheit

2. Within just a century humans have increased Earth's atmospheric CO2 concentrations from 280ppm to 390ppm

3. Solar irradiance/sunspots have DECREASED over the past few decades

Once again, even simple intellectual math makes humanity's overwhelming contribution to global warming quite obvious.


Um, this to me seems like a massive contradiction and I am totally in disagreement to your so called facts.
Global warming is a rubbish term, climate change is extremely accurate. The climate here on earth is changing and has been changing for millennia. Research suggests that mankind was almost wiped out in central Africa until the climate miraculously changed at just the right time, turning arid into arable etc.

The only point I can agree on is your one about sunspots, but as these have only been studied for around 150 years we can safely say that we don’t have the exact correlation as yet and on a hypothesis.

ALL of the planets in our solar system have shown an increase in warming, storms and electrical and electromagnetic activity. All of the planets have been observed to have had significant ‘wobbles’ in their electromagnetic fields, ours very much so, over what would be considered the standard ‘set-up’.

The Sun has been behaving ‘erratically’ of late and this unpredictability also backs up my statement about knowledge of sun spots – we just haven’t observed this before and we don’t know if it is normal or not.

The biggest, by a mile, greenhouse gas is water vapour and we can’t do anything about that.

The real deal is that climate is changing, we don’t know enough about the innumerable causes (sun, electromagnetic field, ocean currents, jet stream, greenhouse gasses) and how they interact. Also, the climate is not a constant all over the world so there are different points on earth changing in different ways.

I agree that climate is changing as it always has done. I do not agree that mankind is the only cause. I do agree that we should pollute our earth a lot less.




posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 04:28 AM
link   

(I was someone cry that I didn't have a vertical scale. It's irrelevant for the purposes of the discussion)

The notion that the sun is warming the planet is utter garbage. And believe it or not, scientists actually do factor in the sun, clouds, water vapour (etc) into global warming. The end result is exactly the same, CO2 is causing the temperature to rise. This is yet another case of people not understanding the science, then debunking their own misconceptions of global warming. It's a straw man and not relevant.

[edit on 2/9/2010 by C0bzz]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


Alright, since you bring up the linear argument.

When are we going to see that 18 meter rise in the ocean?

I suppose that is not linear? Exponential?

Let me see, with the hockey puck, we should have seen at least SOME type of rising oceans right? All those glaciers disappearing have to go somewhere.

Are they going to Al Gore's pool. Oh wait, that is right, he just bought a place on the ocean front. Yep, that is where I would live if I predicted a massive rise in ocean levels.

Yep, makes perrrrrfect sense.

Not common sense but perfect sense that a scam is being perpetrated.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


I seriously have no idea what you're trying to say. I usually see 1 meter sea-level rise by 2100 by scientists. 18 meter lol wat? And what's that got to do with linear vs exponential?

Uhm, sea level rise has been accelerating?

www.agu.org...
www.agu.org...
journals.ametsoc.org...
soer.justice.tas.gov.au...
news.mongabay.com...

In any case, I'm more interested in energy policies and technologies that can undercut the cost of fossil fuels in the future while cutting back on emissions of all kinds, something that even AGW deniers would support. Unless we can do that I think it will be very difficult for climate action, hence I just don't really care about debating AGW, especially because the arguments the deniers constantly tout have long been debunked. It's like groundhog day. I just enjoy picking at the lowest hanging fruits of the AGW denial fallacy. I'll leave the rest to others... take this however you wish.

[edit on 2/9/2010 by C0bzz]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:15 AM
link   
Let me make this simple, you seem to enjoy a one sided argument. You believe that CO2 generated by mankind is the sole contributor of global warming. I do not.

You seem to be under the impression that your ‘facts’ are proven and correct and any attempt to refute them will not be entertained. Your type are seriously the reason that this argument is a long standing one, the general public (of which I presume you are a member of) have not been provided with the facts and it seems to me that the winner will be who shouts the loudest. Fair enough. Just don’t expect that everyone out there will agree and be persuaded easily.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mez353
. Your type are seriously the reason that this argument is a long standing one, the general public (of which I presume you are a member of) have not been provided with the facts and it seems to me that the winner will be who shouts the loudest. Fair enough. Just don’t expect that everyone out there will agree and be persuaded easily.


Or, is it rather so that what you have labelled the "general public" doesn't give a rats ass about the whole issue one way or another?

It is not the job of Scientists to spoon-feed the public with their research. The fruits of their research are open to anyone interested enough to look for them. Theyre not paid to come and explain their findings to us laymen.

And I'm shocked to see a poster write about "climategate". Don't you guys ever follow up on the news? I for one was pretty psyched by climategate and was desperate to find the alleged corruption and dishonesty - but there simply wasn't any to find. I didn't find any, and neither did the one, err, two, err three independent bodies that researched the emails. So why peddle untrue stories when the motto of this site is denying irgnorance?

There's science and there is policy. These people deal with science. It's unfair to blame them for any political agenda that their findings are used for - it's pretty obvious that writing about receeding glaciers does not equate being a supporter of carbon emission titles trade.

[edit on 2-9-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Or, is it rather so that what you have labelled the "general public" doesn't give a rats ass about the whole issue one way or another?

Well to answer that I honestly think that some people fall into ‘well it’s in the news and told to us as true so it must be true’ category, some disregard anything esposed by politicians and media just because that’s who they are and others who really don’t know what to think, of what I think is actually the majority.

It is not the job of Scientists to spoon-feed the public with their research. The fruits of their research are open to anyone interested enough to look for them. Theyre not paid to come and explain their findings to us laymen.

Are you sure about that? Privately funded scientists yes, I agree but then again you have to ask who is paying them and why. Ask why is a private body paying a scientist to research the climate and what result would benefit the private institution. I have never heard of a private company funding a science team and getting a result that proves negative to that private institution and I work in that area. All results are spun or shaped into half truths by the science team and private institution, usually using law as a basis not science. Publicly funded scientists are funded by us so their findings belong to us and if we need spoon feeding to understand what the issues are and on what basis decisions and policies that affect us all are made then that is surely the correct and proper procedure. Not everyone has the capability to do their own research and by the day this particular subject gets cloudier and cloudier, masked by argument and counter-argument (just like on here lol) rendering research an ominous task.

And I'm shocked to see a poster write about "climategate". Don't you guys ever follow up on the news? I for one was pretty psyched by climategate and was desperate to find the alleged corruption and dishonesty - but there simply wasn't any to find. I didn't find any, and neither did the one, err, two, err three independent bodies that researched the emails. So why peddle untrue stories when the motto of this site is denying irgnorance?

Fair enough but from what I recall East Anglia University auditing the East Anglia University Department of Biodiversity didn’t sound very independent. And neither did the IPCC (independent my hat!) report seem that independent when it’s from a totally one sided institution.

There's science and there is policy. These people deal with science. It's unfair to blame them for any political agenda that their findings are used for - it's pretty obvious that writing about receeding glaciers does not equate being a supporter of carbon emission titles trade.

You have not been on earth very long have you? Science, sadly is not independent from policy. Go back to what I said about who funds the research, well, the same can also be applied to policy. Science can be used to convey a scenario and scientific extrapolation can be used to predict an outcome and policy is then employed to attempt to negate or lessen the severity of this outcome. In reverse, if the policy has already been decided then the science can be fixed to match the policy, as in the case of climate change versus global warming. The policy is action to prevent global warming, the extrapolation is identifying CO2 as the root cause of global warming and the science is increased global temperatures.

The thing is the science part is skewed. The temperatures have increased in certain parts of the globe, not increased at all in others and actually decreased in some more. The temperatures are taken in heat sinks such as cities and then are expected to be reflective of a whole region when it is known that cities are warmer than rural areas. The coldest readings were ignored as if there was something wrong with them no matter where they originated. More focus was put on the increased temperatures than on the unchanged temperatures. More focus was put on developed countries. When one tackles the issue of climate change and the perceived issue of global warming one must really grasp the essence of what’s going on and it really is as simple as this; As man creates some of the CO2 that is released into the atmosphere we can charge a fee for that. As I stated earlier, water vapour is all around us, it’s production is massively one sided in that nature produces almost all of it and we can’t tax nature so we go after the next best thing, man made CO2. This is then elevated to the primary cause of ‘global warming’. Simple. And the world is buying it hook, line and sinker.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Indeed!

Here's another simple equation:

1. CO2 is undeniably a greenhouse gas that, if removed from our atmosphere, would reduce global temperatures by 60 degrees Fahrenheit

2. Within just a century humans have increased Earth's atmospheric CO2 concentrations from 280ppm to 390ppm

3. Solar irradiance/sunspots have DECREASED over the past few decades

Once again, even simple intellectual math makes humanity's overwhelming contribution to global warming quite obvious.


There are other larger greenhouse gases out there, to attribute the vast majority of Temp increase solely to the small increase in CO2 is disingenuous. There are dozens (probably hundreds) of variables that contribute to the cyclical warming and cooling of our Planet.

I wonder what the "Climate change crowd" would have been saying during the Medieval Warm Period, The Little Ice Age or more recently, during the "Dust Bowl" years in the 1930's. That probably would have seemed like the end of the world to them.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Arguments based on reason no longer hold any weight to pro climate zealots. They were seduced into this new cult that has become a global religion complete with prophets, heretics, guilt and the ability to absolve guilt by paying for indulgences, and the fear of a firey hereafter if you don't repent. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and the verosity by which people cling to this unfound assumption is disconcerting and frightful.

If the controversies surrounding the whole thing and the market based 'solution' don't ring any alarm bells for you then theres no hope. The ommissions, the altering of data, the exclusion of certain scientists in the peer review process etc. We are sheep and I guess its time to harvest us.

I've watched pro and anti man made climate change vids and must admit, the anti appeal to reason and logic, whereas the pro's rely on emotion and fear. The anti is using measured data from the past and the pro is merely building on an unfound assumption and making more and more disastrous predictions.

The purpose of this scam is to institute a global tax on carbon, and judging by the weight of funding and corrupt politics behind it we will happily place the noose around our necks. Carbondioxide is not a pollutant and the sun is the primary driving factor in a changing climate.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


Oh please do not tell me you are still trying to use NASA as a source.

Where is that I read, oh yeah here we go-

Researcher: NASA hiding climate data

...

Another small part of that article-

...

Oh well, have you heard about this-

CEI Suing NASA Over Climate Stonewall

...


HAHA! Since WHEN is using NASA as a source AT ALL unreliable or suspect?? Jesus... do you even know what NASA is? They are partially an institution of ROCKET-SCIENCE... as in, "Hey, it's not rocket-science", but it is. NASA is, FOR OBVIOUS REASONS, one of the most respected, prominent, and scientifically developed institutions on the planet. There is absolutely nothing wrong with sourcing NASA. Now UNLESS YOU CAN POINT OUT any fallacies or inaccuracies in the ACTUAL link I provided... then it's plain you're just playing childish politics and ONCE AGAIN cherry-picking and making insane/false leaps of logic connecting things that don't connect.

Wanna learn a little bit about the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)? I think the facts, once again, speak for themselves. If there's ANY corruption to be found, it's within their own thinly veiled organization...

www.sourcewatch.org...


In a 2006 profile of CEI and other global warming skeptics, Washington Post reporter Joel Achenbach noted that "the most generous sponsors" of CEI's 2005 annual dinner were "the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Exxon Mobil, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, and Pfizer. Other contributors included General Motors, the American Petroleum Institute, the American Plastics Council, the Chlorine Chemistry Council and Arch Coal." [6]


And Chris Horner...

www.sourcewatch.org...


Christopher C. Horner is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a think tank that's received more than $2 million in funding from ExxonMobil since 1998, among other corporate funders.

Horner is a practicing attorney, and at CEI "oversees petitions and litigation on topics including data access and quality laws, the Freedom of Information Act, and government science and agency statutory compliance, and other legal matters involving environment and energy issues, international environmental treaties, and climate policy." [2] His CEI duties also include being counsel to the Cooler Heads Coalition, a global warming skeptics group. He "works on a legal and policy level with numerous think tanks and policy organizations throughout the world," according to his profile on the CEI site. [3]


Keep in mind with Chris Horner's little crusade- he's a lawyer working for a right-wing/industry think-tank... he's looking for ANY dirt he can dig up, even if it doesn't mean much. Which... EVEN IF his "suspicions" were correct about "data-shaving" (which has not been proven at all)... it wouldn't have much of an impact. Also, the whole dispute over 1934 versus 1998 is, like you mentioned, WITHIN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES. It does NOT concern global temperatures which have ABSOLUTELY RISEN. Also, temperatures at the polar caps have risen far more than the rest of the planet which is both detrimental to glaciers/sea-ice and points to a greenhouse effect. If the sun were to blame, the caps WOULD NOT be heating up faster than the rest of the planet as they are currently.

So to sum up... not only are you wrong on many fronts, but your politically slanted links prove NOTHING and only show that a lawyer for an industry think-tank is trying to accuse NASA of falsifying data to support an agenda of taking over the world. It's laughable what silly crap you denialists will parade around as gospel...



Or how about New Zealand's escapade into the courts-

New Zealand’s NIWA sued over climate data adjustments

...

So, we have NASA, rehashing numbers to make things look like what, well if you read the 2nd article, come to find out, NASA was being used as a propaganda dissemination site for CRU manipulated data. Hmmm. Amazing idon it?

Then we have another country manipulating data.

Why is it that the governments are all pushing to institute a CO2 credit scam?

Could it be, I mean really could it be all TRUE?

A conspiracy!?


You really are gullible aren't you?

scienceblogs.com...

www.exxonsecrets.org...

Essentially the global warming debate can be summed up in this analogy-
Participants in the debate can be likened to medical patients.
Institutions of 'authority', policy, and/or advocacy (for either side) can be likened to medical practices.
Those who know that global warming is real can be likened to patients who choose prominent, clean, respected, and well-staffed hospitals/practices with a great track-record.
Those who deny the existence of global warming can be likened to patients who decide on going to a dirty, uncertified, dangerous, quack hospital/practice in a backwoods part of a third-world country that is ran by people who commit misdiagnoses for profit.

Put simply- ANYBODY WITH HALF A BRAIN KNOWS THEY CAN'T TRUST DENIALIST SOURCES. Not only do they practice terrible science, lies, exaggerations, cherry-picking, propaganda, and mountains of errors but most have proven links to industry/political think-tanks that DO NOT have the best interests of proper journalism/science/environmentalism in mind. They're essentially false fronts for pro-industrial policies so that TPTB can continue to profit and run our country. And THAT is what the right-wing has amounted to... a puppet front for plutocracy, where the rich/industrial/banking elites run our government and shut the rest of the citizenry out. Now if you REALLY think you're going to become part of that good ol' boys club someday... then maybe having a right-wing/laissez-faire/denialist stance is perfect for you; but if NOT, then you're fighting for the enemy as a "useful idiot", bud

[edit on 2-9-2010 by NoHierarchy]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mez353

Um, this to me seems like a massive contradiction and I am totally in disagreement to your so called facts.
Global warming is a rubbish term, climate change is extremely accurate. The climate here on earth is changing and has been changing for millennia. Research suggests that mankind was almost wiped out in central Africa until the climate miraculously changed at just the right time, turning arid into arable etc.


So called facts? You kiddin me? Here they are:

www.umich.edu...

www.esrl.noaa.gov...

(Please see my original response to burdman30ott6 for links on removal of CO2 causing 60 degree drop in temps)

Global warming is NOT a "rubbish" term; it's actually quite a simple and accurate term for describing what's happening- A GLOBAL WARMING! The entire planet is warming... thus global warming. Climate change is NOT a better descriptor for global warming because climate change, as a term, is meant to describe the SUBSEQUENT EFFECTS OF global warming. Simple math really- global warming causes climate change.

Nobody disputes that the climate changes, scientists state and study this more than anybody! However, the problem with our current warming (and subsequent climate change) is NOT simply that it's a change but that it's TOO RAPID and therefore destructive/imbalancing to ecosystems in a manner that ecosystems CANNOT adapt quickly enough to sustain the changes.

If you REALLY think that our climate is going to miraculously change just in the knick of time to save humans and other threatened eco-systems... then I don't know what to tell you as that is crazy/delusional, scientifically speaking. Not to mention... we're CAUSING desertification via a whole range of unsustainable environmental practices- CO2 induced global warming, de-forestation, over-hunting, pollution, unsustainable agricultural practices, the list goes on and on.



The only point I can agree on is your one about sunspots, but as these have only been studied for around 150 years we can safely say that we don’t have the exact correlation as yet and on a hypothesis.


Yes, we have been in an solar minimum (including decreased solar irradiance) for the past few decades. There is a strong/demonstrated link between the increased number of sunspots/irradiance and an increase in warming on the Earth. Thus with less sunspots/irradiance (as one would logically suspect), we see either cooling or less warming. Still... even with such solar COUNTER-effects we are witnessing an exponential rise in CO2 and temperatures; there is both a correlative and causative effect between CO2 and rising temps.



ALL of the planets in our solar system have shown an increase in warming, storms and electrical and electromagnetic activity. All of the planets have been observed to have had significant ‘wobbles’ in their electromagnetic fields, ours very much so, over what would be considered the standard ‘set-up’.


WRONG. Some planets/moons have shown an increase in warming, some have shown cooling, and ALL can be explained by their own seasonal/climatic patterns (self-contained) and NOT some remarkable solar/cosmic forcing.

Please read:

www.grist.org...



The Sun has been behaving ‘erratically’ of late and this unpredictability also backs up my statement about knowledge of sun spots – we just haven’t observed this before and we don’t know if it is normal or not.


Please clarify exactly what you mean by "erratically", "of late" and "we". The scientists who study our sun do absolutely have gaps in their understanding, however, it's not the degree to which you and many other deniers seem to think. Also... NASA has said that the sun MAY account for UP TO one fourth of our global warming, but every new piece of evidence has further downplayed this forcer/possibility.



The biggest, by a mile, greenhouse gas is water vapour and we can’t do anything about that.


You're only partially correct. Water vapor accounts for 35-65% of the greenhouse effect on Earth. However, it is NOT a forcing for global warming, it is simply a reactionary feedback factor. CO2 and the sun ARE forcing effects that can cause things like water vapor to create positive feedback effects. So... water vapor definitely has a part to play, but ONLY as a domino effect FROM CO2's initial/direct effect of warming the planet. Also, water vapor decays rapidly in our atmosphere via precipitation, CO2 takes much longer to be scrubbed naturally via carbon sinks and is therefore a stronger/more permanent factor for global warming.

Please read:

www.grist.org...



The real deal is that climate is changing, we don’t know enough about the innumerable causes (sun, electromagnetic field, ocean currents, jet stream, greenhouse gasses) and how they interact. Also, the climate is not a constant all over the world so there are different points on earth changing in different ways.

I agree that climate is changing as it always has done. I do not agree that mankind is the only cause. I do agree that we should pollute our earth a lot less.


Indeed the climate is changing, it would have changed with or without us, BUT with us it has changed much more drastically/rapidly (and therefore unsustainably). We DO know enough about the many factors and how they interact. The science can by quite deep/complex and difficult to understand for a layman, HOWEVER, this does not mean therefore that it cannot be or isn't understood by scientists (which it is more/less). There will always be doubts within science, nothing is ever 100%, that's the beauty of science- always open to questions/new evidence. However, if you actually study the science of climatology and specifically global warming, it's quite apparent that the DOUBTS about an anthropogenic effect are quite negligible. No other factors can come anywhere close to explaining our rapid global warming as CO2 increases (via human emissions) can.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   
The idea that 2010 is the hottest year on record is BS. Sure, Russia had some heat, and there were a few weeks of extreme heat in the US, but overall, it actually seemed like a pretty cold summer.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mez353
Let me make this simple, you seem to enjoy a one sided argument. You believe that CO2 generated by mankind is the sole contributor of global warming. I do not.

You seem to be under the impression that your ‘facts’ are proven and correct and any attempt to refute them will not be entertained. Your type are seriously the reason that this argument is a long standing one, the general public (of which I presume you are a member of) have not been provided with the facts and it seems to me that the winner will be who shouts the loudest. Fair enough. Just don’t expect that everyone out there will agree and be persuaded easily.


The funny (and maddening) thing is... the public/media DO NOT reflect the science and scientific consensus on global warming.

In fact, their views are LARGELY denialist views (hmm, I wonder why with media sponsors like Exxon/GE/Monsanto/etc.). And since public perception is more/less colored by the media they consume, their opinion on global warming reflects the tragic lack of proper journalism/science in our media...




posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Yeah! Wait.... what?

This:

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
1. CO2 is undeniably a greenhouse gas that, if removed from our atmosphere, would reduce global temperatures by 60 degrees Fahrenheit


DOES NOT EQUAL THIS:


Originally posted by NoHierarchy
www.dnr.sc.gov...


[SNIP]Water vapor is responsible for most of this warming, but carbon dioxide (CO2) also plays an important role in warming the earth's atmosphere.



Seems like CO2 may play an "important role" in warming the Earth, but plays second fiddle to water vapor. Strange, most Global Warming activists want more wetland conservation and also curiously haven't been protesting volcanic activity... both major contributors to water vapor in the atmosphere.

Once again, as with so many of life's scenarios, global warming illustrates the perpetual need of humans to always believe there's something the can do and someone they can blame over every occurence. The media has grasped upon this and turned it into a boom for themselves through stories like "A silent killer lurks among us... could YOUR children be next to die. We'll tell you what it is and what you can do about it after these commercial messages!" and it turns out that the story is about something ridiculous like a bee alergy and that particular summer has seen a higher than usual bee population. It's a fluke, but the media opts to sensationalize it and corporate America quickly latches onto it as a way to make money as millions of parents needlessly run out to buy steroids & adrenaline injectors in case their kid gets stung and happens to be allergic. Same with global warming... media sensationalized the story, Algore came along and was absorbed into the media blitz for massive financial compensation, and overnight assinine carbon trading firms sprung up eager to prey on weak minded fears for big bucks.

Oh, and for your 3 studies that said there was nothing to the IPCC email are flatly meaningless. UEA, CRU, and the highly vested UK government hand selected the three research groups and did not disclose the information needed to conduct any other reviews to any other groups. As a result, we had the equivalent of the right hand inspecting and clearing the misdeeds of the left hand all while the overall body encouraged no malfeasance or impropriety to be found. MEANINGLESS. About as effective as allowing a criminal case to be presided over by a judge who just happens to be the suspect's brother.

Where there's smoke, there is and always has been fire. The deletion of emails and evidence of emails directing deletion of anything which didn't support the IPCC's theories produced quite a cloud of smoke. Anyone who is capible of emotionally distancing themselves from the issue as well as considering the possibility that this fraud they had bought into wholeheartedly was wrong should be also capible of finding that fire.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

There are other larger greenhouse gases out there, to attribute the vast majority of Temp increase solely to the small increase in CO2 is disingenuous. There are dozens (probably hundreds) of variables that contribute to the cyclical warming and cooling of our Planet.


Larger greenhouse gases out there? Like what? If you're talking about water vapor then please see my recent reply to Mez353. If you're talking about Methane then sure... methane is a STRONGER greenhouse gas than CO2 and certainly human actions are INCREASING concentrations (both via emissions and thawing of permafrost), however CO2 still dominates methane in its contributions to recent global warming.

And SMALL increase? Going from 280ppm to almost 400ppm is NOT a small increase in atmospheric CO2.

Regardless of the number of variables that contribute to climate... the current global warming we're seeing is undeniably/overwhelmingly attributable to anthropogenic emissions of GHGs, mostly CO2. Any subsequent positive feedback effect is STILL the result of human actions.



I wonder what the "Climate change crowd" would have been saying during the Medieval Warm Period, The Little Ice Age or more recently, during the "Dust Bowl" years in the 1930's. That probably would have seemed like the end of the world to them.


We'd be saying the same thing we're saying now-

1. The "Medieval Warm Period" was regional to some parts of Europe and was NOT global.

2. The "Little Ice Age" was also regional to northern Europe and was NOT global. Many factors also combined to cause this period (which wasn't actually an ice-age)- including the eruption of Mt. Tambora, the Maunder Minimum, and changes in ocean circulation.

3. The "Dust Bowl" was due to drought combined with improper farming techniques sapping the soil of strength needed to withstand erosive forces. It was also limited to a portion of the United States and was also not global.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by 19872012
The idea that 2010 is the hottest year on record is BS. Sure, Russia had some heat, and there were a few weeks of extreme heat in the US, but overall, it actually seemed like a pretty cold summer.


news.discovery.com...

www.noaanews.noaa.gov...

www.giss.nasa.gov...

Just because it was colder in one region or colder for a short period of time means nothing in the bigger picture. Overall, global temperatures this year are breaking records... and there are plenty of people who will disagree with you even on your own points.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by 19872012
The idea that 2010 is the hottest year on record is BS. Sure, Russia had some heat, and there were a few weeks of extreme heat in the US, but overall, it actually seemed like a pretty cold summer.


news.discovery.com...

www.noaanews.noaa.gov...

www.giss.nasa.gov...

Just because it was colder in one region or colder for a short period of time means nothing in the bigger picture. Overall, global temperatures this year are breaking records... and there are plenty of people who will disagree with you even on your own points.


That map is misleading. Most of the world's LAND mass was warmer in June 2010, but counting ocean area, about 1/3 was cooler.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   


Originally posted by burdman30ott6
Yeah! Wait.... what?

This:

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
1. CO2 is undeniably a greenhouse gas that, if removed from our atmosphere, would reduce global temperatures by 60 degrees Fahrenheit


DOES NOT EQUAL THIS:


Originally posted by NoHierarchy
www.dnr.sc.gov...


[SNIP]Water vapor is responsible for most of this warming, but carbon dioxide (CO2) also plays an important role in warming the earth's atmosphere.



You're setting up a straw-man, a false argument, AND putting words in my mouth, CONGRATULATIONS! You get the ribbon for most invalid debater thus far.

First of all- I never said that the former was equal to the latter. Not only that, but the equation doesn't even make logical sense.

Second of all, if you read my response to Mez, you'll see that I've already stated that water vapor contributes 35-65% of the greenhouse effect. HOWEVER, it is NOT a forcing factor, it is a feedback factor. CO2 is a forcing factor in global warming that CAUSES increases in atmospheric water vapor- this is called a positive feedback effect.



Seems like CO2 may play an "important role" in warming the Earth, but plays second fiddle to water vapor. Strange, most Global Warming activists want more wetland conservation and also curiously haven't been protesting volcanic activity... both major contributors to water vapor in the atmosphere.


Once again- another false argument. OF COURSE environmentalists want wetland conservation... fighting global warming is ALSO about conservation. Global warming is DESTABILIZING and helping to destroy ecosystems (like wetlands). Also, volcanoes are absolutely NOT the primary source of atmospheric water vapor, nor do they emit anywhere NEAR the amount of CO2 that humans do, for that matter.



Once again, as with so many of life's scenarios, global warming illustrates the perpetual need of humans to always believe there's something the can do and someone they can blame over every occurence. The media has grasped upon this and turned it into a boom for themselves through stories like "A silent killer lurks among us... could YOUR children be next to die. We'll tell you what it is and what you can do about it after these commercial messages!" and it turns out that the story is about something ridiculous like a bee alergy and that particular summer has seen a higher than usual bee population. It's a fluke, but the media opts to sensationalize it and corporate America quickly latches onto it as a way to make money as millions of parents needlessly run out to buy steroids & adrenaline injectors in case their kid gets stung and happens to be allergic. Same with global warming... media sensationalized the story, Algore came along and was absorbed into the media blitz for massive financial compensation, and overnight assinine carbon trading firms sprung up eager to prey on weak minded fears for big bucks.


Regardless of media alarmism/sensationalism (which is a problem) you must realize that it applies to BOTH sides of the global warming "debate". Not only that, but the media gives an imbalanced favor to denialist rhetoric that DOES NOT reflect the body of science. If anything, the media is complicit in the conspiracy to COVER UP the existence of global warming, not to educate the masses on it. Of course... they do a bit of both, but a very bad job of reflecting sound science (which overwhelmingly supports AGW).

Also, most environmentalists are AGAINST cap n' trade (it's a weak give-away to industry that was CRAFTED by industry during the Bush Admin.) and even CO2 taxes (though such taxes have proven somewhat useful, actually). Regardless, we want to ABANDON fossil fuels as much as possible in favor of renewables and generally sustainable lifestyles.



Oh, and for your 3 studies that said there was nothing to the IPCC email are flatly meaningless. UEA, CRU, and the highly vested UK government hand selected the three research groups and did not disclose the information needed to conduct any other reviews to any other groups. As a result, we had the equivalent of the right hand inspecting and clearing the misdeeds of the left hand all while the overall body encouraged no malfeasance or impropriety to be found. MEANINGLESS. About as effective as allowing a criminal case to be presided over by a judge who just happens to be the suspect's brother.


Flatly meaningless? Why don't you actually study the scientific impartiality of these groups, there is NO REASON to suspect that they're complicit in any conspiracy or that they wouldn't rigorously/objectively analyze the emails properly. You have grossly over-exaggerated the level of this as well in your comparison.



Where there's smoke, there is and always has been fire. The deletion of emails and evidence of emails directing deletion of anything which didn't support the IPCC's theories produced quite a cloud of smoke. Anyone who is capible of emotionally distancing themselves from the issue as well as considering the possibility that this fraud they had bought into wholeheartedly was wrong should be also capible of finding that fire.


Once again, do your homework. You seem to have a false labeling of what constitutes the smoke and what constitutes the fire. Time after time, criticisms of the emails have proven false, cherry-picked, taken out of context, exaggerated, and proven wrong in-practice. All the emails show is deep frustration and suspicion on the part of the scientists for skeptics who are trying to undermine their honest work/research. I'd be pulling my hair out and cursing too if I was a scientist with the IPCC... there's a war going on to discredit them and it's almost entirely fought by dirty political/industry tactics that show NO respect for the truth and only serve to create false debate/doubt so that they can remain in business indefinitely.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
First of all- I never said that the former was equal to the latter. Not only that, but the equation doesn't even make logical sense.


Yes, you in fact did. I directly quoted you from early in the thread as you proudly declared that it was "indeniable" that CO2 is a greenhouse gas responsible for global warming and, if removed entirely from the atmosphere, Earth's temperature would cool by 60 degrees F. Then you backpeddled when I called you on it by posting excerpts that supported the 60% temperature reduction only in regards to the overall atmosphere of the planet. Earth would cool by 60% if it had no atmosphere at all was essentially what your later supporting external quotes stated.

Nobody knows how much of the Earth's temperature is controled by CO2, if any. There are too many variables, many of which man has no control over.
News flash: Sun is hot... gotten hotter over past 60+ years
Global Warming: natural cycle
Next up: A new Ice Age

The real story of global warming is that it is natural. Carl Sagan and others realized we were .ing toward the cyclical pre-ice age temperature spike cycle which would last between 30 and 40 years. With equal credit due to political/personal agendas and profit grabbing, many in the science community began to see this as a case of never letting a good crisis go to waste. Ultimately we are now seeing the early stages of how they can somehow ramp down on this while still forcing the changes they wanted, making the money they desired, and then say "Wow, disaster averted... OK folks, we can breathe easy" when ultimately the only thing preventing people from actually breathing beforehand was the smell of bullcrap eminating from the panels and carbon trade firms.

The cost & risks of the actions they propose and you are supporting are too high to undertake based on the faulty science and guesstimating they have done. I mean 10 years ago the same jackasses were saying by 2010 we'd see ocean levels rise... instead we've seen them drop (see Iceland and the ridiculous effort to save face by claiming the land rose instead thanks to less ice weight on it.)



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by burdman30ott6

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
First of all- I never said that the former was equal to the latter. Not only that, but the equation doesn't even make logical sense.


Yes, you in fact did. I directly quoted you from early in the thread as you proudly declared that it was "indeniable" that CO2 is a greenhouse gas responsible for global warming and, if removed entirely from the atmosphere, Earth's temperature would cool by 60 degrees F. Then you backpeddled when I called you on it by posting excerpts that supported the 60% temperature reduction only in regards to the overall atmosphere of the planet. Earth would cool by 60% if it had no atmosphere at all was essentially what your later supporting external quotes stated.


hahah... I think you need to read what I said a little bit closer. There is a BIG difference between 60 DEGREES and 60 PERCENT. If CO2 was removed from the atmosphere, the Earth would cool by 60 DEGREES Fahrenheit. Water vapor contributes 35-65 PERCENT of the greenhouse effect. You do know that temperatures can go below zero dont ya? Sorry to sound condescending, but seriously... read more carefully than that before you quote me.



Nobody knows how much of the Earth's temperature is controled by CO2, if any. There are too many variables, many of which man has no control over.


Actually... scientists know quite a bit about how CO2 affects Earth's atmosphere/temperatures...

Please read:

www.ipcc.ch...
www.stanford.edu...(2010_PNAS).pdf
atoc.colorado.edu...
www.grist.org...



News flash: Sun is hot... gotten hotter over past 60+ years
Global Warming: natural cycle
Next up: A new Ice Age


To address your first link...

First, read the last 3 paragraphs of that article.

The research conducted was by Sami Solanki:

en.wikipedia.org...


Solanki's research has been quoted as being part of the Global warming controversy, for instance in an article in the Telegraph.co.uk in 2004[8][9] as taking a skeptical position:
“ the impact of more intense sunshine on the ozone layer and on cloud cover could be affecting the climate more than the sunlight itself ”
But the same research has been quoted as being evidence for global warming in a news release from the Max Planck Society[10] where he is quoted as saying:
“ since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming.


Also:

www.sourcewatch.org.../common_claims_and_rebuttal#Global_warming_is_being_caused_by_the_sun


The GCC's own scientists noted that "Direct measures of the intensity of solar radiation over the past 15 years indicate a maximum variability of less than 0.1%, sufficient to account for no more than 0.1°C temperature change. This period of direct measurement included one complete 11 year sun spot cycle, which allowed the development of a correlation between solar intensity and the fraction of the Sun's surface covered by sun spots. Applying this correlation to sun spot data for the past 120 years indicates a maximum variability on solar intensity of 0.1%, corresponding to a maximum temperature change of 0.1°C, one-fifth of the temperature change observed during that period.



To address your second link...

The guy, Robert Essenhigh, is a Mechanical Engineer, not an expert in climatology or atmospheric physics. Also, his arguments are just plain silly and don't make much sense. He's also a part of the Heartland Institute, which is not to be trusted, especially on matters of global warming (or tobacco).

He claims that scientists dont account for carbon sinks, water vapor, or natural sources of CO2. The fact is THEY DO and can still conclude that human emissions of CO2 are causing a significant imbalance in this system. His assertions may sound plausible to some, but they're not, and have been addressed many times over.


To address your third link...

There will not be another ice-age for THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

www.columbia.edu...

And...





CONTINUED...




new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join