Global warming is a fact.

Lets start burning forest and increase carbon output, because Global Warming is fake, there is no such thing as Green Houses gases!

We should put unleaded, unfiltered, gasoline into our vehicles, and use V50 engines.!

Well that is good news. I was just about to tear down the boat house and dock I built in my back yard a few years ago waiting for the oceans to rise. I will now tell my wife why I didn't... Global Warming is real.

Is there any timeline... I have a BBQ planned for next week and the water is still too far out for as good sunset over the waves kind of thing.

In fact, the way Al Gore and company were talking, I figured I could go boating in what is still a goat pasture. What gives guys... ? My boat is leaning to starboard in a basically dry dock... not a damn ocean wave insight.

I do know of new reports stating that we are entering a period of global cooling... maybe we'll cancel the BBQ/Boating thing and do ice sculptures.

Oh, and what's with this latest report that says Global Warming ended 16 years ago?

reply to post by TheRedneck

Again? Really? Really?

Really, Really, yes, again!

How long will this myth persist?

The only persistent myth is the one being paid for by Big Oil.

All the predictions that have been made for the time period up to the present have failed to happen. The sea has not risen umpteen kilometers; hurricanes have not increased in either size or frequency; the polar ice caps have not disappeared.

Really? Really?

No we are not under water, yet. But, it is actually happening at a rate faster than AGW Scientists predicted.
Record ice melt for summer 2012

Sea Levels Rising

City planners in Washington, D.C. — and in most major coastal cities around the world — are asking such questions as sea level rise, which the world’s climate scientists agree is being caused by manmade global warming, accelerates.
Recently, the world’s climate experts have reported that global sea level rise is speeding up much faster than they expected only a few years ago.
They now calculate there could well be a rise of another one to two meters before the end of the century.

All the reports indicating a warming trend are either from the IPCC or can be traced back to the IPCC. Translation: none of this is peer-reviewed.

No.

Oreskes and Peiser
Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).

Benny Peiser, a climate contrarian, repeated Oreskes' survey and claimed to have found 34 peer reviewed studies rejecting the consensus. However, an inspection of each of the 34 studies reveals most of them don't reject the consensus at all. The remaining articles in Peiser's list are editorials or letters, not peer-reviewed studies. Peiser has since retracted his criticism of Oreskes survey:

"Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique. [snip] I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact."

Doran 2009
Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.

Skepticalscience.com

Scientists are very particular people. They don't just run around willy nilly through google and forums for information and data. 97.7% Climate Scientists agree that Global Warming is being accelerated due to man made causes. It is considered the Consensus Position. It considered the Consensus Position for a reason, not because some Big Oil sponsored yahoo with a degree in something or other cherry picked data (scientists don't do that) on published papers. Not only were these published papers cherry picked they weren't even cherry picked properly, most all of them did support the Consensus Position but contained a paragraph that questioned a particular methodology etc...

The “State of the Climate 2011” report, published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS), presents a peer reviewed tour through the weather and climate events of 2011. The overriding theme that emerges from the report is that the effects of human activities are readily evident, be it in the form of rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere — global carbon dioxide concentrations hit a new all-time high of 390 parts per million last year, and will cross the 400 ppm threshold worldwide by 2016 — to the inexorable increase in ocean heat content.

climatecentral.org

And here's that report mentioned in the above paragraph.
NOAA.gov

reply to post by DarthMuerte

The earth is warming. However, Mars is warming, Venus is warming, all of the planets are warming.

You state this as fact. Any scientific data to back it up? Or are you guilty of drinking the koolaid? Try this here...www.skepticalscience.com...

From the link...

It is curious that the theory depends so much on sparse information – what we know about the climates on other planets and their history – yet its proponents resolutely ignore the most compelling evidence against the notion.

Mars: the notion that Mars is warming came from an unfortunate conflation of weather and climate. Based on two pictures taken 22 years apart, assumptions were made that have not proved to be reliable. There is currently no evidence to support claims that Mars is warming at all.

Jupiter: the notion that Jupiter is warming is actually based on predictions, since no warming has actually been observed. Climate models predict temperature increases along the equator and cooling at the poles. It is believed these changes will be catalyzed by storms that merge into one super-storm, inhibiting the planet’s ability to mix heat. Skeptical arguments have ignored the fact this is not a phenomenon we have observed, and that the modeled forcing is storm and dust movements, not changes in solar radiation.

Neptune: observations of changes in luminosity on the surface of both Neptune and its largest moon, Triton, have been taken to indicate warming caused by increased solar activity. In fact, the brightening is due to the planet’s seasons changing, but very slowly. Summer is coming to Neptune’s southern hemisphere, bringing more sunlight, as it does every 164 years.

Yes, ignoring evidence is the modus operandii of those that wish to dispense what they believe, instead of observable FACT. Fact is irrelevant, as it doesn't fit with your beliefs.

The sun is warming the planets. We have some, miniscule, effect.

Really?

Over the last fifty years, the sun’s output has decreased slightly: it is radiating less heat. We can measure the various activities of the sun pretty accurately from here on Earth, or from orbit above it, so it is hard to ignore the discrepancy between the facts and the sceptical argument that the sun is causing the rise in temperatures.

The Sun is increasing temps with DECREASED output. Have a link for that? Or just more Kool-Aid?

Man is not THE problem.

Well, gotta agree with you there. IGNORANCE of data is the problem. Unfortunately, Man seems to be in an abundance of ignorance of late.

Put down the koolaid.

Said the man with a pitcher full, 'it doesn't agree with my beliefs, here drink mine and I can agree with you'.
Are we really stuck with the line of reasoning that led us to believe the Earth was the center of the Universe? Can we get over this now?

reply to post by MrWendal

If denying man made global warming is nothing more than GOP propaganda, how do you explain the FACT that cap and trade legislation (regarding CO2 emissions) was rejected by a Democrat controlled Senate?

Would it be that there are some Dems that think it should be just a CAP, and dispense with the TRADE part? There are those that see Cap/Trade for what is, an elaborate money making scheme.

Those who truly believe in controlling carbon emissions want a hard cap.

Its like the healthcare debate. Everyone says 'over 50 % of the people disagree with the Affordable Healthcare Act". But no one tells you of the 60% against, 20% want a single-payer system.

reply to post by TheRedneck

But ignore all that scientific stuff. A bunch of politically-biased web sites say it, so it must be true, right? Right?

Ahhhh, TheRedneck says its false, so it must be false, right? Right?

reply to post by bigyin

Even the scientific community have stopped referring to Global Warming because it's becoming quite embarrassing. They now refer to Climate Change.

It is because people think Global Warming means it will be 80 degrees and sunny in December. Then people freak out when its 80 below and 12 feet of snow fall in one month.

Global Warming brings more Extremes, more oscillations between those extremes. Climate Change is a more apt description. Climate change brought on by Global Warming caused by the ignorance of Man.

reply to post by Summerian

The seas just have to rise 10 meters to cause damage in the trillions and drown some countries.
But I get it - USA don't care.

A ten-meter sea level rise would submerge most of Florida and Louisiana, as well as large sections of the Eastern and Western seaboards. All of those are in the US.

The simple facts are that Florida and Louisiana are not underwater. Sea level is not rising. And please don't point me to articles where one small place has experienced a sea level rise; if sea level rises, it must do so everywhere. Water seeks its own level. If water is higher in one specific place, it is due to land submerging, not ocean levels rising.

"When the planet tends to warm, carbon dioxide acts less as a greenhouse gas and opposes the trend." LOL WHAT!? There's just no science dude... none...

I think you mean there's no politics... there's plenty of science:

• Carbon Dioxide physical properties including IR absorption band wavelengths.
  
• Black-Body Radiation, the whole reason some scientists started worrying about this non-issue.
  
• Planck's Laws which describe Black-Body Radiation mathematically.
  
• Thermodynamics, which describe the heat exchanges taking place in the Earth's atmosphere.
  
• Solar Radiation... self-explanatory.

That, sir, is science (although elementary science, seeing as I used quick Wikipedia articles). Collecting what a bunch of pundits and reporters say is propaganda.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


NEWS FLASH ; ALL PLANETS ARE WARMING.and we have project HAARP "HEATING THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE.

reply to post by Kali74

No we are not under water, yet. But, it is actually happening at a rate faster than AGW Scientists predicted.

Yes, the Arctic ice is slowly decreasing. Now ask yourself: does heat rise or fall in a medium? Answer: heat rises! It rises due to the fact that warmer materials expand and thus decrease in density. So if we are looking for a reason for the decrease of polar ice, why are we looking up when we should be looking down?

Answer: for the same reason we use the summer minimums and not the averages: to support the "accepted" position regardless of reality.

Oh, and considering the Antarctic is increasing in ice accumulation, the actual effect on sea level is near zero.

Scientists are very particular people. They don't just run around willy nilly through google and forums for information and data. 97.7% Climate Scientists agree that Global Warming is being accelerated due to man made causes. It is considered the Consensus Position. It considered the Consensus Position for a reason, not because some Big Oil sponsored yahoo with a degree in something or other cherry picked data (scientists don't do that) on published papers. Not only were these published papers cherry picked they weren't even cherry picked properly, most all of them did support the Consensus Position but contained a paragraph that questioned a particular methodology etc...

Here's the real problem quite clearly illustrated. Scientific publications are wonderful and should be considered, but that is only the beginning of science. Theories must be peer-reviewed. Predictions must be made and must be determined to be accurate. In other words, science is not a spectator sport; it is an active engagement and understanding of what is being presented.

Show me the calculations; show me the reasoning; show me something beyond "97% of scientists agree" and I'll listen.

TheRedneck

reply to post by ErEhWoN

Ahhhh, TheRedneck says its false, so it must be false, right? Right?

Nope. Science says it's false. I'm just pointing to the facts. See this post.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck

Here's the real problem quite clearly illustrated. Scientific publications are wonderful and should be considered, but that is only the beginning of science. Theories must be peer-reviewed. Predictions must be made and must be determined to be accurate. In other words, science is not a spectator sport; it is an active engagement and understanding of what is being presented.

If you had fully read the article you would have seen that I was referring to peer reviewed papers. At the bottom of my post I linked you to a peer reviewed report on AGW. I'm not sure why you are asking for more of you didn't look at the links I provided you. But okay here's another, from NASA this time with charts and graphs.

Earth's energy imbalance is the difference between the amount of solar energy absorbed by Earth and the amount of energy the planet radiates to space as heat. If the imbalance is positive, more energy coming in than going out, we can expect Earth to become warmer in the future — but cooler if the imbalance is negative. Earth's energy imbalance is thus the single most crucial measure of the status of Earth's climate and it defines expectations for future climate change.

The role of the Sun. The measured positive imbalance in 2005-2010 is particularly important because it occurred during the deepest solar minimum in the period of accurate solar monitoring (Fig. 2). If the Sun were the only climate forcing or the dominant climate forcing, then the planet would gain energy during the solar maxima, but lose energy during solar minima.

The fact that Earth gained energy at a rate 0.58 W/m2 during a deep prolonged solar minimum reveals that there is a strong positive forcing overwhelming the negative forcing by below-average solar irradiance. That result is not a surprise, given knowledge of other forcings, but it provides unequivocal refutation of assertions that the Sun is the dominant climate forcing.

Target CO2. The measured planetary energy imbalance provides an immediate accurate assessment of how much atmospheric CO2 would need to be reduced to restore Earth's energy balance, which is the basic requirement for stabilizing climate. If other climate forcings were unchanged, increasing Earth's radiation to space by 0.5 W/m2 would require reducing CO2 by ~30 ppm to 360 ppm. However, given that the imbalance of 0.58±0.15 W/m2 was measured during a deep solar minimum, it is probably necessary to increase radiation to space by closer to 0.75 W/m2, which would require reducing CO2 to ~345 ppm, other forcings being unchanged. Thus the Earth's energy imbalance confirms an earlier estimate on other grounds that CO2 must be reduced to about 350 ppm or less to stabilize climate (Hansen et al., 2008).

giss.nasa.gov

reply to post by TheRedneck


The minority of science. Out on the fringes of science. The same ones that probably believe in hollow earth.

When it comes to the climate, I put my trust in mainstream science. I leave the fringe for sci-fi and fantasy books.

And ATS of course.

Global warming will be the reason it's started snowing already in Scotland then.

Report

Sure Jose, sure

reply to post by Kali74

If you had fully read the article you would have seen that I was referring to peer reviewed papers.

You mean this one? Sorry... I got maybe two-three paragraphs in and had to go throw up. It's sickening how much pure unadulterated propaganda this guy can pack into so few words.

But hey, let's take a look at your latest link:

By James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha and Karina von Schuckmann — January 2012

Emphasis mine.

James Hansen... the well-spring from which all AGW propaganda flows... ah well, let's give the man the benefit of the doubt, shall we? I'm skipping the introductory paragraph for now in favor of the 'meat' of the paper.

Earth's energy imbalance is the difference between the amount of solar energy absorbed by Earth and the amount of energy the planet radiates to space as heat.

He is using thermodynamic analysis, which is common when a system is too complex to be calculated directly. But more interesting to me here is the inherent assumption of an energy imbalance before he has established an imbalance exists.

Energy imbalance arises because of changes of the climate forcings acting on the planet in combination with the planet's thermal inertia.

Again with an assumed imbalance, mentioned in context with the very real phenomenon of thermal inertia.

Climate forcings are imposed perturbations to Earth's energy balance. Natural forcings include change of the Sun's brightness and volcanic eruptions that deposit aerosols in the stratosphere, thus cooling Earth by reflecting sunlight back to space. Principal human-made climate forcings are greenhouse gases (mainly CO2), which cause warming by trapping Earth's heat radiation, and human-made aerosols, which, like volcanic aerosols, reflect sunlight and have a cooling effect.

I find it interesting that CO2 emissions are here associated exclusively with man-made processes and not with volcanic activity, despite the fact that volcanic activity releases massive amounts of carbon dioxide. Instead, volcanic activity is depicted as a cooling process due to aerosols (ash) that block sunlight. In truth, practically every tectonic belch releases carbon dioxide, but only actual eruptions release ash.

The most abundant gas typically released into the atmosphere from volcanic systems is water vapor (H2O), followed by carbon dioxide (CO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Volcanoes also release smaller amounts of others gases, including hydrogen sulfide (H2S), hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen chloride (HCL), hydrogen fluoride (HF), and helium (He).

Source: volcanoes.usgs.gov...

In other words, Mr. Hansen is making an assumption, using physical truths to introduce this assumption as fact instead of establishing his assumption on its own merits, then twisting facts in order to emphasize his assumption. That is propaganda, not science.

But it is what I have come to expect from Hansen and the IPCC in general.

TheRedneck

reply to post by ErEhWoN

When it comes to science, I look at facts and check it out for myself. Good luck with that blind faith thing.

TheRedneck

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

This AGW myth has been dispelled repeatedly by reputable scientist in PEER-REVIEWED research, unlike the IPCC's top-secret "Computer model" that nobody is allowed to review. Also, weren't a number of emails leaked that directly supported the contention that the IPCC's finding were purely political and not backed by any real scientific evidence? I know I read at least a dozen threads on that right here on ATS.

This is a pile of muck! Please keep this pointless drivel off the boards - unless you want to discuss the conspiracy of WHY IPCC is lying through its teeth to create a crisis that does NOT exist in reality!

reply to post by TheRedneck

You mean this one? Sorry... I got maybe two-three paragraphs in and had to go throw up. It's sickening how much pure unadulterated propaganda this guy can pack into so few words.

No I meant this one, the one that talks about how there are peer reviewed papers that the scientific community stands on to form their consensus that Man has an affect on our climate and global warming. I'll quote again...

A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).

Now this is where a lot of AGW skeptics and convenient deniers get a lot of their fuel from.

Benny Peiser, a climate contrarian, repeated Oreskes' survey and claimed to have found 34 peer reviewed studies rejecting the consensus. However, an inspection of each of the 34 studies reveals most of them don't reject the consensus at all. The remaining articles in Peiser's list are editorials or letters, not peer-reviewed studies.

Now notice how the same group never talks about Peiser now or if they do they leave this part out.

Peiser has since retracted his criticism of Oreskes survey:

"Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique. [snip] I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact."

Now, ultimately you are saying that a large number of scientists are just using incorrect science, that they're doing it wrong. Here's a list of Scientific Organizations that you can tell are wrong in supporting the consensus on AGW.

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (Mexico)
Russian Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
African Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Australian Academy of Science
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences

You gotta ask yourself, are all these scientists part of a conspiracy to defraud the citizens of the world out of their tax dollars or is it more likely that Big Oil/Industry/Business are trying to subvert them so they can continue profiting off of raping the planet?

reply to post by Kali74

No I meant this one, the one that talks about how there are peer reviewed papers that the scientific community stands on to form their consensus that Man has an affect on our climate and global warming.

Ah, my bad. This is the one that likes the Doran 2009 study, where the question was "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

Interesting question. It never mentions carbon dioxide, nor does it mention warming. It asks if man-made activities contribute to changing temperatures. Well, of course they do! The heat island effect of cities is well-documented (and used in some cases to make sure those pesky temperature sensors give warming data), man-made aerosols can indeed block sunlight, and Jeez Louise! does anyone really believe that burning any fuels or creating heat through the use of electricity doesn't affect the global temperatures?

I can toss a rock into the ocean and raise the sea level, too. But raising that sea level by 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001mm isn't going to do any harm.

The real question is not whether human activity has an effect on the planet. It does! The question is whether human activity is going to render the planet uninhabitable or collapse civilization. The question is whether carbon dioxide emissions will do this. The answer to that is NO! Carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of all fauna and any combustion of carbonaceous material in an oxygen environment. It is the reagent used by flora to produce sugars and oxygen, along with water and sunlight. It is also a variable greenhouse gas that actually maintains the stable temperatures needed for life by acting more as a greenhouse gas when temperatures cool and less as temperatures increase.

The greenhouse gas effect of carbon dioxide pales alongside that of water vapor and methane. While one could argue methane concentration is too low to make it a major contributor to any warming, water vapor is present in orders of magnitude greater than carbon dioxide. Yet no one wants to talk about "water credits".

Even if we did discover that carbon dioxide could somehow magically change its physical properties (I have actually heard this used by AGW supporters ) and cause us to "freeze in a fiery flood", is taxing it going to help matters?

You can hold onto this disproven concept of carbon demonization all you want. I have seen quite enough evidence to refute it, far too much political maneuvering to support it, and plenty enough outrageous and fantastic claims to allow me to see it for anything other than what it is: a fantasy concocted by politicians and supported by paid mouthpieces with degrees (making a long list of mouthpieces doesn't change any of those accusations, btw).

...until someone can actually prove the mechanism by which carbon dioxide produces their predicted effects without ignoring physical principles, that is.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


So where are the peer reviewed papers that disprove AGW, that disprove the sea level is rising? I'm guessing there aren't any.

I actually agree with you that taxing it is stupid, trading it even more stupid but that doesn't mean we ignore science just because we don't want to pay another tax, there's got to be other solutions and we shouldn't stop the discussion just because we don't like the solution being pushed.