anti global warming rhetoric and America's decline

a reply to: jrod

Heck, you can go back a few months ago and you claimed AGW was a hoax, and then you went on to defend AGW and say it was true in the same sentence...

Was the question genuinely "do you believe the climate is changing?" and not "do you believe man has caused global warming and that it will be damaging to our species?" Because those are two very different questions and throws out any "consensus" that is often claimed.

a reply to: superbanjo


Sorry, I reject the whole political angle and money making scam.

Hey, it might get hotter or colder.

If people can't outrun rising sea levels, then Darwin is vindicated.

It's also important to note that since the end of the cold war, "the environment" was moved under the umbrella of "National Security". This happens in all countries in the Anglosphere. Brzezinski was behind this re-classification.

Lot's of things can be done around the world in the name of protecting the environment.

As this study by Japanese scientist Kyoji Kimoto shows, all the hype about climate is based on mathematical error and exaggeration.

multi-science.atypon.com...

The central dogma is critically evaluated in the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory of the IPCC, claiming the Planck response is 1.2K when CO2 is doubled. The first basis of it is one dimensional model studies with the fixed lapse rate assumption of 6.5K/km. It is failed from the lack of the parameter sensitivity analysis of the lapse rate for CO2 doubling. The second basis is the Planck response calculation by Cess in 1976 having a mathematical error. Therefore, the AGW theory is collapsed along with the canonical climate sensitivity of 3K utilizing the radiative forcing of 3.7W/m2 for CO2 doubling. The surface climate sensitivity is 0.14-0.17K in this study with the surface radiative forcing of 1.1W/m2.

a reply to: superbanjo

Evidence three-warm nights----what part of the world do you live in???? Cause I'm listening to the wind howl and two nights ago it was wind chill -40

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: snchrnct

While some scientists argue that the warming has been mainly caused by human intervention, others argue that the influence by man is greatly exaggerated, claiming the varieties in climate observations are mainly driven by (underestimated) natural variabilities such as the sun, ocean cycles, and cloud cover. Unfortunately, these (unpopular) views and arguments are not tolerated in the climate change debate.

Sure it is! What do you think all the publications and simulations and experiments climatologists, oceanographers, and geoscientists have been doing for the last 50 years are about? There are extensive publication records in all of those areas.

Why is the 'natural variability' of the sun "underestimated"? Where is the physical EVIDENCE? In fact, the influence of the Sun has been extensively investigated for decades with numbers and observations.

More Solar output would mean in particular higher temperature anomalies in summer and at equatorial latitudes and at daytime. As it turns out, the evidence shows higher temperature anomalies in winter, in polar latitudes, and at night, which are syndromes of increased greenhouse effect as the relative contribution from increased IR emissivity in the atmosphere becomes larger.

If you want to say it is a "natural cycle" you need to provide evidence, in physics and quantitative measurement, that it is so. This has been going on for decades. Once upon a time, the statement was true that there was insufficient knowledge to quantify the effect of greenhouse gases vs other effects. That is no longer the case, because of many years of work. Mother Nature doesn't feel any obligation to give us the answer we prefer.

I don't want global warming at all, it sucks. But denying it is like a doctor denying smoking causes cancer or meth is bad for your health. Why can't we get tweaked all we want? Mommy, why can't I eat Halloween candy every day for dinner?

. It is the sun. The sun is in a natural "quiescent phase" and we are entering a more cooling phase as a result. A child can understand that concept. Why can't Al Gore?

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: superbanjo

Evidence three-warm nights----what part of the world do you live in???? Cause I'm listening to the wind howl and two nights ago it was wind chill -40

Sorry, is this argument still being used? "Global warming can't exist, it's really cold where I live today!"

Please.

Aside from all the usual arguments for and against global warming, here's something i came across the other day which really puts it all in perspective.

Apparently there is something that could be done right now very easily, to make a bigger impact on the greenhouse effect than the elimination of all fossil fuel use from this day forward. The answer is for everyone on the planet to shift to a vegan diet. According to the claims, the current use of fossil fuels contributes 13% of all greenhouse gases, but livestock contributes between 18-51%. It's responsible for immense consumption of freshwater, the drastic increase in deforestation, not to mention the vast amounts of methane pollution. In addition to this, it is responsible for other disastrous environmental and health consequences such as water pollution, increased cancer rates and other serious medical conditions and diseases, soil nutrient depletion and species extinction.

It's also pretty rough on the animals themselves. So, why is it that none of us, including me, are aware of this in the global warming debate?

originally posted by: Ohanka
It is quite preposterous to claim the Earth is not heating.

It is also quite preposterous to claim we have any control over this. Unless you are in possession of a ray that controls the temperature of the Sun of course.

I'm all in favour of environmental regulations, because stuff like acid rain and polluted water is bad, but carbon taxes pushed by this global warming lobby are lunacy.

As an Environmental Scientist, I contend the Magnetic poles moving and the Sun's weakening magnetic field is the real culprit in the patterns shifting making it possible to trot out BS to gain more power and wealth of the backs of the people. I realize not all of you are math wizards but bear with me below, I hope I can make it clear for all.

1st, the OP's "expert" missed that the ground is heating in some places, even though it has not been significant at all statistically due to statistical probability errors (normally 5% error is the acceptable range unless you can prove better precision) we use routinely to define how significant a change is to a closed system. Further, it is now cooling in other places like the NE US and Europe and that is becoming hard for the press to ignore.

One big reason I think the OP is off is because the 'expert' doesn't grasp GEOTHERMAL energy. That is being affected by the magnetic field of the earth interacting with that of the Sun and other planets. The places where massive tectonic plate movements have been occurring lately are the source of increases before greenhouse gases. The Earth cools when the most important gas is up high in the troposphere, water. The Earth has a mechanism that is well beyond control of AGW affects at this juncture or we WOULD BE controlling the climate and atmosphere.

The oceans are holding less and less carbon because they warm up is right but the reason it warmed is simply geothermal, and therefore Sun driven. Boy these guys are going to have egg on their faces as it gets cooler the next few decades. It will eventually warm back up.

Ask yourselves "what is the Earth's ideal temperature"?
A) Real warm
B) Real Cold
C) 75 F
D) fluctuating temperatures and fluctuating levels of ice at the poles.

This is the real question. I suspect, and feel it has been proven, that the official answer is being manipulated by greedy, power hungry people and organizations who are also supposedly know-it-all's. I have to believe that some of them mumble incoherently when asked this very question. I can stump them at the EPA with other questions when I meet with them. I challenge them to look to balancing the environment. What I get from them in meetings, is that some of them are hypocrites. They are collectively for the little man going back to total stone age tech where ever they can, but they all have some of the finest equipment on Earth (cool toys I DO like), but naturally I can't support some of the battles they pick. At this point in time, I simply cannot support the failed AGW theory.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: jrod

Can you control of the temperature of the sun?

No? Well what do you suggest we do about it then?

Every other planet in the solar system is warming up as well, I wonder if they have all that man made carbon too..

Maybe if the Environmentalists hadn't spent decades demonising nuclear power with the propaganda and lies from the fossil fuels industry we wouldn't have to worry about coal and other such nonsense.

every other planet in the solar system is warming?.....do you have precise measurements for Jupiter, Saturn, mars, Uranus, Neptune?...what a bunch of fake scientific crap is that?

NO HOMEWORK is why you are this way. What else can it be if you are HONEST.
DANGER, credible facts found in the articles linked below. Proceed at your own risk!

www.space.news...

www.skepticalscience.com...

news.nationalgeographic.com...

(Both sides being represented politically with those links too, I believe.)

originally posted by: snchrnct
originally posted by: bananasam

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: superbanjo

Consider a car was headed your direction and showed no signs of stopping. Would you just stand there and say "well it hasn't hit me yet, so I won't move?"

That's a flawed analogy. Here you compare a car with the irreversible (and "catastrophic") climate change/global warming I suppose? In that case, you already assume that this climate change is irreversible, so the car is heading towards you and you have to make a choice. However, the question really is whether that car is there in the first place, and if so, is it exactly heading towards you and at what speed? I don't think it has been proven yet that the car is there, let alone that it's going to "crush" us in case we don't act immediately.

Also, if we are here to talk science let's use data not claims.

#1 Arctic sea ice is showing the lowest levels on record this year.
blogs.discovermagazine.com...

True, but the first satellite record only dates back from 1979, before that we don't really have accurate measurements. So we can't say with certainty that this is "abnormally" low, or that it is not part of a larger natural cycle. And as you can see, it's very close to being within the standard deviation range again. I also hope that you know that the melting of sea ice does NOT contribute to global sea level rise, it actually decreases it due to the difference in volume.

#2 Oceans levels are increasing.
www.ucsusa.org...

Yes they have, since the last ice age, but certainly not at an unprecedented rate. Also here it is important to note that it is really difficult to accurately measure global sea levels. There are so many different variables involved, including the rising and sinking of land.

#3 There have been more hurricanes due to rising temperatures.
www.c2es.org...

The link doesn't work..

More recently (2000-2013), the average is about 16 tropical storms per year, including about eight hurricanes. This increase in frequency is correlated with the rise in North Atlantic sea surface temperatures

It is not only about the frequency, but also about the overall intensity. What's worse: more smaller ones, or a few bigger ones? You decide. And if there's any trend at all, the "accumulated cyclone energy" sees a downward one.

This is what NOAA itself has to say about Hurricanes and Global Warming.

It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.

And this is what NASA has to say on Extreme Weather Events:

Bill Patzert, a scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, says the evidence that extreme weather events have been more frequent in recent years is definitely to the contrary...As far as hurricanes, tornadoes, forest fires, floods, and drought, the evidence is definitely not in.

BINGO!

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: yuppa

The clip explicitly says, if we ignore the computer models the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is there.

You did not even watch it. It seems like you automatically dismiss evidence that does not pat your confirmation bias.

Jrod, I have need of those models. Crap into the model will give you crap coming out. Those work for small areas so far. The same model styles used for the daily weather i might add so we all know that track record. Sorry Jrod, this is a huge fail, you who are swimming in it are being played for money.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Maybe a better way to understand it is Radicalized Weather verses Stable Weather.

Everyone keeps getting too specific with the 'warming verses cooling' when the relationships in their drastic change is what is observed as the danger.

If you've ever watched a single "Global Warming" Hollywood movie, the Earth is normally destroyed by an Ice Age, didn't you ever find that ironic?


Shutdown of thermohaline circulation, is a potential effect of global warming, that directly causes global cooling and Ice Age.

Simply noting average weather temperatures isn't an effective way alone to disbar global warming based on cooling and disbar global cooling based on warming. In either case, extreme shift in either direction is fatal, so saying "it's not hot! it's cold!" or "it's not cold! it's hot!" is kind of pointless semantics. What is to be studied is the stability of changing weather conditions themselves, and that is not nearly as simple.

originally posted by: Uberdoubter

originally posted by: glowdog
from what i see the petrol-chemo industry is killing us. plain and simple
if not by being responsible ~for heating up "our" planet it´s killing us by poisoning.
...
if we are not already poisoned we are radiated,boiled and generally driven crazy before we are literally blown to bits.
...

Much truth in this. Put the focus on CO2, and blame all of us for being horrible people that use energy. Don't do anything about the pollution and poison that is everywhere - permeating the sea, land and air.

The oceans of the world are soon just one big blob of small plastic particles, and fracking contaminates the drinking water. Metals, pesticides, chemicals - but let's focus on CO2.

Both of you are right. GOOD POSTS.
IMHO
The real issues are not CO2 they are what these two have pointed out. Trash, poisonous effluents and pesticides are the real target. Who controls those things in the western society are dictating that situation. In most cases, litigation is our friend if we are not dead from the poisoning before it is corrected.

originally posted by: amazing
When we stop listening to scientists...(they almost all believe we're in a warming cycle caused by man) then we're in for hard times. I still choose to believe in Science and not a dimwit on Talk radio. LOL

This IS our problem. We get brainwashed by a media outlet and then believe everything they tell us, no matter if it goes against science or not.

Well, you for one have stopped at the ones you THINK , with maybe only a little actual science knowledge, are the right ones. Many, others of us in the field of science don't agree with them and are in debates in those meetings, period. The power mongers are controlling the narrative and that passes through the brainwashing MSM.

originally posted by: fencesitter85

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: superbanjo

Evidence three-warm nights----what part of the world do you live in???? Cause I'm listening to the wind howl and two nights ago it was wind chill -40

Sorry, is this argument still being used? "Global warming can't exist, it's really cold where I live today!"

Please.

Yes because it's the logical one. Co2 is not causing the temperature to rise and it's not causing extremes in temperature. And it's not causing floods, earthquakes and hurricanes. And hey guess what. www.forbes.com...

The anti climateers have won. The points and evidence presented here are all very interesting but moot now. I don't know why the feds continue with FEMA, firefighting and subsidies for disasters. Why not get rid of that institution along with all our other fed institutions.