Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[SK-1]

Have to sign in to read it

Strange... I just did a generic google search with "Man made Climate change consensus lie" and I get a link with no sign in...

By
JOSEPH BAST And

ROY SPENCER
May 26, 2014 7:13 p.m. ET
825 COMMENTS
Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy,Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.

ENLARGE
GETTY IMAGES/IMAGEZOO
Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in "Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findingswere published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming." There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that "human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems." Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing."

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite.

 

[magibeg]

And to show you how futile this whole thing is:

Earth's climate is controlled by two major factors:
1) sun which should be in solar minimum but has had an awfully active minimum. Flares are occurring more frequently than expected.

We have argued this before, and we know it's not the sun. There has been no significant changes in solar energy reaching the earth. You bring it up every 6 months or so anyway even though we know the sun is not the abnormal variable.

2) water vapor. Very little information is known about changes in atmospheric water vapor despite it being 97% responsible for greenhouse radiation. A minute change is all it takes for the changes in temperatures that have been measured.

We have argued this before as well.

"Basically water vapor is a feedback element and not a forcing element. The amount of water vapor increases when the temperature increases and decreases as the temperature decreases, and does so quickly.

The maximum (upper level) estimate on water vapors effect is about 70%.

CO2 is roughly 9-26% of total forcing. At the beginning of the industrial revolution CO2 was at 280ppm and we're now at about 392ppm. That is a significant increase in solar forcing. Although each year man only contributes a comparatively small portion of the CO2 emissions compared to the earth it's CO2 which is added to the cycle and accumulates. That's why the CO2 ppm increases by nearly 3 per year."

I admit I added more than needed to that line there, but I also find it interesting that when I wrote that in 2010 it was at 392ppm and right now we're at 402.80. So closer to 2ppm per year increase.

3) cloud cover is a huge factor in terms of warming/cooling. The models are years away yet from being able to simulate it to a reasonable degree and even so, it is strongly connected to weather which is very difficult to forecast more than a few days out.

Here is a convolution of the issue in terms of figuring out the finer details of what's happening. Are you implying that the changes in climate can be explained by clouds or are you simply nit picking something in particular in a way to discredit the science?

Continuing on anyway, the studies that have been done so far have come back with conflicting results with some showing a positive feedback and others showing a negative feedback.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI3666.1
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5939/460.abstract
http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler10b.pdf

Generally it appears that clouds are rather neutral and that altitude and thickness are both factors. Why you mention the inability to perfectly predict weather is beyond me, it's much easier to predict long term trends than short term ones.

4) CH4 has been rising faster than CO2 yet little focus is placed on it despite it being 20 times more potent per volume as a greenhouse gas. The models did not forecast nor explain why CH4 stopped increasing for a few years a while back.

Yes we have discussed this before as well. Here is another quote from years ago:

""if methane is at .85ppm and it goes to 1.79 that's an increase of lets say 1.1ppm of methane. Because it's 25 times more potent (although its non-accumulative so it's actual forcing amount is less) we can argue that an increase of 1.1ppm ofmethane would be roughly equal to an increase of 27.5ppm of CO2.

Right now the CO2 ppm is increasing by about 2ppm per year. So that means every 14 years or so CO2 creates as much radiative forcing as the increase in methane since 160 years ago. There is simply not enough methane to do it."

So that addresses the impact of CO2 vs CH4. You SHOULD also know by now that methane doesn't accumulate because of its relatively short lifespan. I even sent you this link explaining the sources of methane http://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/methane-sources

So either you don't remember any of our discussions on the matter, or you choose to ignore it, or you just like to make things up as you go. No one is wondering why CH4 stopped increasing, it accumulates based on a balance of release and how quickly it breaks down.

5) Wind plays a huge component of CO2 absorption on land because without wind, the air is not stirred and it does not come within reach of the plants to remove it from the air. A simple average decrease in wind speeds can lead to an increase in atmospheric CO2.

We discussed this too! And you're wrong again. You really should remember the things we talk about. Have you ever wondered why if someone passes wind in the same room as you that you can smell it even though there is no wind in your house (I assume)?

It's called Brownian Motion. It's pretty important for you to know about it given the subject you're trying to discuss, it's like you haven't studied this at all?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion

Wind does play a role of course, but the atmosphere is very well mixed wind or not. So your entire statement here is incorrect. No, just wrong.

I could go on and on. There's too many variables to single out any one source as the cause. Many are likely the cause but there's not enough information to weed out which are responsible and to what extent. The overemphasis on carbon dioxide has created major deficits in research on other areas. I suspect carbon is playing a minor role compared, especially, to average albedo (function of cloud cover).

We could go on and on about how you seem to have absolutely no knowledge on the subject you seem committed to talking about. Can you in the least remember our conversations that we keep having about the exact same things over and over. At this point I can literally take any argument you bring forward and copy+paste an explanation from conversations we have had in the past about the exact same things. You just carefully slide from one argument to the next until we are full circle again.

 

[magibeg]

Strange... I just did a generic google search with "Man made Climate change consensus lie" and I get a link with no sign in...

By
JOSEPH BAST And

ROY SPENCER
May 26, 2014 7:13 p.m. ET
825 COMMENTS
Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy,Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.

ENLARGE
GETTY IMAGES/IMAGEZOO
Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in "Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findingswere published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming." There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that "human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems." Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing."

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite.

There is so much wrong with this article it actually hurts my head, but I would have to write an equally long article or longer to rebut it. The hilarious thing is that its main point that it built the article around is wrong.

They didn't claim 97% of the worlds scientists, they claimed 97% of the worlds CLIMATE SCIENTISTS. From the heading of the nasa page:

Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree

I love the fact that the very first thing mentioned is a strawman argument. I mean heck, an introductory starting point on the matter from the first couple paragraphs of Wikipedia is an effective method for countering what is effectively a blog post.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

The perfect gif for the situation:

http://i.imgur.com/uZC5fF9.jpg

 

[FordGT90Concept]

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

We have argued this before, and we know it's not the sun. There has been no significant changes in solar energy reaching the earth. You bring it up every 6 months or so anyway even though we know the sun is not the abnormal variable.

Except that Earth was hit by a solar flare in 2014 and solar flares were in the news in 2013 due to their strength. When coupled with the discovery that Earth's magnetic field is weakening, more solar energy is reaching Earth's surface. The theorized explanation for this is magnetic pole reversal--a poorly understood phenomena that is likely beginning to happen now. It doesn't stop there because the magnetic field changes are symptomatic of changes at the core. NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory used the data to correlate surface temperatures and found that temperatures didn't actually start increasing "until about 1930." Remember, that relies on climate models which can be heavily debated. Back on topic, most alarmists peg 1870-1880 as the beginning of the industrial revolution/increase in carbon dioxide. JPL shows that the industrial revolution didn't have a measurable impact on temperature until at least 1930; moreover, JPL can't rule out the unknown or uncertain (e.g. the magenetic field weakening may have begun at about that time but we had no means to measure it).

"Basically water vapor is a feedback element and not a forcing element. The amount of water vapor increases when the temperature increases and decreases as the temperature decreases, and does so quickly.

The maximum (upper level) estimate on water vapors effect is about 70%.

You know that is vast oversimplification. Water vapor:
1) reduces temperature through reflecting solar radiation with thick clouds.
2) reduces temperature through precipitation
3) increases temperature through humidity
4) decreases temperature in the form of snow reflecting solar radation
5) increases temperature through high, thin cirrus clouds that are far more effective at trapping solar radiation than carbon dioxide.
...and I'm certain I'm forgetting a lot. The estimations are bullshit because it requires modeling and there are no systems on the planet that can accurately model the effect of water vapor on climate. They're getting closer but still have a long ways to go.


Now I'm going to blow your mind. From the links above, we know that Earth's magnetic field is in flux and the sun is more active than it should be. From the synopsis above about clouds, we know that they have an enormous impact on surface temperature. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory ties them together:

Since scientists know air temperature can't affect movements of Earth's core or Earth's length of day to the extent observed, one possibility is the movements of Earth's core might disturb Earth's magnetic shielding of charged-particle (i.e., cosmic ray) fluxes that have been hypothesized to affect the formation of clouds. This could affect how much of the sun's energy is reflected back to space and how much is absorbed by our planet. Other possibilities are that some other core process could be having a more indirect effect on climate, or that an external (e.g. solar) process affects the core and climate simultaneously.

Certainly it doesn't account for all of the warming but it does account for some of it especially if those clouds formed by cosmic radiation take the shape of cirrus clouds.

CO2 is roughly 9-26% of total forcing. At the beginning of the industrial revolution CO2 was at 280ppm and we're now at about 392ppm. That is a significant increase in solar forcing. Although each year man only contributes a comparatively small portion of the CO2 emissions compared to the earth it's CO2 which is added to the cycle and accumulates. That's why the CO2 ppm increases by nearly 3 per year."

a) that's a massive range (do I smell guesswork?)
b) carbon dioxide levels are relatively constant all around the world and they can't pin down an absolute figure from it?
c) what your article neglects to mention is that about 40 ppm are removed from the atmosphere every year through photosynthesis and some is reintroduced through decomposition. Freeman Dyson describes many ways to measure and control carbon emissions released through decomposition.

I admit I added more than needed to that line there, but I also find it interesting that when I wrote that in 2010 it was at 392ppm and right now we're at 402.80. So closer to 2ppm per year increase.

The rate is falling. Gee, I wonder why?

Here is a convolution of the issue in terms of figuring out the finer details of what's happening. Are you implying that the changes in climate can be explained by clouds or are you simply nit picking something in particular in a way to discredit the science?

Continuing on anyway, the studies that have been done so far have come back with conflicting results with some showing a positive feedback and others showing a negative feedback.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI3666.1
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5939/460.abstract
http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler10b.pdf

Generally it appears that clouds are rather neutral and that altitude and thickness are both factors. Why you mention the inability to perfectly predict weather is beyond me, it's much easier to predict long term trends than short term ones.

They are not neutral because weather changes constantly but if it is changing on a trend towards warming, it single handedly can explain the warming. That leads to questions of why it is trending towards warmer which begs more questions than begets answers. My point: carbon dioxide may easily be a scapegoat for something far more complex because of the ease of measuring carbon dioxide. It may very well be a placebo for something else. The laser like focus carbon dioxide gets causes other factors to be ignored--factors that could have far greater consequences (e.g. changes in rain patterns). Aquifers depleting (due to reduced precipitation and lack of conservation), for example, represent a far greater threat than the measured increase in carbon dioxide.

Right now the CO2 ppm is increasing by about 2ppm per year. So that means every 14 years or so CO2 creates as much radiative forcing as the increase in methane since 160 years ago. There is simply not enough methane to do it."

So that addresses the impact of CO2 vs CH4. You SHOULD also know by now that methane doesn't accumulate because of its relatively short lifespan. I even sent you this link explaining the sources of methane http://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/methane-sources

Except that it is increasing because of fracking, permafrost melting, and the stark increase in human and livestock numbers.


Methane increased by 125% in the same period carbon dioxide increased by 43% while being 20+ times more potent for a greenhouse effect. The life span matters not because it's being contributed to the atmosphere faster than it is being removed. If carbon dioxide is a culprit, methane must be too. To deny one is to deny the other.

Wind does play a role of course, but the atmosphere is very well mixed wind or not. So your entire statement here is incorrect. No, just wrong.

So if I measure CO2 I exhale, it will not be greater than the level of CO2 measured in the middle of a crop field at high noon? Wind rapidly accelerates the mixing which is why hurricanes and tornadoes happen.


Are you seeing my point yet? If Earth's surface temperature is rising by 1 C/year (it's closer to 0.2C per decade if memory serves), it could likely be broken down into, for example:
0.4 C carbon dioxide
0.3 C water vapor (includes cloud formation due to cosmic radiation)
0.2 C methane
0.1 C other

That's not only reasonable from a scientific standpoint but also in terms of expectations of how the climate, as a whole, works. Carbon dioxide is not the sole culprit but it may very well be the majority culprit. Understanding all components of the temperature change is critical to responding to it.


To your second post and SK-1's WSJ article, I think you missed the point the article is trying to make: is the observed warming dangerous? Overwhelming consensus is "no" in the "foreseeable future."

The reasonable assumption is that an alternate form of energy (e.g. fusion) will supplant fossil fuels (including coal, oil products, and natural gas) as the dominant fuel source. All it boils down to at that point is good conservation measures ensuring more carbon finds its way into the soil than into the air.

 

[SK-1]

There is so much wrong with this article it actually hurts

Its true then...Facts hurt.

 

[magibeg]

Except that Earth was hit by a solar flare in 2014 and solar flares were in the news in 2013 due to their strength. When coupled with the discovery that Earth's magnetic field is weakening, more solar energy is reaching Earth's surface. The theorized explanation for this is magnetic pole reversal--a poorly understood phenomena that is likely beginning to happen now. It doesn't stop there because the magnetic field changes are symptomatic of changes at the core. NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory used the data to correlate surface temperatures and found that temperatures didn't actually start increasing "until about 1930." Remember, that relies on climate models which can be heavily debated. Back on topic, most alarmists peg 1870-1880 as the beginning of the industrial revolution/increase in carbon dioxide. JPL shows that the industrial revolution didn't have a measurable impact on temperature until at least 1930; moreover, JPL can't rule out the unknown or uncertain (e.g. the magenetic field weakening may have begun at about that time but we had no means to measure it).

Are you trying to imply that solar flares and the earths magnetic field are the things creating climate change? It doesn't match observations at all. And there is no problem with global warming starting in approx the 1930's, i'm not sure why you consider that an issue.

You know that is vast oversimplification. Water vapor:
1) reduces temperature through reflecting solar radiation with thick clouds.
2) reduces temperature through precipitation
3) increases temperature through humidity
4) decreases temperature in the form of snow reflecting solar radation
5) increases temperature through high, thin cirrus clouds that are far more effective at trapping solar radiation than carbon dioxide.
...and I'm certain I'm forgetting a lot. The estimations are bullshit because it requires modeling and there are no systems on the planet that can accurately model the effect of water vapor on climate. They're getting closer but still have a long ways to go.

Most of what you're describing are things you experience by changes in weather, not climate.

1. Depending on the clouds they can actually absorb solar radiation giving a warming effect (dark clouds can absorb sunlight)
2. Temperature dropping from precipitation is usually weather related, such as a cold front moving into the area anyway, generally a heat transfer as opposed to causing cooling.
3. I don't know enough about 3 to comment too much, other than the fact water content is increasing with time https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2012-state-climate-humidity
4. snow is indeed an excellent reflector, but only forms in certain conditions. Also you're generally talking about weather now.
5. Yes clouds can increase and decrease the amount of solar energy being trapped in earths atmosphere

You actually started with the original estimate of 97% of greenhouse gas forcing. Also no one considers rain or snow to be part of water vapor. Figuring out how much energy certain gases contribute isn't as impossible as you make it seem. If you would actually look up the information instead of just making things up as you go along you could really learn something about it. Easier still is to measure the changes over time from gas concentrations. You can look at the spectrum of the suns energy hitting and leaving the earth (pre and post atmosphere) and see the changes. Certain gases only effect certain known ranges.

Now I'm going to blow your mind. From the links above, we know that Earth's magnetic field is in flux and the sun is more active than it should be. From the synopsis above about clouds, we know that they have an enormous impact on surface temperature. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory ties them together:

Certainly it doesn't account for all of the warming but it does account for some of it especially if those clouds formed by cosmic radiation take the shape of cirrus clouds.

That doesn't match any of our observations at all. You are literally making them up as you go and there is no supporting evidence. It also doesn't explain important factors like dipping energy levels radiating out from the earth at spectrum that are NOT water related, it doesn't explain the dips in energy from CO2 and CH4. I believe you said to me "correlation doesn't imply causation".

a) that's a massive range (do I smell guesswork?)
b) carbon dioxide levels are relatively constant all around the world and they can't pin down an absolute figure from it?
c) what your article neglects to mention is that about 40 ppm are removed from the atmosphere every year through photosynthesis and some is reintroduced through decomposition. Freeman Dyson describes many ways to measure and control carbon emissions released through decomposition.

a) Was just pulling from the complete known range available. I like to be honest about the numbers.
b) Of course we can't pull an absolute figure, it's constantly changing. Have you read about the carbon cycle? It changes season by season with a general upward curve.
c) That is completely misleading. That is the "cycle" part of the carbon cycle which is an important thing for you to learn to understand if you are going to debate it. Approx 40 ppm are also RELEASED during the same period of time that it is removed. That is how the cycle works.

The rate is falling. Gee, I wonder why?

Because my estimate was off it would appear.

2005 – 2014 21.06 ppm 2.11 ppm per year

1995 – 2004 18.67 ppm 1.87 ppm per year

1985 – 1994 14.24 ppm 1.42 ppm per year

1975 – 1984 14.40 ppm 1.44 ppm per year

1965 – 1974 10.56 ppm 1.06 ppm per year

1960 – 1964 3.65 ppm 0.73 ppm per year (5 years only)

They are not neutral because weather changes constantly but if it is changing on a trend towards warming, it single handedly can explain the warming. That leads to questions of why it is trending towards warmer which begs more questions than begets answers. My point: carbon dioxide may easily be a scapegoat for something far more complex because of the ease of measuring carbon dioxide. It may very well be a placebo for something else. The laser like focus carbon dioxide gets causes other factors to be ignored--factors that could have far greater consequences (e.g. changes in rain patterns). Aquifers depleting (due to reduced precipitation and lack of conservation), for example, represent a far greater threat than the measured increase in carbon dioxide.

That doesn't match observations as well as showing a misunderstanding of weather and convection currents. There is a reason no one really claims it. You can't just make something up and claim that's what's happening, especially when it is an even less complete view than our current understanding.

Except that it is increasing because of fracking, permafrost melting, and the stark increase in human and livestock numbers.


Methane increased by 125% in the same period carbon dioxide increased by 43% while being 20+ times more potent for a greenhouse effect. The life span matters not because it's being contributed to the atmosphere faster than it is being removed. If carbon dioxide is a culprit, methane must be too. To deny one is to deny the other.

I don't know why you chose a graph whose scale is in 100's of years. If only we had some sort of information somewhere about this topic.... oh wait there is.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

CH4 has an increased radiative forcing of .49W/M2
CO2 has an increased radiative forcing of 1.88W/M2

Looks like an open and shut case to me?

There is actually a lot of information on the matter if you would choose to investigate it. Lifespan is extremely important for long term damage. CH4 is a problem but it's not as significant as CO2. Infact CH4 emissions have actually been dropping over time.

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/atmospheric-concentration-of-ch4-ppb-1

And fear not, using a chart with reasonable time scales, CH4 is estimated to have a roll off.

So if I measure CO2 I exhale, it will not be greater than the level of CO2 measured in the middle of a crop field at high noon? Wind rapidly accelerates the mixing which is why hurricanes and tornadoes happen.

That is a straw man argument and you know it. A better test would be to breathe into a stagnant room, seal it off and come back to it later to see how well it is mixed. The answer is very well mixed. I'm not discounting the effect wind can have on mixing, it's part of the same system, but fact of the matter is that these gases are well mixed.

Are you seeing my point yet? If Earth's surface temperature is rising by 1 C/year (it's closer to 0.2C per decade if memory serves), it could likely be broken down into, for example:
0.4 C carbon dioxide
0.3 C water vapor (includes cloud formation due to cosmic radiation)
0.2 C methane
0.1 C other

That's not only reasonable from a scientific standpoint but also in terms of expectations of how the climate, as a whole, works. Carbon dioxide is not the sole culprit but it may very well be the majority culprit. Understanding all components of the temperature change is critical to responding to it.

Except you seem to have no understanding as to how to get the right numbers or why they're happening. CO2 is both an amplifier and a driver, water vapor is only an amplifier, methane makes up for less than a quarter of the temperature forcing of CO2. It is understanding the why that makes these things important.

To your second post and SK-1's WSJ article, I think you missed the point the article is trying to make: is the observed warming dangerous? Overwhelming consensus is "no" in the "foreseeable future."

The reasonable assumption is that an alternate form of energy (e.g. fusion) will supplant fossil fuels (including coal, oil products, and natural gas) as the dominant fuel source. All it boils down to at that point is good conservation measures ensuring more carbon finds its way into the soil than into the air.

I didn't really want to tackle blog posts that shoot out huge amounts of misleading information.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Are you trying to imply that solar flares and the earths magnetic field are the things creating climate change? It doesn't match observations at all. And there is no problem with global warming starting in approx the 1930's, i'm not sure why you consider that an issue.

They contribute to changes in the climate, yes. JPL said as much.

CH4 and CO2 started rising around 1870. When accounting for the changes in the core of the Earth, the Earth didn't start warming until 60 years later. That's a massive delay and strongly suggests it is a correlation between carbon dioxide and/or methane (both rose significantly during that period) and temperature, not a causation.

1. Depending on the clouds they can actually absorb solar radiation giving a warming effect (dark clouds can absorb sunlight)

You do realize there is no such thing as "dark cloud" from the sun's perspective, right? It's dark on Earth because virtually no sunlight is reaching the Earth's surface--most of it is bounced back into space.

2. Temperature dropping from precipitation is usually weather related, such as a cold front moving into the area anyway, generally a heat transfer as opposed to causing cooling.

How frequently it happens or doesn't happen as well as the strength of the system strongly impacts climate.

3. I don't know enough about 3 to comment too much, other than the fact water content is increasing with time https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2012-state-climate-humidity

Hence, it is warmer. Chicken or the egg?

4. snow is indeed an excellent reflector, but only forms in certain conditions. Also you're generally talking about weather now.

No, I'm not. We had record low snow coverage in my area for the past few years. At a time when sunlight should be reflected, it was absorbed because it was hitting dark soil instead of bright white snow. This makes the climate warmer.

5. Yes clouds can increase and decrease the amount of solar energy being trapped in earths atmosphere

Depending on the type and location they can:
1. reflect it into space.
2. absorb it in the cloud itself
3. reflect it back to Earth
I must stress that most of the water vapor in the atmosphere takes the shape of invisible humidity, not clouds. If it is in the form of clouds, it can have a positive, negative, or neutral affect on temperature.

That doesn't match any of our observations at all. You are literally making them up as you go and there is no supporting evidence. It also doesn't explain important factors like dipping energy levels radiating out from the earth at spectrum that are NOT water related, it doesn't explain the dips in energy from CO2 and CH4. I believe you said to me "correlation doesn't imply causation".

Stop confusing the two. Yes, we know CO2 and CH4 numbers have changed and all measurements we take confirm that; however, that doesn't completely explain the symptom which is Earth warming ("our observations"). As demonstrated by JPL, it does explain some of the warming and I never suggested it explains all of it.

1985 – 1994 14.24 ppm 1.42 ppm per year

1975 – 1984 14.40 ppm 1.44 ppm per year

Why the anomaly? Let me guess: the switch from ice core samples/terrestrial based measurements to satellite based.

CH4 has an increased radiative forcing of .49W/M2
CO2 has an increased radiative forcing of 1.88W/M2

You do realize that assuming greenhouse gases caused the entire change in temperature (which is not the case), 79% is by carbon dioxide and 21% is by methane.

That is a straw man argument and you know it. A better test would be to breathe into a stagnant room, seal it off and come back to it later to see how well it is mixed. The answer is very well mixed. I'm not discounting the effect wind can have on mixing, it's part of the same system, but fact of the matter is that these gases are well mixed.

I was pointing out that you missed my point. Photosynthesis is extremely efficient at removing carbon from the atmosphere but it is limited in how much it can remove if the air isn't stirred bringing more carbon dioxide to the surface of plants during the day.

I didn't really want to tackle blog posts that shoot out huge amounts of misleading information.

It doesn't have misleading information. It's showing that the alarmism in publications has dropped significantly over the past decade. It also shows several of these "97%" figures have been discredited by way of cherry picking or seeking answers to deliberately vague questions.

 

[SK-1]

More Climate Deception....
Mind-Blowing Temperature Fraud At NOAA

The depths of this fraud is breathtaking, but completely consistent with the fraudulent profession which has become known as “climate science”

The measured US temperature data from USHCN shows that the US is on a long-term cooling trend. But the reported temperatures from NOAA show a strong warming trend.

They accomplish this through a spectacular hockey stick of data tampering, which corrupts the US temperature trend by almost two degrees.

The biggest component of this fraud is making up data. Almost half of all reported US temperature data is now fake. They fill in missing rural data with urban data to create the appearance of non-existent US warming.

 

[magibeg]

They contribute to changes in the climate, yes. JPL said as much.

CH4 and CO2 started rising around 1870. When accounting for the changes in the core of the Earth, the Earth didn't start warming until 60 years later. That's a massive delay and strongly suggests it is a correlation between carbon dioxide and/or methane (both rose significantly during that period) and temperature, not a causation.

It's not just methane and it's not primarily methane like you imply.

Here's why you're wrong:

1. The amount of energy radiated from the sun at the wave lengths which methane interacts is less than the equivalent wavelengths which CO2 interacts with.
2. The total amount of radiative forcing that methane can do compared to CO2 isn't enough.
3. Methane has a lifespan that is too short in the atmosphere to accumulate without heavy release

Those are the reasons scientists in the field don't agree with you. Methane is a factor but a lesser factor compared to CO2. Stop trying to state otherwise, you're wrong.

You do realize there is no such thing as "dark cloud" from the sun's perspective, right? It's dark on Earth because virtually no sunlight is reaching the Earth's surface--most of it is bounced back into space.

The particulates within clouds, elevation and other factors can affect how clouds interact with the sun, also you should at least read the wiki article before you comment on something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_forcing

I apologize for my poor choice of terminology.

How frequently it happens or doesn't happen as well as the strength of the system strongly impacts climate.

You're wrong. Precipitation is usually the effect of a convection current. Colder area moving into a warmer area. The precipitation itself isn't because the energy was somehow drained from the earth.

Hence, it is warmer. Chicken or the egg?

This is a gross misunderstanding on your part. You should read about it before you make those claims.

No, I'm not. We had record low snow coverage in my area for the past few years. At a time when sunlight should be reflected, it was absorbed because it was hitting dark soil instead of bright white snow. This makes the climate warmer.

You're talking about an amplifier. You should really looking into understanding drivers and amplifiers.

Depending on the type and location they can:
1. reflect it into space.
2. absorb it in the cloud itself
3. reflect it back to Earth
I must stress that most of the water vapor in the atmosphere takes the shape of invisible humidity, not clouds. If it is in the form of clouds, it can have a positive, negative, or neutral affect on temperature.

You still don't understand the nature of water vapor in the atmosphere. You should do further research on amplifiers, and drivers.

Stop confusing the two. Yes, we know CO2 and CH4 numbers have changed and all measurements we take confirm that; however, that doesn't completely explain the symptom which is Earth warming ("our observations"). As demonstrated by JPL, it does explain some of the warming and I never suggested it explains all of it.

This whole comment here is based on ignorance. Who says it doesn't explain the symptoms? Are you taking into account ONLY the driving of the climate and not the amplifiers? No scientific paper i know of claims what you're saying.

Why the anomaly? Let me guess: the switch from ice core samples/terrestrial based measurements to satellite based.

Don't know, you could look it up however.

You do realize that assuming greenhouse gases caused the entire change in temperature (which is not the case), 79% is by carbon dioxide and 21% is by methane.

No one is assuming the entire change is being done by any single factor as there is a lot of factors at play, however i'm not sure of your obsession with fixing 1/5th of the problem. Also the fact that methane quickly disappears in the atmosphere relative to CO2 and as such can more easily be corrected.

I was pointing out that you missed my point. Photosynthesis is extremely efficient at removing carbon from the atmosphere but it is limited in how much it can remove if the air isn't stirred bringing more carbon dioxide to the surface of plants during the day.

I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make. Your assumption about plants is wrong. You don't really know what you're talking about here.

It doesn't have misleading information. It's showing that the alarmism in publications has dropped significantly over the past decade. It also shows several of these "97%" figures have been discredited by way of cherry picking or seeking answers to deliberately vague questions.

It is absolutely misleading.

"97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

That is the statement. It is correct. The blog makes an incorrect statement trying to attack it.

You guys post blogs, post from think tanks funded by big oil.


I give you a challenge..... where is the opposing science? I don't mean blogs, or Watts, i mean real scientists publishing real papers which come to different conclusions than the likes of the IPCC.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Spoiler: FLUFF

Edit: Disagreement on controlling soot and methane and its effect on temperature: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cutting-soot-methane-may-not-slow-climate-change/ To my point that albedo is critical:

We know that black carbon has a disproportionate effect in the Arctic in part because if you deposit black soot on snow or ice, that's extra warming that doesn't occur here.

...and soot travels by wind making weather important.

More on that later...

It's not just methane and it's not primarily methane like you imply.

Here's why you're wrong:

1. The amount of energy radiated from the sun at the wave lengths which methane interacts is less than the equivalent wavelengths which CO2 interacts with.
2. The total amount of radiative forcing that methane can do compared to CO2 isn't enough.
3. Methane has a lifespan that is too short in the atmosphere to accumulate without heavy release

Those are the reasons scientists in the field don't agree with you. Methane is a factor but a lesser factor compared to CO2. Stop trying to state otherwise, you're wrong.

You missed my point...again. If greenhouse gasses were solely to blame for the increase in temperature, there would not be a 60 year delay between the changes in the two.

The particulates within clouds, elevation and other factors can affect how clouds interact with the sun, also you should at least read the wiki article before you comment on something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_forcing

I apologize for my poor choice of terminology.

Clouds don't "interact" with the sun. Poor choice of terminology again.

You're wrong. Precipitation is usually the effect of a convection current. Colder area moving into a warmer area. The precipitation itself isn't because the energy was somehow drained from the earth.

Precipitation is effectively condensation. Condensation is the same function through which sweat works. Rain can drop the temperature of the environment by several degrees by itself even disregarding the cloud forcing because it brings the cold in the upper atmosphere down to the surface.

This is a gross misunderstanding on your part. You should read about it before you make those claims.

I have and I think you just want to believe the scapegoat that is carbon dioxide is to blame for everything. It is not. It is a relatively small piece of a planet-sized puzzle.

You're talking about an amplifier. You should really looking into understanding drivers and amplifiers.

And? Are you denying that albedo has an impact on climate? The weather changed and over time, it is causing the climate to change.

You still don't understand the nature of water vapor in the atmosphere. You should do further research on amplifiers, and drivers.

You like to dismiss its importance because it isn't so easily translated into climate models.

This whole comment here is based on ignorance. Who says it doesn't explain the symptoms? Are you taking into account ONLY the driving of the climate and not the amplifiers? No scientific paper i know of claims what you're saying.

Water vapor has gotten cents on the dollar of research funding compared to carbon dioxide. As far as I know, only a NOAA facility in Colorado is seriously looking at it. Papers will take decades to write because there simply isn't enough computer horsepower to model it.

No one is assuming the entire change is being done by any single factor as there is a lot of factors at play, however i'm not sure of your obsession with fixing 1/5th of the problem. Also the fact that methane quickly disappears in the atmosphere relative to CO2 and as such can more easily be corrected.

Case in point: hydrogen powered vehicles were frequently discussed as the solution to electric vehicles and carbon vehicles. As you know, hydrogen vehicles exhaust water vapor. If we don't fully understand how water vapor plays into climate, we could be creating problems worse than carbon dioxide. That's why it is important to understand all facets of the problem to come up with a solution. It doesn't make any sense to dig one grave by placing the dirt in the gave we dug previously.

Unless you can convince people to stop eating meat, methane is not a problem that will go away.

I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make. Your assumption about plants is wrong. You don't really know what you're talking about here.

My point is wind is important not just because of its effect on water vapor but also because of its effect on processing carbon dioxide.

"97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

That is the statement. It is correct. The blog makes an incorrect statement trying to attack it.

It is not. You quoted NASA paraphrasing Cook which I already covered and that article covers as well. They did not poll the scientists. They effectively did a database search for keywords in abstracts. They didn't vet those abstracts for content and they also eliminated many articles that were contradictory simply because those articles didn't use the keywords they searched for. As the article shows, when asking these scientists for their opinion directly, many disagreed with Cook's conclusions. Cook's paper is effectively a self-fulfilling prophecy that has been regurgitated repeatedly to fill preexisting self-fulfilling prophecies.

I give you a challenge..... where is the opposing science? I don't mean blogs, or Watts, i mean real scientists publishing real papers which come to different conclusions than the likes of the IPCC.

I don't have access to an academic database so I can't sate your curiosity. I've stated many times before that there is research into other causes of warming like methane (and some suggest models grossly underestimate the climate forcing effect of methane at that), albedo and weather (NOAA facility in Colorado which admitted they don't know yet how much effect clouds have on climate), and the core of the earth (Jet Propulsion Laboratory which showed changes in Earth's core have an impact on climate--and begets many more questions that aren't yet answered). No one is saying carbon is not a factor; they all say it isn't the only factor. IPCC was created specifically to investigate carbon dioxide so, unsurprisingly, their results are focused almost entirely on carbon dioxide.

Spoiler: Related: Resource Depletion

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-16391040

And while demand for resources from an exploding and wealthier population soars, finding and extracting new sources of supply is becoming increasingly difficult and expensive.

For example, oil companies have to look further and drill deeper to find dwindling reserves of oil, meaning the cost of an average well has doubled in the past ten years, while new mining discoveries have been largely flat despite a fourfold increase in exploration costs.

A recent survey by consultants PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) found a shortage of key minerals and metals could "disrupt entire economies". It compiled a "critical list" including lithium, which is widely used in batteries and wind turbines, cobalt, again a key component in rechargeable batteries, and tantalum, which is used in mobile phones and computers.

Demand for water over the next 30 years is projected to rise by almost a half at a time when the groundwater table in many regions of the world is falling and large areas are suffering from shortages due to drought, large-scale irrigation, pollution, dams and even war.

Urbanisation displaces millions of hectares of high-quality agricultural land each year - McKinsey estimates that prime land equivalent in size to Italy could be sacrificed to expanding cities in less than 20 years.

At the same time, tens of thousands of square kilometres of pristine forest are cut down to grow crops needed for food, of which we will need 70% more by 2050 to feed the world's massively expanding population, according to the United Nations.

Climate needs to be considered when crafting solutions to the aforementioned problems; resource depletion is a far more urgent problem than climate.

 

[qubit]

Did you feel warm in July? You weren’t the only one. Latest figures show that July was the hottest month on Earth since records began in 1880. Now, 2015 is set to become the warmest year on record, researchers say.

There you have it, global warming is real. Now we need that mini ice age that's been reported about to come along and cool the planet down again.

www.iflscience.com/environment/july-was-hottest-month-record

 

[de.das.dude]

Global warming is there, but our contribution to it is pretty insignificant IMO.
In a natural environment, everything balances itself out.


I feel the same way about the energy crisis, its too exaggerated. I grew up in school hearing that our energy will run out in the next 20 years, but new oil wells are being discovered everyday(ok maybe not everyday).
Plus our technology is getting better and more efficient on a daily basis, plus a lot of our energy now comes from renewable resources and nuclear.

taking the efficiency calculations, if we say that every 5 years our stuff becomes 2x efficient then that would mean we have almost an infinite amount of time before running out. Kind of like the half life of radiation.

 

[RejZoR]

I watched "Day after tomorrow" the other day again and I laughed hard when they made a huge discovery that it has already happened 10.000 years ago. And then they claimed humans are responsible for the latest weather catastrophy. How? I didn't know human race had million of cars and heavy industry and millions of cow farts 10.000 years ago to cause all this. We already know ice age happened before for real. We are destroying environment, there is no doubt in that. But we aren't destroying it in such way. It's not temperature that does the most harm, it's all the chemical crap we dump into environment and no one seems to be doing a mass panic about it. People and scientists complain and then it just fades away after 3 days. But the "global warming" panic is going and going like a broken record that keeps on skipping to the beginning as soon as it ends...

 

[AphexDreamer]

I watched "Day after tomorrow" the other day again and I laughed hard when they made a huge discovery that it has already happened 10.000 years ago. And then they claimed humans are responsible for the latest weather catastrophy. How? I didn't know human race had million of cars and heavy industry and millions of cow farts 10.000 years ago to cause all this. We already know ice age happened before for real. We are destroying environment, there is no doubt in that. But we aren't destroying it in such way. It's not temperature that does the most harm, it's all the chemical crap we dump into environment and no one seems to be doing a mass panic about it. People and scientists complain and then it just fades away after 3 days. But the "global warming" panic is going and going like a broken record that keeps on skipping to the beginning as soon as it ends...

I don't really remember "DAT" but given that it occurred in the past all that is being said is that we are speeding up the processes with our man made machines. We dig up lots of fossil fuels that were tucked under the Earths crust and then burn them. Nature never did that and doesn't do that.

Sure lots of things we do is detrimental and yes they should all be taken seriously. However, when you have people saying pollution isn't hurting the environment, tree cutting isn't impacting the environment or that burning fossil fuels has no effect on the environment then you better hope there is a huge debate and noise until the right thing is done.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Global warming is there, but our contribution to it is pretty insignificant IMO.
In a natural environment, everything balances itself out.

Earth is largely a closed system. If you take carbon out of the ground and burn it, it goes into the atmosphere. It would balance itself out given enough time but It's not a stretch of the imagination that humanity is extracting and burning carbon at a rate faster than nature can process it.

It's not temperature that does the most harm, it's all the chemical crap we dump into environment and no one seems to be doing a mass panic about it. People and scientists complain and then it just fades away after 3 days. But the "global warming" panic is going and going like a broken record that keeps on skipping to the beginning as soon as it ends...

Very true. Just think of the pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides that are manufactured and deployed on a daily basis. It is a massive amount. Humanity hasn't and isn't doing very right by nature.

Part of me thinks the premise of a carbon tax, for example, is right because it adds economic cost to changing the balance of nature. At the same time, what would that tax revenue go to? "Green" projects that are notoriously corrupt? There should be monetary cost for destroying the environment to disincentive people from doing it but there's no practical means to implement, enforce, and undo the damage.

I think the best we can do, for now, is throw IPCC in the garbage and replace it with a global conservation program--a program, for example, that would see the surplus of crop products in the United States and implore Brazil to buy it instead of tearing down more of the Amazonian forest. On agreement, UN environmentalists will move in to the area that is no longer needed for human use and work to return it to nature (planting native trees and the like). There's a similar story to this occurring in Montana where they're bringing back the prairie and some buffalo. The locals don't like it because it may cost them their livelihood but the environment is something we all share.

There are practical, sensible solutions to the problems we face. The only reason why we don't is because there isn't an imminent danger. You know what they saw about boiling a frog, right?


If this post comes across as me being a green thumb, I'm far from it. I'm a realist. There doesn't have to be a problem to know we can improve. Aircraft wings made 100 years ago worked but the wings we build today are far more efficient, for example. We're eventually going to have to address the issue of environmental efficiency. No sense in not starting today.



In semi-related news, there's literally so much shit (and I mean pig shit, chicken shit, cow shit, etc.) in this area that farmers are buying land just to have a place to dump the shit. I think a small does of conservation (like packing dirt on top of that shit to trap it) in the right places would go a long way towards reducing atmospheric carbon.

 

[erocker]

For those who like visuals, here's the globe's CO2 map. Carbon Monoxide is also in there:

 

[SK-1]

The U.S. government is at it again, hyping meaningless records in a parameter that does not exist in order to frighten us about something that doesn’t matter.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/23/tom-harris-global-warming-deceptive-temperature-re/

 

[AphexDreamer]

So I guess my question has to be, why would the Government and scientist hype this so much and lie so much about it?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Money. Carbon is to industry as carbon tax is to government.

They aren't lying per say, they're just neglecting to mention the degree of uncertainty and the story gets retold as a statement of fact rather than probability.

 

[AphexDreamer]

Money. Carbon is to industry as carbon tax is to government.

They aren't lying per say, they're just neglecting to mention the degree of uncertainty and the story gets retold as a statement of fact rather than probability.

Yeah but that is to be expected of the government. They'll tax anything they can get away with real or fake if they can get away with it for as long as they can. I'm not sure that should be used as an indicator for truth or fabrication only a reminder of how politics work.

What about the lot of scientist, what have they to gain? Money as well?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Millions of dollars went to carbon research grants; billions to "green" companies (i.e. Solyndra, Ford Motor Company, etc.).

Like I said, the scientists did their job by giving degrees of uncertainty. It's everyone that regurgitates it as fact that misconstrues it.

 

[AphexDreamer]

Millions of dollars went to carbon research grants; billions to "green" companies (i.e. Solyndra, Ford Motor Company, etc.).

Like I said, the scientists did their job by giving degrees of uncertainty. It's everyone that regurgitates it as fact that misconstrues it.

Well we record temperature right? Year after year we go back and look at how hot the world was globally and compare it to previous results. Is the world not getting hotter with the results we have? Isn't past results certain?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Temperature is highly variable and the degree to which the Earth allegedly warmed is miniscule. No, the past results aren't certain because there is variability in...everything. Time of day matters, the method to measure matters, the accuracy of the instruments matter, and so on. It is within the degree of certainty to say July was not and was the warmest month on record.

 

[BiggieShady]

Is the world not getting hotter with the results we have? Isn't past results certain?

Of course, and that irrefutable fact is preventing us to burn oil/coal guilt free ... if only we could prove that world climate was changing anyway regardless of our burning, we would continue unhindered because all we really want is our fun not to be spoiled by guilt.

Temperature is highly variable and the degree to which the Earth allegedly warmed is miniscule. No, the past results aren't curtained because there is variability in...everything. Time of day matters, the method to measure matters, the accuracy of the instruments matter, and so on. It is within the degree of certainty to say July was not and was the warmest month on record.

That'd make sense if there were only one thermometer in the world ... and the owner is a raging alchoholic

 

[SK-1]

This is just another reason to doubt.... 2014...Summer of the dragonfly...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=439&v=qI31a2L1Olw