Climate change

[jon_berzerk]

No, Greg. That is a strawman on the denialists and your part. Very few scientists are screaming 'end of days'. What they are stating is that there is going to be severe costs associated with climate change. Costs from port cities having dock facilities ruined by sea level rise, storm surges causing far damage, as we saw with Sandy, for the same reason. Less available food from the sea because of the impact of ocean acidification on the base of the food chain. Less money available for the creation of new infrastructure because we are having more storms damaging the existing infrastructure.

Don't forget Guam tipping over. Imagine the loss!

and to think our children will not see snow ever again

--LOL

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No, Greg. That is a strawman on the denialists and your part. Very few scientists are screaming 'end of days'. What they are stating is that there is going to be severe costs associated with climate change. Costs from port cities having dock facilities ruined by sea level rise, storm surges causing far damage, as we saw with Sandy, for the same reason. Less available food from the sea because of the impact of ocean acidification on the base of the food chain. Less money available for the creation of new infrastructure because we are having more storms damaging the existing infrastructure.

Don't forget Guam tipping over. Imagine the loss!

Aren't there some rules about trolling?

Trolling? That's your sides dire warning

 

[Dot Com]

Troll much? LOL ..... NOT!!!

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk

 

[gtopa1]

No, Greg. That is a strawman on the denialists and your part. Very few scientists are screaming 'end of days'. What they are stating is that there is going to be severe costs associated with climate change. Costs from port cities having dock facilities ruined by sea level rise, storm surges causing far damage, as we saw with Sandy, for the same reason. Less available food from the sea because of the impact of ocean acidification on the base of the food chain. Less money available for the creation of new infrastructure because we are having more storms damaging the existing infrastructure.

Old Rox; that is absolutely NOT what the nutjobs have been saying. The Catastrophists are saying crap. You blaming Humans for Sandy?? That's nuts!!

As has already been stressed by senior scientist Martin Hoerling from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and many other scientists, no evidence exists for any influence of global warming, let alone human-caused warming, on the intensity of hurricane Sandy.

...In a broader context, the lack of recent global warming is also an impediment to those who argue that Sandy was influenced by industrial carbon dioxide. There has been no significant atmospheric warming since 1996 and no ocean warming since the Argo buoy network was deployed in 2003. In consequence, global atmospheric and oceanic temperatures are now close to their average over the past 30 years.

Read more: Cometh the storm cometh the climate lies
Follow us: @theage on Twitter | theageAustralia on Facebook


Read more: Cometh the storm cometh the climate lies
Follow us: @theage on Twitter | theageAustralia on Facebook

Cometh the storm cometh the climate lies

As for acidification:

A Neutral View of Oceanic pH Watts Up With That

Read more; dogmatise less!!

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Well, Greg, I gave you links to my sources, so how about links to where your 'scientists' were claiming an ice age was imminent in the 1970's.

http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf


Read it and twerk!!!

I was very familiar with the "readings" of the time.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

No, Greg. That is a strawman on the denialists and your part. Very few scientists are screaming 'end of days'. What they are stating is that there is going to be severe costs associated with climate change. Costs from port cities having dock facilities ruined by sea level rise, storm surges causing far damage, as we saw with Sandy, for the same reason. Less available food from the sea because of the impact of ocean acidification on the base of the food chain. Less money available for the creation of new infrastructure because we are having more storms damaging the existing infrastructure.

Don't forget Guam tipping over. Imagine the loss!

and to think our children will not see snow ever again

--LOL

The one I like best is that we are going to get more Asteroid collisions because of AGW.....OK; she was a newsreader but hey?? A typical low knowledge AGW Catastrophist!!

Greg

 

[jon_berzerk]

Well, Greg, I gave you links to my sources, so how about links to where your 'scientists' were claiming an ice age was imminent in the 1970's.

http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf

Read it and twerk!!!

I was very familiar with the "readings" of the time.

Greg

No, Greg. That is a strawman on the denialists and your part. Very few scientists are screaming 'end of days'. What they are stating is that there is going to be severe costs associated with climate change. Costs from port cities having dock facilities ruined by sea level rise, storm surges causing far damage, as we saw with Sandy, for the same reason. Less available food from the sea because of the impact of ocean acidification on the base of the food chain. Less money available for the creation of new infrastructure because we are having more storms damaging the existing infrastructure.

Don't forget Guam tipping over. Imagine the loss!

and to think our children will not see snow ever again

--LOL

The one I like best is that we are going to get more Asteroid collisions because of AGW.....OK; she was a newsreader but hey?? A typical low knowledge AGW Catastrophist!!

Greg

yes

man made global warming leads to all disasters

 

[Muhammed]

I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind

What temperature is the Sun going to be 80 years from now?

If you don't know the answer to that question with 100% certainty, then your global warming doomsday cult prophecies are nothing but superstitious soothsaying garbage.

 

[gtopa1]

No, Greg. That is a strawman on the denialists and your part. Very few scientists are screaming 'end of days'. What they are stating is that there is going to be severe costs associated with climate change. Costs from port cities having dock facilities ruined by sea level rise, storm surges causing far damage, as we saw with Sandy, for the same reason. Less available food from the sea because of the impact of ocean acidification on the base of the food chain. Less money available for the creation of new infrastructure because we are having more storms damaging the existing infrastructure.

You might find this interesting.

Climate Cooling the Other Side of Climate Change Science Global Cooling

Myself? I think humans contribute about a third of the temp increase but it is lost in the natural variability of the Climate. And that third is just a wild ass guess; i would NOT be surprised if it is fa.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Well, Greg, I gave you links to my sources, so how about links to where your 'scientists' were claiming an ice age was imminent in the 1970's.

http://www.pennsylvaniacrier.com/filemgmt_data/files/Ominous Changes in the Worlds Weather.pdf

Another one.

Greg

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No, Greg. That is a strawman on the denialists and your part. Very few scientists are screaming 'end of days'. What they are stating is that there is going to be severe costs associated with climate change. Costs from port cities having dock facilities ruined by sea level rise, storm surges causing far damage, as we saw with Sandy, for the same reason. Less available food from the sea because of the impact of ocean acidification on the base of the food chain. Less money available for the creation of new infrastructure because we are having more storms damaging the existing infrastructure.

Don't forget Guam tipping over. Imagine the loss!

Aren't there some rules about trolling?

Botched environmental predictions for 2015 Fox News


Um, yeah. Guam still might tip over

 

[gtopa1]

Mind you: what was done to Hubert Lamb was galling.

- Bishop Hill blog - Hubert Lamb The scepticism of CRU s founder

Greg

 

[jon_berzerk]

Oil will run out by 2015
--LOL

 

[mamooth]

Mind you: what was done to Hubert Lamb was galling.

I hadnt' seen that specific denier conspiracy theory before. I had seen "Connolly is the devil!" nonsense before, just not that specific nonsense.

You might find this interesting

Gish gallops are boring. People with the facts on their side don't have to resort to pointing to an avalanche of crap. If you have a point, state it directly and concisely. People with the facts on their side especially don't have to resort to cherrypicking fallacies to create strawman, like the deniers do with their "but look at this catastrophic prediction!" deflections.

People with the facts on their side can get to the point and avoid logical fallacies. Like this.

Hiatus claims are crap. There never was a hiatus. That was something deniers manufactured. Back in the real world, it's just been steadily warming.

The natural cycles theories are crap. They're contradicted by the directly observed evidence of stratospheric cooling, the decrease in outgoing longwave radiation in the GHG bands, and the increase in backradiation. No natural cycles theory explains that evidence, hence such theories are just flat out wrong.

Global warming theory, of course, does explain all of the observed evidence. As it's the only theory that does so, hence it's the accepted science. If you want to change that, you have to provide an alternate theory that's even better at explaining the evidence.

And you brought up Popper, so tell us, what data could falsify your natural cycles theory? Popper says if it can't be falsified, it's garbage. Mainstream global warming theory can be falsified in many ways, since it's real science. Denialism ... I've yet to have a single denier tell me what evidence could falsify their beliefs, which push them into the category of religion.

 

[flacaltenn]

No, Greg. That is a strawman on the denialists and your part. Very few scientists are screaming 'end of days'. What they are stating is that there is going to be severe costs associated with climate change. Costs from port cities having dock facilities ruined by sea level rise, storm surges causing far damage, as we saw with Sandy, for the same reason. Less available food from the sea because of the impact of ocean acidification on the base of the food chain. Less money available for the creation of new infrastructure because we are having more storms damaging the existing infrastructure.

YOU are on here daily trying to point to weather events as PROOF of the coming GW catastrophe.. Hansen is out screaming about "likely" sea levels rises that even the IPCC won't touch. Your church elders have given the political cover for the media to misrepresent their work ON PURPOSE. And CBS shows a slide with the Oceans Boiling.

Your church (as pure as it SHOULD BE) has been PART of the hysteria. And there is a MOUNTAIN of now disputed projections out there in the science archives and the public domain that DO PREDICT planetary suicide. Not to mention a Nobel Winning Documentary on the topic that is STILL being force fed to little schoolchildren...

You are not gonna be able to walk the shit back...

 

[flacaltenn]

Mind you: what was done to Hubert Lamb was galling.

I hadnt' seen that specific denier conspiracy theory before. I had seen "Connolly is the devil!" nonsense before, just not that specific nonsense.

You might find this interesting

Gish gallops are boring. People with the facts on their side don't have to resort to pointing to an avalanche of crap. If you have a point, state it directly and concisely. People with the facts on their side especially don't have to resort to cherrypicking fallacies to create strawman, like the deniers do with their "but look at this catastrophic prediction!" deflections.

People with the facts on their side can get to the point and avoid logical fallacies. Like this.

Hiatus claims are crap. There never was a hiatus. That was something deniers manufactured. Back in the real world, it's just been steadily warming.

The natural cycles theories are crap. They're contradicted by the directly observed evidence of stratospheric cooling, the decrease in outgoing longwave radiation in the GHG bands, and the increase in backradiation. No natural cycles theory explains that evidence, hence such theories are just flat out wrong.

Global warming theory, of course, does explain all of the observed evidence. As it's the only theory that does so, hence it's the accepted science. If you want to change that, you have to provide an alternate theory that's even better at explaining the evidence.

And you brought up Popper, so tell us, what data could falsify your natural cycles theory? Popper says if it can't be falsified, it's garbage. Mainstream global warming theory can be falsified in many ways, since it's real science. Denialism ... I've yet to have a single denier tell me what evidence could falsify their beliefs, which push them into the category of religion.

Stratospheric observations cannot discriminate between atmospheric thickening from CO2 back radiation or natural warming. You best stay in your litterbox with that fantasy league of scientists you've never read.

And it's impossible to get direct GLOBAL readings of backradiation to derive that increase. That is CALCULATED from the observed warming you nit and ASSUMED to be all due to CO2....

 

[The sheeple sea]

Oil will run out by 2015
--LOL

I believe that the prediction was we would hit peak oil production and not be able to increase current production by 2015, many of these predictions were made before the advent of hydraulic fracturing or without factoring this new technology into being able to reach previously unattainable fuel sources. The prediction was never that oil would run out, except perhaps by some tinfoil hat men who also didn't understand what they were being told.

 

[The sheeple sea]

This isn't even about global warming or climate change if we are being honest, about C02 or anything else. There is a dead zone in the beautiful gulf of Mexico the size of Rhode island, where no fish can live due to runoff pollutants from our rivers, the oxygen content around the world is decreasing as CO2 composition increases. We need oxygen to survive, we need air to breathe. It doesn't matter if you think it's causing a warming effect or not. On certain days in China you can see the pollution fog settling over the land. Respiratory illnesses there are staggering. More coral reefs, essential to maintaining fish life in our oceans go barren as acidic pollutants make them unlivable.

Toxic fishing practices such as dredging the sea floor with what equates to a semi truck tanker have devastated ocean habitats turning sea floor forests into nothing but mud. The amount of ocean floor made barren is the equivalent of ALL OF THE DEFORESTATION DONE BY MAN ON LAND SINCE THE START OF CIVILIZATION. And we did it in fifty years.

Toxic blooms from out of control algaes that are a direct result of the dead zones are killing people in Florida every year, and making others very sick. Sea birds that fly over these piles of algae ashpyxiate and die. There are beaches in France where this algae now has to be bulldozed off the beaches every year.

How, in the face of all of this can anyone maintain that our practices are fine, that it will all be OK? Beach side property is becoming a health risk. I don't care how you feel about the atmosphere and if its cooling or if there's some storm catastrophe, you really think environmental issues are a leftist issue? All of these are easy, easily verified measured facts, every one of them. We should continue with business as usual?

Billions of dollars of cost in industry is nothing compared to giving our children a toxic world to live in, and when they have to stay inside because it is too toxic out there today an they are short of breath. They can look back at the record keeping of the internet and say "oh look, there's my parents or grandparents saying everything is fine, continue with business as usual".

It is insanity. Pure and simple.

 

[jc456]

Credit CO2 Insanity web site:

Back Radiation Co2 Insanity

excerpt:
"Doomsaying Climatologist Abandons ‘Back Radiation’ Meme

Only recently did Professor Claes Johnson persuade long-time greenhouse gas effect believer Dr. Judith Curry to abandon this unscientific term. Curry now admits:

“Back radiation is a phrase, one that I don’t use myself, and it is not a word that is used in technical radiative transfer studies. Lets lose the back radiation terminology, we all agree on that.”"

Fine, call it radiation. It's still radiation moving from the cooler atmosphere toward the warmer surface.

and adding no heat to surface or troposphere temperatures.

All matter above 0K radiates all the time, in all directions.
Even if it's radiating toward warmer matter.

Are we clear on the basics yet?

yep agree, however, the radiation toward the surface does not heat jack.

 

[jc456]

I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind

From what I can gather I would say we know too little about the natural cycles. It was a lot colder in the 1700s after it was warmer for the previous few hundred....but how is it possible to measure it accurately?? So are we just really comparing the 1970s with today after a slightly warmer cycle??

I'm VERY skeptical about the future being a dead world. Frankly that's just greenie crap!!

Greg

We can take ice core samples from the poles that have records of year after year atmospheric conditions dating back hundreds of years, like tree rings for the environment. It's pretty basic science and shows a huge increase in greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution. We know quite a bit about it

why then are today's climate k00ks adjusting historical records then? Is it feasible from your position, that it's ok to chart today's instrument records with ice core and tree ring records?