Is Global Warming Caused By Man????

[Skull Pilot]

Global Warming: Rhetoric versus Reality

Are carbon emissions rising? Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, says yes. But -- does that mean we're facing a serious global warming problem? Lomborg takes a look at the data and says the reality of climate change is not what global warming alarmists would have you believe.

For example:

• The climate models predicted an 0.8 degree Fahrenheit rise in temperature over the last 15 years. The reality? The temperature rose just 0.09 degrees, 90 percent less than what was predicted by the models.
• Antarctic sea ice is actually increasing, not decreasing as the models predicted.
• Sea levels are rising, as they have for years, but not at faster rates. In fact, Lomborg cites two studies indicating that there has been a drop in the rate of sea level rise.
• Are there more droughts? According to a study from March 2014, since 1982, the amount of the world's surface that has faced droughts has decreased.
• Damage costs from hurricanes have increased in the United States, but only because more people with more expensive property are living near coastlines, says Lomborg. Adjusting for those factors, damage from hurricanes from 1900 to 2013 actually decreased slightly.
• Landfalling typhoons have fallen since 1950, yet global warming activists are calling for carbon dioxide emissions in order to reduce typhoons.
• Death rates from natural disasters (from floods to extreme temperatures) have fallen dramatically, dropping by 907 percent since the beginning of the last century.

Lomborg says climate change alarmism has obscured reality and focused policymakers on ineffective, expensive carbon-cutting solutions such as wind farms and solar power.

Source: Bjorn Lomborg, "The Alarming Thing About Climate Alarmism," Wall Street Journal, February 2, 2015.

- See more at: Global Warming: Rhetoric versus Reality

 

[Old Rocks]

What did humans do the last time the carbon was at 800 PPM? Oh wait..

The last time the CO2 was 800 ppm, mankind was far in the future.

 

[TNHarley]

What did humans do the last time the carbon was at 800 PPM? Oh wait..

The last time the CO2 was 800 ppm, mankind was far in the future.

My point, silly goose.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, TN, what are you trying to say? That we have not increased the CO2 in the atmosphere? We know from records how much coal and oil we have burned. And we know how much CO2 that the burning of the fossil fuels produce. Actually, were it not for the amount the ocean absorbs, there would be far more than 400 ppm at present.

 

[Old Rocks]

Global Warming: Rhetoric versus Reality

Are carbon emissions rising? Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, says yes. But -- does that mean we're facing a serious global warming problem? Lomborg takes a look at the data and says the reality of climate change is not what global warming alarmists would have you believe.

For example:

• The climate models predicted an 0.8 degree Fahrenheit rise in temperature over the last 15 years. The reality? The temperature rose just 0.09 degrees, 90 percent less than what was predicted by the models.
• Antarctic sea ice is actually increasing, not decreasing as the models predicted.
• Sea levels are rising, as they have for years, but not at faster rates. In fact, Lomborg cites two studies indicating that there has been a drop in the rate of sea level rise.
• Are there more droughts? According to a study from March 2014, since 1982, the amount of the world's surface that has faced droughts has decreased.
• Damage costs from hurricanes have increased in the United States, but only because more people with more expensive property are living near coastlines, says Lomborg. Adjusting for those factors, damage from hurricanes from 1900 to 2013 actually decreased slightly.
• Landfalling typhoons have fallen since 1950, yet global warming activists are calling for carbon dioxide emissions in order to reduce typhoons.
• Death rates from natural disasters (from floods to extreme temperatures) have fallen dramatically, dropping by 907 percent since the beginning of the last century.

Lomborg says climate change alarmism has obscured reality and focused policymakers on ineffective, expensive carbon-cutting solutions such as wind farms and solar power.

Source: Bjorn Lomborg, "The Alarming Thing About Climate Alarmism," Wall Street Journal, February 2, 2015.

- See more at: Global Warming: Rhetoric versus Reality

Bjorn Lomberg simply has credibility only with the denielist.

 

[Old Rocks]

DeSmogBlog has done the first comprehensive analysis of where Bjorn Lomborg’s money comes from.

You know the T-shirt-wearing climate inactivist Lomborg (aka the Danish Delayer) from such recent gems as “Subsidizing renewables won’t stop global warming” and “What an increasingly wonderfulworld” and “The Poor Need Cheap Fossil Fuels” (seriously — or not).

If those sound suspiciously similar to the exact same positions being pushed by the Koch brothers, then it should come as no surprise that Lomborg’s backers are part of the sprawling Kochtopus enterprise, as DeSmogBlog documents.

Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus Center (CCC), though long associated with his native Denmark, actually registered as a US-based non-profit organization back in 2008. That’s how we know Lomborg walked away with a cool $775,000 in pay from the CCC in 2012.

Bjorn Lomborg Is Part Of The Koch Network — And Cashing In

Ah well, the silly ass didn't impress anyone in Paris. In scientific circles, definately a non-person.

 

[jc456]

What did humans do the last time the carbon was at 800 PPM? Oh wait..

The last time the CO2 was 800 ppm, mankind was far in the future.

My point, silly goose.

Silly goose that was 800 PPM without man's CO2. 20 PPM of man's CO2 is like 1000000PPM of natural CO2. Whatever harm that would do anyway. See they can't tell you how dangerous 20 PPM is.

 

[SSDD]

Because a new cause is present and those causes we've seen in the past are not.

You have yet to provide the first piece of hard empirical evidence to support that claim....it must therefore be bullshit.

Because the current change is far more rapid than what is seen in the past and thus begs a different cause.

You have no proxy data with the resolution required to make such a claim ( Marcotti said their resolution was greater than 300 years) ...it therefore must be bullshit.

Because the correlation with that new cause is far greater than its correlation with any other known cause.

You have no actual data to support that claim because we have barely scratched the surface in learning what actually drives the climate...therefore it must be bullshit.

Because empirical evidence, but the butt-ton-load, indicate the effect is due to the new cause and not the old causes.

There is no empirical evidence...therefore your claim is bullshit.

Because calculations of the forcing effect of the new cause match observations.

The models run hot....the forcings are as yet mostly unknown.....therefore, your claim must be bullshit.

Because a forcing effect can be calculated from the new cause and unless it is the cause of the observed warming, our understanding of basic physics needs review.

No empirical evidence supports such claims...therefore your claim is bullshit...


Seems that all you have to say is bullshit crick...Too bad.

 

[SSDD]

What did humans do the last time the carbon was at 800 PPM? Oh wait..

The last time the CO2 was 800 ppm, mankind was far in the future.

And an ice age began....with atmospheric CO2 in excess of 800ppm....so much for the run away warming hypothesis.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Global Warming: Rhetoric versus Reality

Are carbon emissions rising? Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, says yes. But -- does that mean we're facing a serious global warming problem? Lomborg takes a look at the data and says the reality of climate change is not what global warming alarmists would have you believe.

For example:

• The climate models predicted an 0.8 degree Fahrenheit rise in temperature over the last 15 years. The reality? The temperature rose just 0.09 degrees, 90 percent less than what was predicted by the models.
• Antarctic sea ice is actually increasing, not decreasing as the models predicted.
• Sea levels are rising, as they have for years, but not at faster rates. In fact, Lomborg cites two studies indicating that there has been a drop in the rate of sea level rise.
• Are there more droughts? According to a study from March 2014, since 1982, the amount of the world's surface that has faced droughts has decreased.
• Damage costs from hurricanes have increased in the United States, but only because more people with more expensive property are living near coastlines, says Lomborg. Adjusting for those factors, damage from hurricanes from 1900 to 2013 actually decreased slightly.
• Landfalling typhoons have fallen since 1950, yet global warming activists are calling for carbon dioxide emissions in order to reduce typhoons.
• Death rates from natural disasters (from floods to extreme temperatures) have fallen dramatically, dropping by 907 percent since the beginning of the last century.

Lomborg says climate change alarmism has obscured reality and focused policymakers on ineffective, expensive carbon-cutting solutions such as wind farms and solar power.

Source: Bjorn Lomborg, "The Alarming Thing About Climate Alarmism," Wall Street Journal, February 2, 2015.

- See more at: Global Warming: Rhetoric versus Reality

Bjorn Lomberg simply has credibility only with the denielist.

So you refute the claims?

You're saying that the actual warming was the .8 degree predicted and not the actual .09 degree?

You're saying that the area of the earth affected by drought has not decreased in the past 2 decades but that it has increased?

You're saying that the amount of landfalling typhoons has not decreased but rather has increased?

These are all things that can be easily quantified yet you deny them?

Seems like you're the denier here

 

[Billy_Bob]

First you must define what global warming is. Alarmist assume that global warming is all man caused and refuse to look at natural causes and cyclical variation.

That is false. Global warming is not difficult to define. The IPCC's position and that of the vast majority of climate scientists is that human activity is the PRIMARY or DOMINANT cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years. It has NEVER been that it was the only cause. Climate scientists have studied natural causes and cyclical variations on many fronts and in great depth.

Then you must determine if man is a specific cause of some of the warming and differentiate what is actually man caused and what is caused by natural variation.

A version of this graphic has appeared in every assessment report.

This scientific falsification step has NEVER BEEN DONE. (Rule out all other causes or potential caused by empirical evidence)

The step you just described is NOT falsification. It would be attribution. However, AGW has withstood many attempts at falsification.

I am still in awe that the IPCC claims that all warming post 1950 is man made when they have never done the science.

Then you're a self-confessed idiot. The IPCC has NEVER claimed that all the warming past 1950 was man made and they have NEVER done ANY research. They ASSESS science done by others. You (and quite a few other deniers) seem to be completely ignorant of what the IPCC actually does.

In order for it to be all man made, as the IPCC CLAIMS

Wow... how could you be this ignorant after being on this board for as long as you have? The IPCC has never made such a claim. Ever.

they would have to have stopped natural variation and be in controlled all of the natural causes. I am still waiting for the proof of this control, which would also preclude the need for further research as the problems in controlling our climate would already be solved and they would control it..

Wow again. That is incredibly stupid.

When you pair down the silly ass assertion of alarmists,

The correct word there would have been "P A R E" and doing so would require accurate information, not the red herring bullshit you're sling about here.

the IPCC, and the AGW crowd, there is no credibility or science in support of the AGW premise.

There's enough credibility and scientific evidence to convince better than 97% of the world's climate scientists that AGW is valid and robust. And I bet a lot of those scientists have degrees in physics. You don't. So... go figger.

What a moron.. Appeals to authority, Claims the 97% lie, then provides no proof of what CO2 supposedly does...

Same Shit Different Day...

 

[JimH52]

and farting cows...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Because a new cause is present and those causes we've seen in the past are not.

You have yet to provide the first piece of hard empirical evidence to support that claim....it must therefore be bullshit.

Because the current change is far more rapid than what is seen in the past and thus begs a different cause.

You have no proxy data with the resolution required to make such a claim ( Marcotti said their resolution was greater than 300 years) ...it therefore must be bullshit.

Because the correlation with that new cause is far greater than its correlation with any other known cause.

You have no actual data to support that claim because we have barely scratched the surface in learning what actually drives the climate...therefore it must be bullshit.

Because empirical evidence, but the butt-ton-load, indicate the effect is due to the new cause and not the old causes.

There is no empirical evidence...therefore your claim is bullshit.

Because calculations of the forcing effect of the new cause match observations.

The models run hot....the forcings are as yet mostly unknown.....therefore, your claim must be bullshit.

Because a forcing effect can be calculated from the new cause and unless it is the cause of the observed warming, our understanding of basic physics needs review.

No empirical evidence supports such claims...therefore your claim is bullshit...


Seems that all you have to say is bullshit crick...Too bad.

Your bull shit meter must be pegged! I know mine is every time I read one of Crick posts filled with deception and misdirection.. He still hasn't answered the empirical evidence and facts I have given him... He ignores the facts and goes on like he was never shown them..

 

[Crick]

But when you look into the past and see more of the same that we are seeing today....why would you suddenly ascribe a new cause to the same old thing?

Because a new cause is present and those causes we've seen in the past are not.

You have yet to provide the first piece of hard empirical evidence to support that claim....it must therefore be bullshit.

The new cause: CO2 and the greenhouse effect, is most certainly present. The old causes: TSI increases and warming phases of the Milankovitch Cycles, are not.

Because the current change is far more rapid than what is seen in the past and thus begs a different cause.

You have no proxy data with the resolution required to make such a claim ( Marcotti said their resolution was greater than 300 years) ...it therefore must be bullshit.

To be invisible, a pulse as fast or faster than the current CO2 and warming would have to come and go in less than 300 years. It is extremely likely that the current pulse will not be that short and there is absolutely no known mechanism short of catastrophic impact that could create such a short-lived pulse. The rate of CO2 increase is unprecedented in at least 65 million years. The rate of temperature increase in at least 11,000 years and both, likely, much longer.

Because the correlation with that new cause is far greater than its correlation with any other known cause.

You have no actual data to support that claim because we have barely scratched the surface in learning what actually drives the climate...therefore it must be bullshit.

Tell us SID, at what point will you be able to confidently tell us that we know all the various factors driving climate?

And one other. We have identified several factors of sufficient magnitude to be contenders in this issue and a dozen others much smaller. Where do you think we might find another factor as large as greenhouse warming, TSI changes or Milankovich cycles that might possibly have caused this warming? The moon? Jupiter? The Andromeda Galaxy? Aliens living in our hollow moon? Some unknown radiation coming from the sun that the Earth - but not our instruments - can absorb? Where?

Because empirical evidence, by the butt-ton-load, indicate the effect is due to the new cause and not the old causes.

There is no empirical evidence...therefore your claim is bullshit.

CO2 level records, temperature records, Arctic ice extent records, Arctic ice volume records, global glacier mass balance data, storm intensity levels, record highs vs record lows, freeze and melt season lengths, radiative imbalance at the ToA, stratospheric cooling and a hundred other pieces of EMPIRICAL data all point to a predominantly anthropogenic cause for the observed warming. AR5 has mountains of empirical evidence supporting anthropogenicity. You've been told this on multiple occasions yet you still claim they don't exist. You knowingly lie.

Because calculations of the forcing effect of the new cause match observations.

The models run hot....the forcings are as yet mostly unknown.....therefore, your claim must be bullshit.

Again, you lie. Look at the bottom of that table; at those three red bars. CO2 levels explain that increase. Can you even imagine something else that can?

Because a forcing effect can be calculated from the new cause and unless it is the cause of the observed warming, our understanding of basic physics needs review.

No empirical evidence supports such claims...therefore your claim is bullshit...

You lie and your argument doesn't even apply.

Seems that all you have to say is bullshit crick...Too bad.

All you have to give us are lies. My views are taken from the overwhelming opinions of mainstream science. Yours from a paranoid conspiratorial fantasy and an ego so inflated you actually believe you're smarter than all the world's scientists put together. You don't need this argument or this board. You need professional medical help. See a shrink before it's too late.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry crick....just more bullshit from you...refer to my original post...your lies don't count as argument.

 

[WheelieAddict]

If you think the actions of man have had no effect on the planet you are a moron. The argument should be about how much of an effect man has contributed to global warming and how much man should curtain it.

 

[SSDD]

If you think the actions of man have had no effect on the planet you are a moron. The argument should be about how much of an effect man has contributed to global warming and how much man should curtain it.

Of course our actions have an effect on the planet...in many cases a very dangerous and detrimental effect. The problem is that none of the very real problems we face as a result of our actions will ever be addressed so long as the AGW hoax continues to suck all the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers...climate science wants more than a trillion dollars to address a non problem that we can't do a thing about.. How far might we go in addressing real and present environmental problems with a trillion dollars and scientists who are actually interested in improving our environment rather than advancing a political agenda for their masters who control the purse strings?

 

[skookerasbil]

Global Warming: Rhetoric versus Reality

Are carbon emissions rising? Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, says yes. But -- does that mean we're facing a serious global warming problem? Lomborg takes a look at the data and says the reality of climate change is not what global warming alarmists would have you believe.

For example:

• The climate models predicted an 0.8 degree Fahrenheit rise in temperature over the last 15 years. The reality? The temperature rose just 0.09 degrees, 90 percent less than what was predicted by the models.
• Antarctic sea ice is actually increasing, not decreasing as the models predicted.
• Sea levels are rising, as they have for years, but not at faster rates. In fact, Lomborg cites two studies indicating that there has been a drop in the rate of sea level rise.
• Are there more droughts? According to a study from March 2014, since 1982, the amount of the world's surface that has faced droughts has decreased.
• Damage costs from hurricanes have increased in the United States, but only because more people with more expensive property are living near coastlines, says Lomborg. Adjusting for those factors, damage from hurricanes from 1900 to 2013 actually decreased slightly.
• Landfalling typhoons have fallen since 1950, yet global warming activists are calling for carbon dioxide emissions in order to reduce typhoons.
• Death rates from natural disasters (from floods to extreme temperatures) have fallen dramatically, dropping by 907 percent since the beginning of the last century.

Lomborg says climate change alarmism has obscured reality and focused policymakers on ineffective, expensive carbon-cutting solutions such as wind farms and solar power.

Source: Bjorn Lomborg, "The Alarming Thing About Climate Alarmism," Wall Street Journal, February 2, 2015.

- See more at: Global Warming: Rhetoric versus Reality

Bjorn Lomberg simply has credibility only with the denielist.

Nah........thousands and thousands of scientists concur. Of course, to the AGW climate crusaders, they are all fake scientists. If you are not in the alarmist club, you are not a "real" scientist........thankfully for the rest of us, the sentiment is fringe. The "real" scientists have had no impact on public policy in the real world......and that is the only thing that matters at the end of the day.

 

[Crick]

If you think the actions of man have had no effect on the planet you are a moron. The argument should be about how much of an effect man has contributed to global warming and how much man should curtain it.

Of course our actions have an effect on the planet...in many cases a very dangerous and detrimental effect. The problem is that none of the very real problems we face as a result of our actions will ever be addressed so long as the AGW hoax continues to suck all the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers...climate science wants more than a trillion dollars to address a non problem that we can't do a thing about.. How far might we go in addressing real and present environmental problems with a trillion dollars and scientists who are actually interested in improving our environment rather than advancing a political agenda for their masters who control the purse strings?

Is it a non-problem or a problem we can do nothing about? Those opinions aren't synonymous.