Understanding the Global Warming Debate

[Not2BSubjugated]

Global warming is one of my favorite political debates to just sit back and watch. The proponents for the theory say that the scientists who are skeptical are ignoring facts, dishonest, or bought and paid for by the evil corporations who are out to destroy the world ala Captain Planet villains. The skeptics claim that the scientists who adhere to the theory are ignoring facts, dishonest, or bought and paid for by idealist ex hippy elite politicos who want to freeze technological advancement and turn the planet into a giant, eco friendly commune.

The greatest thing about all these proponents and skeptics is how unerringly their opinion on this topic is separated along the exact same lines as partisan politics. When practically every democrat I talk to/hear from believes we're melting the icecaps and heading for day after tomorrow, and practically every republican I hear from is certain that the whole theory was cooked up as part of a global, Marxist conspiracy, I can't help but assume that most of the opinions formed by non climate scientists on this matter are simply an extension of their political identity, and in no way a product of honest logic.

I would even go so far as to say that most of the people siting articles that they've read weren't actually swayed by these essays. If you look deep down and self assess with any level of integrity, I'd be willing to bet that most of you had an opinion in mind and simply set out to find literature that supports a preconceived narrative. Sometimes, the only honest answer is, "I don't know enough about that to say one way or the other."

 

[jodylee]

They can't even predict the weather, you expect me to believe prediction of climate, Its like trying to predict the movement of a particle of smoke, IMPOSSIBLE.
but saying that, it would benefit us all if we drive electric, save the rainforest, etc... but for different reasons than climate change.

 

[Old Rocks]

While that may be true the AGW supporters use it to attempt to smear the sceptics through simple propaganda, just like the prosecutors of the holocaust of old. they are no different. Especially when their major supporters in media start calling sceptics "insane" or call for the mass incarceration or murder of those sceptics.

I give you the new NAZI's. Nice side to be on, just remember they lost.

No they don't... you're dishonest and a liar. Also good job with the Nazi comparison, jackass. Sorry... but neonazi's already exist... and they are certainly not on this playground.

I have many friends in Germany and their saying is the Greens are the new Reds. Neonazis are incompetant morons who live in a little dream world. Your cohorts are trying to institute a global government and they are using environmental laws to do it. You're an admitted socialist so for you it's OK.

I, on the other hand, actually read history books and socialist countries ALLWAYS fail, but usually not before they kill mass quantities of their citizens in the name of collectivisation.

LOL. So, dumb fuck, you finally admit that you are just another rightwingnut. Damned obvious from the lies you tell and the people you quote.

 

[Old Rocks]

Global warming is one of my favorite political debates to just sit back and watch. The proponents for the theory say that the scientists who are skeptical are ignoring facts, dishonest, or bought and paid for by the evil corporations who are out to destroy the world ala Captain Planet villains. The skeptics claim that the scientists who adhere to the theory are ignoring facts, dishonest, or bought and paid for by idealist ex hippy elite politicos who want to freeze technological advancement and turn the planet into a giant, eco friendly commune.

The greatest thing about all these proponents and skeptics is how unerringly their opinion on this topic is separated along the exact same lines as partisan politics. When practically every democrat I talk to/hear from believes we're melting the icecaps and heading for day after tomorrow, and practically every republican I hear from is certain that the whole theory was cooked up as part of a global, Marxist conspiracy, I can't help but assume that most of the opinions formed by non climate scientists on this matter are simply an extension of their political identity, and in no way a product of honest logic.

I would even go so far as to say that most of the people siting articles that they've read weren't actually swayed by these essays. If you look deep down and self assess with any level of integrity, I'd be willing to bet that most of you had an opinion in mind and simply set out to find literature that supports a preconceived narrative. Sometimes, the only honest answer is, "I don't know enough about that to say one way or the other."

There is not a single Scientific Society, a single National Academy of Science, or a single major University that states that AGW is wrong. Almost all state that it represents a clear and present danger. That is a strong a consensus as you are going to get in science.

You can see the history of the investigation of the science of GHGs here;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

That is the American Institute of Physics, a scientific society made up of scientific societies.

You can see current peer reviewed studies here;

AGW Observer

And the scientific society that has the most members involved in studying the affects of AGW, the American Geophyical Union states this concerning global warming;

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

AGU Position Statement

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

 

[Old Rocks]

..and yet, I present the shark.

I guess you don't know what rapid means or the kind of timescale I'm talking about.

I guess you don't understand much about the world. Here's a friendly bit of advice. Go back and look at all the predictions and claims that the AGW crowd have made. Everytime, and I mean everytime their claims or predictions have been tested they have been wrong. A more colossal lack of accuracy would be impossible to find in the scientific community. To get as dead wrong as the AGW crowd have been you need to look at astrologers. Actually astrologers are more accurate. You have to drop down to palm readers to get the type of failure the AGW crowd has enjoyed.

"The scientists say the hybrid sharks are a combination of the common blacktip shark and the smaller Australian blacktip shark, which lives in warmer tropical waters near the coastline.

The researchers say the new, hybrid sharks live along a 200 kilometer stretch of Australia's northeastern coast but have ventured more than 1,600 kilometers south, to cooler waters.

The scientists say they do not know for certain why the two species started interbreeding but suggest it may be an evolutionary process to adapt to climate change or pressures on their food supply.

The findings appear in the journal Conservation Genetics."


Aussie Sharks ‘Evolving’ « VOA Breaking News

At the turn of this century, the deniers were stating that there was no warming, that it was all made up. Then, as the warming became obvious, they changed their tune to it is warming, but we have nothing to do with it.

Now they are claiming that it is cooling, in spite of the fact that the last decade was the warmest on record.

Yes, the people like Hansen have given some incorrect predictions. They really thought that the melting that we are seeing right now in the Arctic would not occur until mid-century. They thought that we would not see significant Arctic Ocean clathrate emissions until the end of the century, not in 2011. The scientists predictions have been far more accurate than that of posiers like Walleyes. The majority of predictions have erred by not being alarmist enough.

Arctic methane emergency

 

[Old Rocks]

Demonstrate how the acidity of oceans is increasing away from the run off areas of the large population where the fertilizers used on lawns are causing huge increases in acidification.

Strike one.

There have been weather events since the beginning of time. There is no compelling evidence that there are any more or less severe weather events today than there were centuries ago. People starve in very cold times. People thrive in warmer times.


You're out.

Its 5th grade science dumbass CO2+H2O create acid. Go back to elementary school and get a basic education

Also you are full of shit.
1) Tropical storms have increased by 100% because of global warming
^Tropical storms stepping up with climate change - environment - 30 July 2007 - New Scientist
6,000 people die each year due to global warmings’ increase in tropical storms
^http://www.undp.org/cpr/disred/documents/publications/rdr/english/sa/t5.pdf
Global warming’s effect on tropical storms cost the economy 60 billion dollars each year.
(Total increase in American cost x [total tropical storms/total Atlantic storms] = total cost)
http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/hurr_122106a.pdf

2) Droughts. Droughts have increased by 300% since 1970 because of global warming.
Global Warming Linked to Increasing Drought
Drought's Growing Reach: NCAR Study Points to Global Warming as Key Factor - News Release
The increase in droughts due to global warming kills 23,000 people and costs 45 billion every year.
http://www.wateryear2003.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=5137&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
^
How Bad is the Texas Drought? "In Austin, They are Praying for a Hurricane" | ThinkProgress
His State In Record Heat Wave, Inhofe Bails On Climate Denier Conference: 'I Am Under The Weather' | ThinkProgress
^In 2011 Texas, Oklahoma and the southwest go through the worst drought in the area ever recorded.
^
"Worst Food Crisis of the 21st Century" Driven by "Worst Drought in 60 Years" in East Africa, as Climate Change Makes Reduced Rainfall a "Chronic Problem" | ThinkProgress
^2011 sees the worst drought in east Africa in 60 years.

3) Floods have increased by 500%
^Number of Disasters per Year - Maps and Graphics at UNEP/GRID-Arendal
The increase in floods due to global warming kills 20,000 people, and costs the economy 45 billion each year.
^http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001512/151208e.pdf
^
Mississippi Flood Causes Billions In Damage, While Representatives Deny Climate Pollution Threat | ThinkProgress
^Mississippi’s 2011 floods caused billions in damages.
^
AFP: Australian flood costs top $6.3 billion
^Flooding in 2010 in Australia expected to cost over 6 billion dollars.
^
Landsat satellite images reveal extent of historic North Dakota flooding
^In 2011 the Dakotas a mid-west have record and massive flooding.

4)
Corn & Soybean Meal Weekly Prices - 30th April
Facts About Corn
Warming Dents Corn And Wheat Yields - Science News
Environmental changes to blame for drop in yield of 'miracle rice'
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...sg=AFQjCNEFleKAglPMoWU4QED93hUFJXhXQQ&cad=rja
^Hotter nights/Global warming, and air pollution are linked to a 15% decline in rice yields.
^Farms produced 3.8% less corn, and 5.5% less wheat then they could of during 1980-2008 due to slightly higher temperatures. This increased corn prices by 6.4% and wheat by 18.9%.
^Global warming cost 21 billion a year in 2009 due to decreased corn yields.
^Global warming cost 40 billion a year in 2009 due to decreased wheat yields.
^Global warming cost 20 billion in the year 2009 due to decreased rice yields
^
Food Security Wanes As World Warms - Science News
^Global warming/climate change responsible for a decline in food yields such as cereals in The Former Soviet Union. Future warming/climate change will result in a decline in food yields and a spike in food costs.
^
August 12 News: Heat Wave Reduces Crop Harvests; Senate Democrats Urge White House to Act on Smog Rule | ThinkProgress
^The unprecedented heat wave that occurred in the United State in 2011caused corn yields to fall by 4.1%, soybeans by 5.2%, and wheat by 5.2%.
^
Breeding ozone-tolerant crops
^Scientists find that if current trends of ground level Ozone (which occurs due to fossil fuel emissions reacting with Carbons and sunlight) stay it will reduce soybean yields by 23% by 2050
^
Record Heat Causes Peanut Butter Prices to Skyrocket: "I Don't Remember A Year" We Had "So Little Moisture" | ThinkProgress
^Climate change in 2010-2011 caused peanut prices to increase by over 50%

5)
BBC News - Nitrogen pollution 'costs EU up to £280bn a year'
^Nitrogen pollution is estimated to cost Europe 100-500 billion dollars yearly. Extrapolating that data means that Nitrogen pollution costs America 100-500 billion yearly. And costs the world around 400-2000 billion each year.

6)
STUDY SAYS COAL PLANT POLLUTION KILLS 30,000 A YEAR
^Coal pollution kills as much as 30,000 people each year in America extrapolating means coal kills around 100,000 people each year in the world.

7)
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/publications/mccarthy/tor30yrs.pdf
^Number of tornadoes has increased by 30% due to global warming.
Tornadoes are formed when hot air collides with cold air.
Usually when the hot air is below the cold air, when the hot air rises and the cold air falls it causes tornadoes to form.
^
Tornadoes total cost of damage statistics - states compared - Statemaster
^Total yearly cost to America of Global warming increase in tornadoes is over 7 billion yearly
^
When and Where Do Tornadoes Occur?
^America accounts for around 25% of all Tornadoes meaning worldwide global warming increase in tornadoes costs around over 20 billion.
^
Tornadoes fatalities statistics - states compared - Geography data on StateMaster
^Tornadoes kill 4,000+ Americans yearly extrapolating means tornados kill 16,000 people yearly, meaning that global warming’s increase in tornadoes kills 4,000 yearly.
^*****
Tornado Season Breaks National, Local Records - Louisville News Story - WLKY Louisville
^Using data from 2008-2011 shows that tornado frequency has increased by more than 30%, possibly as high as 70%. This would mean that tornado activity due to global warming would now cost the world 30 billion dollars a year and kill 6,000 lives each year.
^
Southern tornadoes hit an economy already hurting | OregonLive.com
^Unprecedented tornadoes occur throughout the southern United States in 2011 killing over 300 people and costing billions of dollars.
^
Joplin: Deadliest Single Twister In 58 Years - Kansas City News Story - KMBC Kansas City
^Tornadoes hit Joplin damaging 30% of the city, killing almost 100 people.
^
‘Major Tornado Outbreak’ in Nine Central States Adding to Insurance Losses - Bloomberg
^Major tornado outbreaks occur in the Midwest.
^
Daily Kos: Tornado Outbreak Déjà Vu -- PDS Tornado Watch For STL East To KY -- Updated x17
^More tornadoes go through the south including through KY
^
BBC News - Massachusetts emergency after tornadoes kill four
^Unprecedented tornadoes sweep through New England.

8)
THE GROWING COST OF WILDFIRES
^Global warming’s increase in wildfires costs 1.2 billion yearly.
^
Where Wildfire Fatalities Occur | Who Dies in a Wildfire
^Global warming’s increase in wild fires causes tens of people to die.
^
Increasing number of wildfires is caused by global warming, study finds - The Boston Globe
^Since 1986 wildfires have increased by 400%, and acres burned has increased by 650%.
^
Large Trees Declining In Yosemite National Park, U.S.
^Global warming responsible for decline in size of trees, because it decreases snowpack which provides most of the water for growth.
^Smaller trees are less fire-resistance. The results are more and worse wildfires.
^
Bill McKibben: Wildfires And Spills In The Canadian Tar Sands | ThinkProgress
^Wildfires in Alberta cause the evacuation of several towns
9)
/4) Health care.
Study: zero emission vehicles could save $142 billion in health care costs
About Transportation & Climate Change: Transportation’s Role in Climate Change: Overview - DOT Transportation and Climate Change Clearinghouse
CO2 Emissions statistics - Countries compared - NationMaster
^Greenhouse gas emissions cause damage to lungs costing billions in health care costs.
Total greenhouse gas emissions cost America 150 billion dollars each year, and kill 2,400 Americans a year.
Total greenhouse gas emissions cost the world 600 billion each year, and kill around 10,000 people each year. (This only include lung disease)

10)
Global Warming Likely Causing More Heat Waves, Scientists Say
^Global Warming has increased the odds of heat waves by 6 times.
^
The Watchers - Deadly heatwaves will be more frequent in coming decades
^Europe’s 2003/2010 heat wave destroyed crops and killed tens of thousands of people.
^Russia’s heat wave in 2009 killed 50,000 people, and cost the nation 15billion dollars.
^Global warming increase in heat waves likely costs 60,000 people every year and likely costs the global economy over 15 billion dollars a year.

Blah, blah, blah...

I said centuries, not years.

You're grasping at strawmen.

Code, we are dealing in years concerning the consequences of AGW. You know that full well. But your masters pay you well to deny it.

Stern report: the key points | Politics | guardian.co.uk

 

[Old Rocks]

Blah, blah, blah...

I said centuries, not years.

You're grasping at strawmen.

How is proving that you are a clueless idiot a strawman?

Still having a problem with that whole proofy thingy, aren't we.

First prove your assertion that CO2 increasing from current levels will cause catastrophic warming.

A good place to start is how the increase from the levels of 280 has already caused catastrophic warming.

Go ahead and present the proof that has never been produced up until now by any person in any sector at any time.
I'll wait...

And you know for a fact that is a bullshit statement, Code. For those that do not know, here is a statement from the people who know the most about the impact of weather disasters that are driven by the presently rapidly changing climate.

Of course, the denial will come immediatly. But these are the people that measure the costs worldwide. And Munich Re states exactly the same thing. The insurers of the insurance companies understand full well what is happening as the costs of disasters increase every decade as the temperatures do the same.

Climate Change Adaptation: A Case for Preventative Action and Risk Transfer | World Resources Report

Global efforts to address climate change have been in disarray following the failed talks in Copenhagen. But even if all carbon emissions were stopped at once, climate trends would continue to expose local populations to the mounting challenges - and costs - of protecting greater asset values against weather-related risks. These range from more frequent and severe storms, floods, droughts and other natural disasters to sea level rise, crop failures, and water shortages. Innovative insurance solutions involving partners from the public and private sectors offer local decision-makers cost-effective ways to secure funding before a disaster strikes and make their communities more resourceful when it does.

Adapting to the unavoidable impacts of climate change

Economic losses from climate change are already substantial and on the rise. Over half of the world’s population is presently threatened by natural hazards, and insured losses from weather-related disasters have jumped from USD 5.1 billion (GBP 3.4 billion) per year in the period between 1970 and 1989 to USD 27 billion (GBP 17.7 billion) annually over the last two decades[1]. In Europe alone, losses from surge events along the North Sea coast are expected to more than quadruple from an annual average of EUR 600 million (GBP 530 billion) to EUR 2.6 billion (GBP 2.3 billion) towards the end of this century[2]. But the most vulnerable and least prepared regions are in the developing world. Climate risks could cost emerging economies up to 19 percent of their total gross domestic product by 2030, predicts the Economics of Climate Adaptation (ECA) working group in its 2009 study “Shaping Climate-Resilient Development.”[3]

 

[Old Rocks]

Note that the deniers here seldom link to real science in support of their denial. All they have is yap-yap. Because real science states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

By the way, Walleyes, I know full well who Dr. Tanya Atwater is, and of her work exemplery work in tectonics and concerning subduction zones. I found referance to her papers concerning the black smokers in the rift zones, but not a single referance to any claim that they were in any way linked to the increase in acidity in the oceans. Another red herring on your part. How about links to specific papers rather than vague yap-yap to change the subject.

 

[saveliberty]

Note that the deniers here seldom link to real science in support of their denial. All they have is yap-yap. Because real science states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

By the way, Walleyes, I know full well who Dr. Tanya Atwater is, and of her work exemplery work in tectonics and concerning subduction zones. I found referance to her papers concerning the black smokers in the rift zones, but not a single referance to any claim that they were in any way linked to the increase in acidity in the oceans. Another red herring on your part. How about links to specific papers rather than vague yap-yap to change the subject.

We question your false reports and debunk them with commonly known and accepted science.

 

[daveman]

In the article where he says Deniers is an attempt to evoke a parallel with holocaust deniers... is an absolute retardation on the contributor's part. It's not at all meant to draw a parallel with the holocaust. Denialism is prevalent in many areas of life... not just the fucking holocaust.

Denialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While that may be true the AGW supporters use it to attempt to smear the sceptics through simple propaganda, just like the prosecutors of the holocaust of old. they are no different. Especially when their major supporters in media start calling sceptics "insane" or call for the mass incarceration or murder of those sceptics.

I give you the new NAZI's. Nice side to be on, just remember they lost.

No they don't... you're dishonest and a liar. Also good job with the Nazi comparison, jackass. Sorry... but neonazi's already exist... and they are certainly not on this playground.

'Execute' Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: 'At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers' -- 'Shouldn't we start punishing them now?' | Climate Depot

 

[daveman]

While that may be true the AGW supporters use it to attempt to smear the sceptics through simple propaganda, just like the prosecutors of the holocaust of old. they are no different. Especially when their major supporters in media start calling sceptics "insane" or call for the mass incarceration or murder of those sceptics.

I give you the new NAZI's. Nice side to be on, just remember they lost.

No they don't... you're dishonest and a liar. Also good job with the Nazi comparison, jackass. Sorry... but neonazi's already exist... and they are certainly not on this playground.

I have many friends in Germany and their saying is the Greens are the new Reds. Neonazis are incompetant morons who live in a little dream world. Your cohorts are trying to institute a global government and they are using environmental laws to do it. You're an admitted socialist so for you it's OK.

I, on the other hand, actually read history books and socialist countries ALLWAYS fail, but usually not before they kill mass quantities of their citizens in the name of collectivisation.

 

[daveman]

Code, we are dealing in years concerning the consequences of AGW. You know that full well. But your masters pay you well to deny it.

If the science supported what you claim, you wouldn't need to resort to emotionalism and fear-mongering.

 

[Cowman]

While that may be true the AGW supporters use it to attempt to smear the sceptics through simple propaganda, just like the prosecutors of the holocaust of old. they are no different. Especially when their major supporters in media start calling sceptics "insane" or call for the mass incarceration or murder of those sceptics.

I give you the new NAZI's. Nice side to be on, just remember they lost.

No they don't... you're dishonest and a liar. Also good job with the Nazi comparison, jackass. Sorry... but neonazi's already exist... and they are certainly not on this playground.

I have many friends in Germany and their saying is the Greens are the new Reds. Neonazis are incompetant morons who live in a little dream world. Your cohorts are trying to institute a global government and they are using environmental laws to do it. You're an admitted socialist so for you it's OK.

I, on the other hand, actually read history books and socialist countries ALLWAYS fail, but usually not before they kill mass quantities of their citizens in the name of collectivisation.

Yes... I am a socialist in my views. What does that have to do with a global government, of which I believe is not feasible and shouldn't happen? Jesus dude... are you really that dumb?

 

[Cowman]

Fail. We have sea life that has survived several CO2 cycles.

Most sea life can't even adapt to a sudden(in terms of evolutionary scale) change of even one degree in ocean temperature without dying off. They have to migrate to fit in their comfort range, which is drastically impeded or even impossible if the ocean currents are altered, which is particularly possible not simply due to increasing temperatures on earth, but by the thermohaline circulation problems it creates.

Demonstrably and provable untrue. The main stress on sea life is overfishing. Do you know anything, or are you just capable of parroting the party line?

I guess you've never studied biology... jackass. What does biology have to do with "the party line", whatever the fuck that is? Most aquatic species have a threshold of temperature variances that they are able to tolerate and still survive... whether it means by being able to breed, or simply just being able to still live. Temperature isn't the only variable either.

Go back to school, idiot.

 

[Cowman]

Note that the deniers here seldom link to real science in support of their denial. All they have is yap-yap. Because real science states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

By the way, Walleyes, I know full well who Dr. Tanya Atwater is, and of her work exemplery work in tectonics and concerning subduction zones. I found referance to her papers concerning the black smokers in the rift zones, but not a single referance to any claim that they were in any way linked to the increase in acidity in the oceans. Another red herring on your part. How about links to specific papers rather than vague yap-yap to change the subject.

We question your false reports and debunk them with commonly known and accepted science.

What science... the science of the way a man's knee feels when he's rocking in his chair on a porch? Gonna rain today!

Sorry, but the commonly known and accepted science, and the science which has advanced us as a species is that of science which follows the processes of the scientific method and has undergone peer review. It's an adapting and ever changing field of work, because science is not a bible, it's not written in stone. That's the kind of science you don't believe in. You believe in shoddy blogger science.

 

[daveman]

Note that the deniers here seldom link to real science in support of their denial. All they have is yap-yap. Because real science states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

By the way, Walleyes, I know full well who Dr. Tanya Atwater is, and of her work exemplery work in tectonics and concerning subduction zones. I found referance to her papers concerning the black smokers in the rift zones, but not a single referance to any claim that they were in any way linked to the increase in acidity in the oceans. Another red herring on your part. How about links to specific papers rather than vague yap-yap to change the subject.

We question your false reports and debunk them with commonly known and accepted science.

What science... the science of the way a man's knee feels when he's rocking in his chair on a porch? Gonna rain today!

Sorry, but the commonly known and accepted science, and the science which has advanced us as a species is that of science which follows the processes of the scientific method and has undergone peer review. It's an adapting and ever changing field of work, because science is not a bible, it's not written in stone. That's the kind of science you don't believe in. You believe in shoddy blogger science.

This isn't science:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/199915-so-why-all-of-the-temp-adjustments.html

"The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-year-mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009)."​

They changed the data to fit the model. Real scientists would have changed the model to fit the data.

 

[saveliberty]

A workable model should be able to render some type of predictions as well. No can do with the Faithers' cooked data.

 

[code1211]

Forbes is hardly a science journal, and any article that starts out with a quote from Ayn Rand is obviously bullshit.

Here is a real science article from the Geological Society of America.

GSA Today - Groundwork - An Astrophysicist Looks at Global Warming

What is the physical theory behind the greenhouse gas effect, and can it be computed from the laws of physics? The answer is a resounding yes! The effects of heat trapping by greenhouse gases was first noted over a century ago and understood from the viewpoint of classical physics involving the absorption and emission of electromagnetic radiation by matter and the thermodynamics of gas. The mathematical and physical laws of the interaction of electromagnetic radiation and matter underlie our understanding of greenhouse gas warming.

This understanding gained a firm basis with the development of quantum mechanics in the 1920s. This development enabled detailed calculations of the physics of absorption, scattering, and emission of electromagnetic radiation by atoms and molecules that make up Earth’s atmosphere. Highly sophisticated radiation transfer codes have been perfected to calculate the energy balance in an atmosphere as energy is transferred through atmospheric layers. Trace polyatomic molecules such as water vapor, CO2, and methane have rotation, bending, and vibration degrees of freedom, and are quite effective at intercepting infrared radiation radiated by Earth’s surface and the atmosphere.

When a greenhouse molecule absorbs an infrared photon, the molecule rotates or vibrates faster and is said to be in an “excited” state. At low gas densities, an excited greenhouse gas molecule will spontaneously (by the rules of quantum mechanics) reradiate an infrared photon, which may escape the atmosphere into space and produce no net warming.

At the higher densities of Earth’s atmosphere, the excited molecule will bump into (collide with) another molecule (any molecule in the atmosphere). In the collision, the energized greenhouse gas molecule loses its rotational energy, which is transferred to the kinetic energy of the molecule it collides with (this is called collisional de-excitation). The increased kinetic energies of the colliding molecules means that the molecules are moving faster than they were prior to the collision, and the increased velocities of such molecules represents a direct measure of increased atmospheric temperature.

“Greenhouse gas” warming occurs because the collisional de-excitation time for greenhouse molecules in Earth’s lower atmosphere is much shorter than the radiation lifetime of excited molecular states. This is the basic science of greenhouse gas warming, and can be computed from the laws of physics and demonstrated and measured in laboratory experiments. There is no doubt about the efficacy of the science behind greenhouse gas warming (see YouTube video). CO2 experiment - YouTube

It was actually a very fair and easily understood presentation of both sides of the debate relying heavily on the data presented by the IPCC.

What's it like having a mind that is permanently closed to ideas the cause you discomfort? Must provide a feeling a safety for you.

 

[code1211]

GSA Today - Groundwork - An Astrophysicist Looks at Global Warming

In summary, many criticisms of global warming models are specious and fail to reflect an understanding of the basic science behind the models and the extensive history of the development of radiation transfer codes in modeling planetary and stellar atmospheres. Some contrarians engage in arguments that the warming observed is due to “natural” mechanisms that have been in play for millions of years. Such proposals should be required not only to identify the specific natural mechanisms in question, but quantify them and present observational or experimental evidence that the mechanisms play a role on a time scale of the past 150 years. Such proposals also ignore the fact that proxy geochemical data show strong support for the conclusion that CO2 increases have played the largest role in explaining these past intervals of global warmth!

Most important, contrarians must show why the scientific basis of greenhouse gas warming is incorrect. It remains unfortunate that the opinions of a handful of contrarians should be given the same weight in the press and the popular media as the studied conclusions of thousands of scientists. This reinforces the general perception that the “science” of global warming is uncertain, and provides fodder for some (but by no means all) business and political factions to question the reality of anthropogenic global warming.

Your proponent scientists are all very certain of their theories and all very dismissive of any disagreement.

If only they could produce a prediction that actually works in nature...

 

[daveman]

GSA Today - Groundwork - An Astrophysicist Looks at Global Warming

In summary, many criticisms of global warming models are specious and fail to reflect an understanding of the basic science behind the models and the extensive history of the development of radiation transfer codes in modeling planetary and stellar atmospheres. Some contrarians engage in arguments that the warming observed is due to “natural” mechanisms that have been in play for millions of years. Such proposals should be required not only to identify the specific natural mechanisms in question, but quantify them and present observational or experimental evidence that the mechanisms play a role on a time scale of the past 150 years. Such proposals also ignore the fact that proxy geochemical data show strong support for the conclusion that CO2 increases have played the largest role in explaining these past intervals of global warmth!

Most important, contrarians must show why the scientific basis of greenhouse gas warming is incorrect. It remains unfortunate that the opinions of a handful of contrarians should be given the same weight in the press and the popular media as the studied conclusions of thousands of scientists. This reinforces the general perception that the “science” of global warming is uncertain, and provides fodder for some (but by no means all) business and political factions to question the reality of anthropogenic global warming.

Your proponent scientists are all very certain of their theories and all very dismissive of any disagreement.

If only they could produce a prediction that actually works in nature...

In case of a discrepancy between reality and an AGW proponent, reality is wrong.

That's why they change the data instead of the model.