Global Warming?

[toppop52]

Answer the simple questions of;
1. There were events over the last 10,000 years of warming much greater than today that could not have possibly been caused by fossil fuels, so how can you be so sure today's event and only today's, is caused by man?
2. What caused these previous events that doesn't exist today?
3. Almost without fail, each of these previous events was followed by a dramatic cooling event, many scientists today see hints that is about to happen again, why would this not be the case this time vs continued warming until the polar bears wear bikinis?

 

[Loren49]

The 7 billion people are eating and much of the food has a link to fossil fuels. Shelter and clothing needs in most cases be traced to burning of fossil fuels. The consensus of the vast majority of climate scientists is that man's activities is accelerating the warming cycle.

Sorry to have to repost this but incase you didn't read it:
""Okay, I'll admit we need more efficiency and sustainability, desperately, in order to regain energy independence, improve productivity, erase the huge leverage of hostile foreign petro-powers, reduce pollution, secure our defense, prevent ocean acidification, and ease a vampiric drain on our economy. If I don't like one proposed way to achieve this, then I will negotiate in good faith other methods that can help us to achieve all these things, decisively, without further delay and with urgent speed.

"Further, I accept that 'waste-not, want not' and 'a-penny-saved, a-penny-earned' and 'cleanliness-is-next-to-godliness' and 'genuine market competition' used to be good conservative attitudes. But the "side" that has been pushing the Denial Movement — propelled by petro-princes, Russsian oligarchs and Exxon — hasn't any credibility on the issue of weaning America off wasteful habits. In fact, it's not conservatism at all!"
Distinguishing Climate "Deniers" From "Skeptics"

---------
And the down side of maximizing effeciency and minmizing waste is????

Loren

 

[Loren49]

Crash325- On your termite example - they eat wood, trees consume CO2 and give off O2, termites consume O2 and give off CO2. At this moment likely part of a balanced cycle. Fossil fuels release CO2 that has not been in our atmosphere for a few hundred million years.
The Energy Story - Chapter 8: Fossil Fuels - Coal, Oil and Natural Gas
The Carboniferous Period occurred from about 360 to 286 million years ago.

Looks like there is a difference.

 

[Loren49]

Answer the simple questions of;
1. There were events over the last 10,000 years of warming much greater than today that could not have possibly been caused by fossil fuels, so how can you be so sure today's event and only today's, is caused by man?
2. What caused these previous events that doesn't exist today?
3. Almost without fail, each of these previous events was followed by a dramatic cooling event, many scientists today see hints that is about to happen again, why would this not be the case this time vs continued warming until the polar bears wear bikinis?

Distinguishing Climate "Deniers" From "Skeptics"

A LITTLE HUMILITY

Skeptics go on to admit that it is both rare and significant when nearly 100% of the scientists in any field share a consensus-model, before splitting up to fight over sub-models. Hence, if an outsider perceives "something wrong" with a core scientific model, the humble and justified response of that curious outsider is to ask "what mistake am I making?" — before assuming 100% of the experts are wrong.

In contrast, Deniers glom onto an anecdotal "gotcha!" from a dogma-driven radio show or politically biased blog site. Whereupon they conclude that ALL of the atmospheric scientists must be in on some wretched conspiracy. Uniformly. At the same time.
---------

Now for my hypothetical; Suppose man over the next 50 years either bulldozed or burned every plant and tree possible along with all possible efforts to expose and burn every bit of coal, oil and gas we could find. On top of that detonate every nuclear bomb on earth along with all other explosives. Could that possibly accelerate a problem that could jeapordize man's existence? And more to the point, could the climate and atmospheric conditions be changed or is it true that there is nothing man can possible do to change our climate.

Even if your answer to that is no way man has any responsibility then how about decreasing our dependency on a relatively scarce energy source that countries have been known to go to war over.

Loren

 

[toppop52]

Deny, deny,deny...reaccuse

I read a few weeks ago that the recent edict sent down from Uncle George Soros listed that as the buzz phrase of the week for liberal talking points. You follow your instructions from the dear leader admirably, congratulations!:thumbsup:

 

[toppop52]

Distinguishing Climate "Deniers" From "Skeptics"

A LITTLE HUMILITY

Skeptics go on to admit that it is both rare and significant when nearly 100% of the scientists in any field share a consensus-model, before splitting up to fight over sub-models. Hence, if an outsider perceives "something wrong" with a core scientific model, the humble and justified response of that curious outsider is to ask "what mistake am I making?" before assuming 100% of the experts are wrong.

In contrast, Deniers glom onto an anecdotal "gotcha!" from a dogma-driven radio show or politically biased blog site. Whereupon they conclude that ALL of the atmospheric scientists must be in on some wretched conspiracy. Uniformly. At the same time.
---------

Now for my hypothetical; Suppose man over the next 50 years either bulldozed or burned every plant and tree possible along with all possible efforts to expose and burn every bit of coal, oil and gas we could find. On top of that detonate every nuclear bomb on earth along with all other explosives. Could that possibly accelerate a problem that could jeapordize man's existence? And more to the point, could the climate and atmospheric conditions be changed or is it true that there is nothing man can possible do to change our climate.

Even if your answer to that is no way man has any responsibility then how about decreasing our dependency on a relatively scarce energy source that countries have been known to go to war over.

Loren

No dogma or hyperbole, simple truths, answer the questions with accurate data and I'll be on your side. Of course you and all your liberal elitists together can't explain it so you throw out the buzz phrase dictated to you all from the top of your liberal hierarchy, mainly because liberals are dissuaded from actually thinking for themselves, that would be bad for the comrades and communal thought process.

 

[toppop52]

Oh by the way, yes, if all the plants on earth were destroyed and all nuclear weapons detonated it would effect our morning commute. That's about as likely as AGW, so I wouldn't worry too much. Now talk about far fetched notions....:laughing:

 

[Dustier]

If the pictures of those towering wildfires in Colorado haven't convinced you, or the size of your AC bill this summer, here are some hard numbers about climate change: June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere – the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe.

Don't worry - be happy!

 

[Tollster]

If the pictures of those towering wildfires in Colorado haven't convinced you, or the size of your AC bill this summer, here are some hard numbers about climate change: June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere – the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe.

I am sure the deniers play the lottery, so with those odds, you'll have to do much better at proving your case Dusty.
"Never argue with an idiot. Bystanders won't be able to tell the difference"

 

[toppop52]

Richard Muller, a known skeptic has changed his mind, say the headlines, and in truth he sort of did but here is overall statement and here is the overblown headline and article.

About-face: Former climate change skeptic now says global warming is man-made

About-face: Former climate change skeptic now says global warming is man-made | The Lookout - Yahoo! News

Here is his actual synopsis:

"I'm personally very worried," he says of global warming. Muller says that so far the warming has been "tiny," but that everything points to the process speeding up. "I personally suspect that it will be bad."

Now that shows a man firm in his convictions! :laughing:

 

[toppop52]

Richard Muller, a known skeptic has changed his mind, say the headlines, and in truth he sort of did but here is overall statement and here is the overblown headline and article.

About-face: Former climate change skeptic now says global warming is man-made

About-face: Former climate change skeptic now says global warming is man-made | The Lookout - Yahoo! News

Here is his actual synopsis:

"I'm personally very worried," he says of global warming. Muller says that so far the warming has been "tiny," but that everything points to the process speeding up. "I personally suspect that it will be bad."

Now that shows a man firm in his convictions! :laughing:

But even for those liberal greenies that will glom onto this report take note, he says that local events such as the drought and heat wave have nothing, repeat nothing to do with the "tiny" global warming.

 

[Tollster]

What I can't hear ya?

Ignore is a great fuction as all your replies are simply stated as:
"This message is hidden because toppop52 is on your ignore list"

Pretty cool for a liberal lefty..heh!

 

[tallyho8]

June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States.

3000 low temperature records set in July. Every month, every year, many high and low records are set. Picking out one special month means nothing. AccuWeather.com - WeatherMatrix | 3,000 Low Temp Records Set This July!

 

[emcvay]

What I find amazing is that the AGW crowd is quick to tell you "anecdotal evidence" is unusable when arguing against AGW but as soon as the temperature rises (like, when summer hits) they immediately use anecdotal evidence as if it's proof of something.

Take the latest drought -- not as bad as 24 years ago, or 50 or 80 but they'll use it as if it were. Meanwhile, the Northwest has been very cool, unseasonably so for a few years now and this spring has been long and cold (still quite cool actually) but that doesn't count or is somehow caused by warming.

Frankly, to me, the AGW folks are nothing more then "useful idiots" to quote Lenin.

 

[tcreeley]

I posted this in another thread.
So much for the "cool" spots around the earth and new cool records set- they are not enough to offset the heating of global warming.

The combined land and ocean average temperature was 1.53ｰF above average.
"What makes this impressive is that it is not following an El Nino year. We're coming off of La Nina, which typically has a cooling effect," said AccuWeather Expert Senior Meteorologist Brett Anderson.

This May was also the second warmest May globally since 1880, surpassed only by May 2010.
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature was 1.19ｰF above the 20th century average of 58.6ｰF.

Patterns currently suggest that an El Nino year could be approaching, which typically has a warming effect.
"As we progress into El Nino, I would expect the temperature anomalies to generally increase," Anderson said. "I would not be surprised at all if 2013 ends up being the warmest year on record globally."


AccuWeather.com has some good info re global warming in their meterologist blogs.

 

[tcreeley]

Ex-sceptic says humans to blame for global warming - environment - 31 July 2012 - New Scientist
Ex-sceptic says humans to blame for global warming

It's a road-to-Damascus moment. Long-standing climate sceptic Richard Muller, a physicist at the University of California at Berkeley, now says there is strong evidence that humans are indeed warming the planet.

His results are under attack from all sides. Climate sceptics slate him for his apparent betrayal, while mainstream climate scientists say his results are based on outdated methods.

Muller is a director of Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST). Made up of avowed climate sceptics, BEST aims to determine whether the many criticisms of temperature records are valid. (recrited by Koch brothers to refute global warming)

Last year, BEST released a vast database of temperature readings going back to 1800, which confirmed that Earth has indeed warmedMovie Camera. In a new paper posted online, Muller says the warming is best explained by humanity's release of greenhouse gases.

Muller's team found they could account for the temperature changes with just two factors: the cooling effects of large volcanic eruptions, and changes in levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Climate sceptic bloggers have attacked the analysis, complaining that the correlation between CO2 and temperature doesn't prove a causal relationship.

Climate scientists are equally unimpressed, and for the same reason. "It's not attribution," says Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK. Since the 1990s, climate researchers have been running climate models with and without rising levels of CO2 and have found that the observed warming can only be replicated if the human influence is included.

However, Michael Mann of Penn State University says it at least demonstrates intellectual honesty. Writing on his Facebook page, Mann says: "I applaud Muller and his colleagues for acting as any good scientists would, following where their analyses led them."

 

[toppop52]

Ex-sceptic says humans to blame for global warming - environment - 31 July 2012 - New Scientist
Ex-sceptic says humans to blame for global warming

It's a road-to-Damascus moment. Long-standing climate sceptic Richard Muller, a physicist at the University of California at Berkeley, now says there is strong evidence that humans are indeed warming the planet.

His results are under attack from all sides. Climate sceptics slate him for his apparent betrayal, while mainstream climate scientists say his results are based on outdated methods.

Muller is a director of Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST). Made up of avowed climate sceptics, BEST aims to determine whether the many criticisms of temperature records are valid. (recrited by Koch brothers to refute global warming)

Last year, BEST released a vast database of temperature readings going back to 1800, which confirmed that Earth has indeed warmedMovie Camera. In a new paper posted online, Muller says the warming is best explained by humanity's release of greenhouse gases.

Muller's team found they could account for the temperature changes with just two factors: the cooling effects of large volcanic eruptions, and changes in levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Climate sceptic bloggers have attacked the analysis, complaining that the correlation between CO2 and temperature doesn't prove a causal relationship.

Climate scientists are equally unimpressed, and for the same reason. "It's not attribution," says Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK. Since the 1990s, climate researchers have been running climate models with and without rising levels of CO2 and have found that the observed warming can only be replicated if the human influence is included.

However, Michael Mann of Penn State University says it at least demonstrates intellectual honesty. Writing on his Facebook page, Mann says: "I applaud Muller and his colleagues for acting as any good scientists would, following where their analyses led them."

You're late to the party, posted that earlier, along with the fact that he says the effects of warming so far are quote "tiny", end quote.

 

[chkntrktr]

What I find amazing is that the AGW crowd is quick to tell you "anecdotal evidence" is unusable when arguing against AGW but as soon as the temperature rises (like, when summer hits) they immediately use anecdotal evidence as if it's proof of something.

Take the latest drought -- not as bad as 24 years ago, or 50 or 80 but they'll use it as if it were. Meanwhile, the Northwest has been very cool, unseasonably so for a few years now and this spring has been long and cold (still quite cool actually) but that doesn't count or is somehow caused by warming.

Frankly, to me, the AGW folks are nothing more then "useful idiots" to quote Lenin.

Something that caught my attention about the present drought and what is happening to the corn crop is the reporting about it. Most of the stories play up the record heat but don't say as much about the lack of rainfall as if the heat is doing most of the damage. I know lack of rainfall can kill corn, but if it was raining enough (say evening thunderstorms and showers) just how high temps could the corn stand before it started to fail? Any corn growers out there that could answer this?

BTW, I said most of the stories play up the heat, but in all fairness that's only the ones I have seen or read, and I did say "most" of them not all of them. The reports on RFD-TV seem pretty straight forward to me.

 

[/pine]

What I can't hear ya?

Ignore is a great fuction as all your replies are simply stated as:
"This message is hidden because toppop52 is on your ignore list"

Pretty cool for a liberal lefty..heh!

IMO..."liberal lefty" is an oxymoron...

personally, I think "ignoring" anyone's opinion is like sticking your head in the sand...regardless of how much you don't care for the content...nothing like a closed mind...

As for the topic..do most of the believers that think the current climate change is caused by human activity also believe that all the past climate changes were also caused by human activity?

There are many more fields of science (including medicine) that completely reverse previous conclusions based on the most current available data...

When it comes to the populous of the planet...just what do the man made "global warming advocates" (wingnuts) think anyone here in America can do about it...regardless...do they really think they can change things in India or China ?

 

[Cat_Driver]

OH MY.......ONE MAN comes out of the closet and claims he changed his mind, and MILLION of sheeple pile on the 'SEE I TOLD YOU SO TRAIN".

Ya lest forget just as many real scientists deny GULLIBLE WARMING. Nah we don't believe them, we only believe who we want to believe.
Listen if all you greenies want to give free money to the government to buy Co2 credits - GO AHEAD, no one stopping you.

When will you people wake up and realize NO MATTER what the USA does no other Country will do the same. Just like we have the most restrictive pollution laws on the books, we currently are getting EXTREMELY TOXIC water from Mexico every single day and nothing we do will ever stop it.

Heck we are getting Radioactive garbage hitting out shores from Japan and there is no law that can prevent it.

So there is no way any government will get a dime out of my pocket while the entire world does as they wish as it related to carbon.


We currently pay for the highest pollution taxes and the rest of the world dumps toxins in the air as they wish 24/7