Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter NCCommish
- Start date
timschochet
Footballguy
Steven Goddard is funded by Exxon.
But even if one didn't know that, even if we accepted his information at face value, does it make any difference at all what the temperature of the United States is? GLOBAL warming concerns GLOBAL temperatures.
Someone else's post in another thread about the Maunder Minimum (http://phys.org/news/2013-11-calm-solar-prompts-impact-earth.html) got me wondering...
Could the unusually low number of sun spots observed since ~2008 be having a cooling effect on Earth? And if it's having a cooling effect, might that be the "missing link" related to why climatologists who predicted higher average temperatures (and sea levels) haven't witnessed the types of increases they expected? Even though they have observed increases.
Seems almost too easy...something people would already be discussing. But that's an angle I hadn't yet seen/heard discussed out there.
Could the unusually low number of sun spots observed since ~2008 be having a cooling effect on Earth? And if it's having a cooling effect, might that be the "missing link" related to why climatologists who predicted higher average temperatures (and sea levels) haven't witnessed the types of increases they expected? Even though they have observed increases.
Seems almost too easy...something people would already be discussing. But that's an angle I hadn't yet seen/heard discussed out there.
timschochet
Footballguy
It's an interesting possibility, at least to this layman.
The one aspect that most scientists are sure of is that global warming continues to build up. Eventually the temperatures WILL reflect this. It's not even a question.
Global temperatures have been stagnant for 17 years, so I have no idea what you mean scientist are sure of.
The_Man
Footballguy
This is untrue.1998 was an anomaly, an unusually hot year, that the global average temperature has now climbed to reach on a consistent basis in the years since. In fact 2005 and 2010 have now surpassed 1998 - and here's the bad part about that. 1998 featured the strongest El Nino ever, helping produce a temporary increase in Pacific water temps that boosted the worldwide numbers.
From 2005-13, there's been a La Nina every year, helping keep the worldwide temp number cool. So think about that - years that have been cooled by La Ninas for most of the last decade are now as hot as a year that had its temps boosted by a historic El Nino.
Guess what? The expectation is for an El Nino in the second half of 2014.
"While there is year to year variability and season to season variability, the long term trends are very clear," said Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "And it isn't an error in our calculation about what is happening."
Jim11
Footballguy
A voice of reason.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/22/let-chill-out-about-global-warming/?intcmp=latestnews
3. But is global warming a crisis? Far from it. It's possible that it will become a crisis. Some computer models suggest big problems, but the models aren't very accurate. Some turned out to be utterly wrong. Clueless scaremongers like Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Cal., seize on weather disasters to blame man's carbon output. After Oklahoma's tragic tornadoes last year, Boxer stood on the floor of the Senate and shrieked, "Carbon could cost us the planet!" But there were actually fewer tornadoes last summer.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/22/let-chill-out-about-global-warming/?intcmp=latestnews
3. But is global warming a crisis? Far from it. It's possible that it will become a crisis. Some computer models suggest big problems, but the models aren't very accurate. Some turned out to be utterly wrong. Clueless scaremongers like Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Cal., seize on weather disasters to blame man's carbon output. After Oklahoma's tragic tornadoes last year, Boxer stood on the floor of the Senate and shrieked, "Carbon could cost us the planet!" But there were actually fewer tornadoes last summer.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
So maybe we should be asking, if there's stuff we're dumping into Earth's atmosphere to warm it, what could we dump into it to cool it?
Why don't we start triggering volcanoes until we get the temperature juuuusst right?
Why don't we start triggering volcanoes until we get the temperature juuuusst right?
Strange that they actually reduce the temperatures from previous years. What's the reason for that? You'd think they'd go the other direction since we have so much more stuff generating heat today. A thermometer in some metropolitan area probably gets way more "2nd hand heat" than it did in 1900.
Sand
Footballguy
Lutherman2112
Footballguy
The_Man
Footballguy
If you really care to see why the idea that global warming has flat lined is completely untrue, this is a good place to read more.
If you don’t want to look, I’ll summarize one key point:
The ten years from 2002 to 2012 were warmer than the years1992 to 2002 by 0.15 degrees C.
The ten years from 1992 to 2002 were warmer than the years 1982 to 1992 by 0.17 degrees C.
The ten years from 1982 to 1992 were warmer than the years 1972 to 1982 by 0.17 degrees C.
The ten years from 1972 to 1982 were warmer than the years 1962 to 1972 by 0.17 degrees C.
August of 97 was the hottest month of the hottest year on record - it's the pinnacle of heat that deniers point at to claim that marked the end of global warming. In fact it was an unusual spike, but one whose existence in no way changes the inexorable climb of global temps.
If you continued the linear trend of global temps from August 1975 to July 1997, it would have predicted a temperature anomaly in August 2012 of 0.524 degrees C. The actual temperature anomaly in August 2012 was 0.525 degrees.
- The ten years to August 2012 were warmer than the previous 10 years by 0.15ºC, which were warmer than the 10 years before that by 0.17ºC, which were warmer than the 10 years before that by 0.17ºC, and which were warmer than the 10 years before that by 0.17ºC (purple).
- The continuation of the linear trend from August 1975 to July 1997 (green dashed), would have predicted a temperature anomaly in August 2012 of 0.524ºC. The actual temperature anomaly in August 2012 was 0.525ºC.
- - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/11/short-term-trends-another-proxy-fight/#sthash.pDiVjTfX.dpuf
- The ten years to August 2012 were warmer than the previous 10 years by 0.15ºC, which were warmer than the 10 years before that by 0.17ºC, which were warmer than the 10 years before that by 0.17ºC, and which were warmer than the 10 years before that by 0.17ºC (purple).
- The continuation of the linear trend from August 1975 to July 1997 (green dashed), would have predicted a temperature anomaly in August 2012 of 0.524ºC. The actual temperature anomaly in August 2012 was 0.525ºC.
- - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/11/short-term-trends-another-proxy-fight/#sthash.pDiVjTfX.dpuf
SacramentoBob
Footballguy
Still cold as #### down here.
Rove!
Footballguy
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.htmlMaybe he should ask Tim, or read this thread
Because "the sky is falling" trope lends itself to: vast new government legislation, higher taxes, restrictions on carbon emissions, and the creation of a new government bureaucracy.
Now, which political persuasion is likely to support the above, and which to oppose it?
timschochet
Footballguy
There are good reasons to be opposed to vast new government legislation, higher taxes, restrictions on carbon emissions, and the creation of a new government bureaucracy. But to deny scientific fact because you don't want those things? That's just wrong. The division among political alignment only seems to occur in this country. Most conservatives in other countries around the globe, despite their dislike of all the items you mentioned, are willing at least to acknowledge the science.
I don't deny the science. I do deny "the sky is falling mentality", and have done so since this first became an issue. And so far, on the issue of "civilization is doomed and AGW will end life as we know it", conservatives have 15 years of the facts on their side.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
I'm glad you don't deny the science. Many conservatives around here do deny it. I actually agree with you about the sky is falling mentality. But again, that has nothing to do with the science.
Last edited by a moderator:
The_Man
Footballguy
Thank you for posting this interesting article. The scientist makes very interesting observations about the role that society/politics plays on the global warming debate. He also reinforces the idea that theories are sometimes wrong and that scientists need to continually evaluate the latest data. He also said these things in the article you linked:
Storch: Yes, we are certainly going to see an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or more -- and by the end of this century, mind you. ... Whether it ends up being one, two or three degrees, the exact figure is ultimately not the important thing. Quite apart from our climate simulations, there is a general societal consensus that we should be more conservative with fossil fuels. Also, the more serious effects of climate change won't affect us for at least 30 years. We have enough time to prepare ourselves. .... I was accused of believing it was unnecessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is not the case. I simply meant that it is no longer possible in any case to completely prevent further warming, and thus it would be wise of us to prepare for the inevitable, for example by building higher ocean dikes. And I have the impression that I'm no longer quite as alone in having this opinion as I was then.
If you'd read my previous posts, you would see times when I said that increasing CO2 levels would lead to more global warming; subject, however, that we don't quite understand what countervailing things might be occurring which mitigates that warming.
Now, apparently even Europe has decided that the sky isn't falling quite as fast. From today's NY Times:
"For years, Europe has tried to set the global standard for climate-change regulation, creating tough rules on emissions, mandating more use of renewable energy sources and arguably sacrificing some economic growth in the name of saving the planet. But now even Europe seems to be hitting its environmentalist limits.
High energy costs, declining industrial competitiveness and a recognition that the economy is unlikely to rebound strongly any time soon are leading policy makers to begin easing up in their drive for more aggressive climate regulation.
On Wednesday, the European Union proposed an end to binding national targets for renewable energy production after 2020. Instead, it substituted an overall European goal that is likely to be much harder to enforce.
It also decided against proposing laws on environmental damage and safety during the extraction of shale gas by a controversial drilling process known as fracking. It opted instead for a series of minimum principles it said it would monitor."
T Bell
Footballguy
This is pretty interesting:
Smell of forest pine can limit climate change - researchersBy Matt McGrath Environment correspondent, BBC News
New research suggests a strong link between the powerful smell of pine trees and climate change.
Scientists say they've found a mechanism by which these scented vapours turn into aerosols above boreal forests.
These particles promote cooling by reflecting sunlight back into space and helping clouds to form.
The research, published in the journal Nature, fills in a major gap in our understanding, researchers say.
One of the biggest holes in scientific knowledge about climate change relates to the scale of the impact of atmospheric aerosols on temperatures.
Perfumed air
These particles form clouds that block sunlight as well as reflecting rays back into space.
They can be formed in a number of ways, including volcanic activity and by humans, through the burning of coal and oil.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), they "continue to contribute the largest uncertainty to estimates and interpretations of the Earth's changing energy budget."
One of the most significant but least understood sources of aerosols are the sweet-smelling vapours found in pine forests in North America, northern Europe and Russia.
These aerosols have confounded climate models as scientists haven't been able to accurately predict how many of the particles form.
Now an international team of researchers say they have solved the chemical mystery by which the rich odours become reflective, cooling particles.
They've long understood that the smell of pine, made up of volatile organic compounds, reacts with oxygen in the forest canopy to form these aerosols.
The scientists now found that, in fact, there is an extra step in the process, what they term a "missing link".
They've discovered ultra-low volatility organic vapours in the air that irreversibly condense onto any surface or particle that they meet.
"These vapours are so crazy in structure from what we had known before," said one of the authors, Dr Joel Thornton, from the University of Washington
"It turns out that this level of craziness is what gives them the special properties to stick to those smallest particles and help grow them up in size to become aerosols."
The scientists say that having a clear understanding of the way in which forest smells become aerosols will improve the accuracy with which they can predict the ability of these particles to limit rising temperatures.
"It's certainly crucial for explaining the response of the boreal forest to a changing climate," said Dr Thornton.
"It's thought that the vapours being emitted from the vegetation in the pine forests are contributing roughly half of the aerosols over the forest," he said.
"We've found the reasons how the vapours get converted into particles, so we are basically explaining around 50% of the aerosol particles."
Cooling effect
The authors believe that this is playing a significant role in reducing the impact of rising temperatures. They argue that this effect is likely to strengthen in the future.
"In a warmer world, photosynthesis will become faster with rising CO2, which will lead to more vegetation and more emissions of these vapours," said lead author, Dr Mikael Ehn, now based at the University of Helsinki.
"This should produce more cloud droplets and this should then have a cooling impact, it should be a damping effect."
The researchers sampled the air in the forests of Finland and carried out experiments at an air chamber at the Julich Research Centre in Germany.
They believe that the discovery was down to a combination of technique and technology.
"One very important thing is that before now, people haven't had the instrumentation to detect these ultra-low volatile compounds," said Dr Ehn.
"When you pull them through a metal tube into your instrument they come into contact with the tube walls and they are lost, you won't detect them."
"We have an instrument that is as wall-less as can be, we have a very high flow of air and a very short inlet line so that it is almost sampled right from atmosphere."
The scientists stress that the new understanding is not a panacea for climate change as forests will stop emitting vapours if they become too stressed from heat or lack of water.
However, Dr Ehn believes the vapours could have a significant impact in the medium term.
"If you go into a pine forest and notice that pine forest smell, that could be the smell that actually limits climate change from reaching such levels that it could become really a problem in the world."
Rove!
Footballguy
Thoiught I'd pass this on
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/02/26/greenpeace-co-founder-no-scientific-proof-humans-are-dominant-cause-warming/
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/02/26/greenpeace-co-founder-no-scientific-proof-humans-are-dominant-cause-warming/
--- looks like Exxon bought him
Rove!
Footballguy
interesting that you mention Volcanoes
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-volcanoes-climate-20140224,0,877383.story#axzz2ucdaQInR
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr Oadi
Footballguy
The science is settled. Global warming has slowed down. But it is likely to be brief!
http://news.yahoo.com/global-warming-slowdown-likely-brief-u-uk-science-205849334.html
http://news.yahoo.com/global-warming-slowdown-likely-brief-u-uk-science-205849334.html
And by record we are talking less than 0.000005% of our planets history. In terms of global historic trends, this rates as some really stupid spin, but everyone falls for it.
mad sweeney
Footballguy
fatness
Footballguy
And this is surprising...how, exactly?!
If it's -20 F and colder in my backyard than it's been in two decades: "So much for climate change and global warming!" Add in a MaxThreshold
emoticon to back said facts up.If a survey of global (including sea) temperatures shows it is warmer than it has ever been since humans began to accurately track it: "So much for your observational facts...since you've only been around for 30-40 years of our Earth's [6,000 year-old?] history!"
It's the same #### that you see in all the political threads: "If your facts and sound bytes agree with me, it's truth. If your facts and sound bytes disagree with me, it's spin/lies."
Last edited by a moderator:
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Listen, #######, no one is denying that the climate is changing. How much is attributed to man is the where the skepticism comes in. Keep ignoring that point so it makes it easier for you to rant against arguments no one is making.And this is surprising...how, exactly?!
If it's -20 F and colder in my backyard than it's been in two decades: "So much for climate change and global warming!" Add in a MaxThreshold
If a survey of global (including sea) temperatures shows it is warmer than it has ever been since humans began to accurately track it: "So much for your observational facts...since you've only been around for 30-40 years of our Earth's [6,000 year-old?] history!"
It's the same #### that you see in all the political threads: "If your facts and sound bytes agree with me, it's truth. If your facts and sound bytes disagree with me, it's spin/lies."
Oh - almost forgot this -
at your silly little rant.
Last edited by a moderator:
Just curious if you want to walk-back that statement in bold a bit. As it seems to me that a LOT of people are denying that the Earth's climate is changing, via making the simple argument that "how do you know it's not normal?" AKA "how do you know it hasn't always been this way...and humans just haven't either been around to see it, or didn't know how to accurately measure/quantify it?" Invalidating observational science.Listen, #######, no one is denying that the climate is changing. How much is attributed to man is the where the skepticism comes in. Keep ignoring that point so it makes it easier for you to rant against arguments no one is making.And this is surprising...how, exactly?!
If it's -20 F and colder in my backyard than it's been in two decades: "So much for climate change and global warming!" Add in a MaxThreshold
If a survey of global (including sea) temperatures shows it is warmer than it has ever been since humans began to accurately track it: "So much for your observational facts...since you've only been around for 30-40 years of our Earth's [6,000 year-old?] history!"
It's the same #### that you see in all the political threads: "If your facts and sound bytes agree with me, it's truth. If your facts and sound bytes disagree with me, it's spin/lies."
Oh - almost forgot this -
That said, to me, it all seems to stem from politics and economics. Folks who like things the way they are (fossil fuels), make their livelihood via the way things are, will look for any opportunity to invalidate these types of findings. And folks who understand that fossil fuels are very-finite, who see the pollution and health hazards they cause and push for socioeconomic change? Will, of course, latch on to any bit of evidence that they believe makes their case.
Truthfully? Whether humans are causing the Earth to artificially warm isn't the main issue to me (though it's the one that gets 95% of the press). The main issue is pollution. Having clean air to breathe, and clean water to drink. Not eating contaminated foods, and trying to keep every human on this planet from eventually developing asthma or cancer. Renewable energy provides a M-U-C-H cleaner, safer means for powering our world. So whether the Fox News or Al Gore crowds are correct? I DON'T CARE! Folks can deny "global warming" if they want to. But maybe the issue being discussed should really be global pollution...and the desire to take actions which reduce/prevent it.
Oh yes - and if you want to post
about 100 times/day in any political/environmental thread in the FFA to apparently add to those conversations? Don't complain if people call you on it once in a while. As every time that's all you've got for a retort inside of important threads, it's basically only adding noise and/or lowering the quality/value of the information being discussed. 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rove!
Footballguy
Right now, the scientific consensus is that there has been a pause/hiatus in GW; but we still have some pause deniers....
The_Man
Footballguy
I'd like to point out a fundamental contradiction in logic here. We now have records for global temps that go back more than a century. When those records indicate a significant increase in global temps during that time, it is "really stupid spin" to consider them important, since they cover such a brief span of the earth's history.For the last 15 years it hasn't.
But if those records show there hasn't been a significant increase in global temps over the last 15 years (which they don't, by the way, but assume they do for the sake of this argument), they are suddenly conclusive evidence in Jon-mx's opinion.
The problem with Global Warming has always been the over-hype. The assumption that all change is man-caused. The assumption that the problem is going to accelerate and we are going to reach some mystical 'tripping point'. The models which ignore other causes and end up with ridiculous predictions, none of which have ever came true. In 20 years of debating this non-sense, it was not about denying that pumping in a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere will have some impact. It was about the fear-mongering that dominate the debate and called for solutions which had more to o about destroying the economy than it did about fixing anything.
I bet a guy on another site 12 years ago we would not see the warming anywhere near what was being predicted. I need to look him up and collect on that.
I bet a guy on another site 12 years ago we would not see the warming anywhere near what was being predicted. I need to look him up and collect on that.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Listen - I'm in total agreement with you on this. I am all for keeping our earth clean and beautiful for us and the generations to come. In fact, I don't think anyone will disagree with you on this. If the argument is framed this way, then maybe we could have a more meaningful discussion here. But it's not, and your previous post underscores that. Had you started out with the text i'm quoting we probably wouldn't be in a pissing match right now.Truthfully? Whether humans are causing the Earth to artificially warm isn't the main issue to me (though it's the one that gets 95% of the press). The main issue is pollution. Having clean air to breathe, and clean water to drink. Not eating contaminated foods, and trying to keep every human on this planet from eventually developing asthma or cancer. Renewable energy provides a M-U-C-H cleaner, safer means for powering our world. So whether the Fox News or Al Gore crowds are correct? I DON'T CARE! Folks can deny "global warming" if they want to. But maybe the issue being discussed should really be global pollution...and the desire to take actions which reduce/prevent it.Listen, #######, no one is denying that the climate is changing. How much is attributed to man is the where the skepticism comes in. Keep ignoring that point so it makes it easier for you to rant against arguments no one is making.And this is surprising...how, exactly?!
If it's -20 F and colder in my backyard than it's been in two decades: "So much for climate change and global warming!" Add in a MaxThreshold
If a survey of global (including sea) temperatures shows it is warmer than it has ever been since humans began to accurately track it: "So much for your observational facts...since you've only been around for 30-40 years of our Earth's [6,000 year-old?] history!"
It's the same #### that you see in all the political threads: "If your facts and sound bytes agree with me, it's truth. If your facts and sound bytes disagree with me, it's spin/lies."
Oh - almost forgot this -
However, I take exception to the fact that you lumped me in with your "don't believe in climate change" rant. That's completely false. My only question is how much impact man is making.
Seriously, I'm not trying to be a #### here, but the use of
is used thousands of times a day here as a single response to posts by users other than myself. Is it really that big of a deal? Or is it a big deal only when I use it?
Last edited by a moderator:
Not really, that's why they changed the name to "climate change". No one is ever going to deny that the climate changes.
It is not my logic which is at issue, it is yours is too shallow to differentiate. I believe there are lot of complex dependencies and factors that impact our environment that science does not understand yet. The computer models and global warmers believe almost all change (and similarly all non-change) are due to man-made CO2 in our atmosphere. In my belief system, a pause makes perfect sense because there is a lot more going on here than an over-simplistic relationship between increase concentration of atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures. In the Global Warmers model, there is no explanation. CO2 is absolutely the main driver of global temperatures and a big increase in atmospheric CO2 must cause global temperature increases. There is no explanation for a 15 year pause, but to their credit they are finally acknowledging the pause and desperately trying to find a reason which could explain it without imploding their 30 years of fear-mongering.I'd like to point out a fundamental contradiction in logic here. We now have records for global temps that go back more than a century. When those records indicate a significant increase in global temps during that time, it is "really stupid spin" to consider them important, since they cover such a brief span of the earth's history.For the last 15 years it hasn't.
But if those records show there hasn't been a significant increase in global temps over the last 15 years (which they don't, by the way, but assume they do for the sake of this argument), they are suddenly conclusive evidence in Jon-mx's opinion.
Last edited by a moderator:
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Same people that changed liberals to "progressives" I imagine. Left wing media basically.
That's a very fair response, Max. I guess on your statement above, the first thought that came to mind was: "There are sheep, and there are shepherds...which one do you want to be?"Seriously, I'm not trying to be a #### here, but the use of
Or stated another way: folks can choose to be part of the problem, or part of the solution. Intelligent discourse is one of the only appeals of chatting with random strangers. If it's a "who's hottest" poll or someone talking about how they LOVE Chinese/Japanese/Malaysian women to "love them long time?"
is probably a good response to someone's one-liner or funny/outrageous story! When someone is posting about big, important issues that will make or break our society...and folks disagree with them? Let's just say looks stupid. Adds NOTHING to the conversation. Lowers the IQ level in the room to something about on-part with TMZ.On climate change, everything I've seen/read leads me to believe that humans *ARE* changing our planet's climate. Where I think there is ample room for debate is the question of how much humans are changing said climate. But there are millions out there who will say that humans aren't changing our climate at all...so "drill baby, drill!" When:
A. Humans ARE changing the planet's climate...be it a little, or a lot (again, fertile ground for debate), and
B. The quality of our air and water supplies are steadily degrading...which will only result in our being less healthy as a species...not to mention the billions/trillions we will throw-away on increased health care costs. Billions/trillions I'd rather see invested into renewable energy. Since if we're going to be forced to spend billions/trillions in either case? I'd rather be poor and healthy...versus poor and sick/dying.
Last edited by a moderator:
Warren Buffett, a denier? Well, not exactly, but the hard headed financial genius, who owns insurance companies, had this to say:
Mr. Buffett tells CNBC that extreme weather events are not becoming more common, and that climate change is not altering his company's calculations when insuring against catastrophic weather events. "The public has the impression that because there's been so much talk about climate that events of the last 10 years from an insured standpoint and climate have been unusual," he said. "The answer is they haven't."
Mr. Buffett tells CNBC that extreme weather events are not becoming more common, and that climate change is not altering his company's calculations when insuring against catastrophic weather events. "The public has the impression that because there's been so much talk about climate that events of the last 10 years from an insured standpoint and climate have been unusual," he said. "The answer is they haven't."
joffer
Footballguy
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/03/04/energy-ceo-climate-change-is-real-and-driven-by-humans/
obviously bought off by that big tree-hugger money
obviously bought off by that big tree-hugger money
